Tennis

Soldato
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Posts
4,436
Location
Location, Location!
No, but making them play 5 sets would result in a lower quality of tennis. They wouldn't be able to sustain the pace for 5 sets so either there would be a large fall off in quality after 3 sets or they would reduce the quality of the first 3 sets to retain energy for the last 2.

So they ARE too weak for 5 sets.
 

fez

fez

Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
20,173
Location
Tunbridge Wells
So they ARE too weak for 5 sets.

Well thats a hard argument to have if they can play 5 sets. The men tire once they get to the 4th-5th set as well, its just that the drop off in quality isn't so marked. Same in any sport.

I think the biggest shame with 3 sets is that so many matches are over before they have started. So many of them are decided in the first 2 sets and thats game over. The best matches I have seen between Federer and Nadal et al are those that ebb and flow and you get 5 sets of sublime tennis. I think a large number of those would have been 2 setters if men only played 3.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
9,474
Location
Europe
Woman have played 5 sets in the past in the WTA finals, and were due to at one of the Aus opens, but due to lack of consultation that never panned out.

Women voted previously to play best of 5 but no tournament was interested. Being better at endurance events than men (usually ultra endurance though), there shouldn't be much of a problem with energy levels.

One issue could be injuries. Women generally suffer from more injuries than men, especially knee injuries due to wide hips creating more of an angle where the femur joins the knee, but also more soft tissue injuries. I wouldn't really want to see retirements.

It's also worth pointing out, that the ATP (men's) tour doesn't play best of 5. Only the ITF Grand Slams play best of 5 for men. So at pretty much every other tournament, men and women are both playing best of 3.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Nov 2005
Posts
37,547
Location
Cornwall
Mauresmo's right, men's tennis at the French Open does have more of a draw currently thanks to Djokovic and Nadal, that's it. Money, the amount of sets and physical abilities are absolutely irrelevant, people just want to see this rivalry unfold.

Had France had any male or female players with a chance of winning, things might've been different but with absolutely no rivalry on the women's side there's not a lot to get excited by apart from the GOATs doing GOAT things on court.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,465
Surely women now are more physically fit (aside from strength, which doesn't affect longevity) than men were in eg Borg's day.

Well, what feats of being "physically fit" can you see where females have exceeded male performance in measured events when compared with 45 years ago.

We have long records for running a mile (comparable?), 45 years ago the male record was about 3m50 and it's dropped 7s since. The best female score is not even +7s of the time 45 years ago.

Better training isn't a replacement for the physical advantage of being male.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jul 2007
Posts
18,025
Location
Various
Well, what feats of being "physically fit" can you see where females have exceeded male performance in measured events when compared with 45 years ago.

We have long records for running a mile (comparable?), 45 years ago the male record was about 3m50 and it's dropped 7s since. The best female score is not even +7s of the time 45 years ago.

Better training isn't a replacement for the physical advantage of being male.

The point I'm making is simply that women could absolutely play 5 sets of high quality tennis. With today's sports science, they're far better placed than ever before to do so and, I'd argue, better placed than men were 50 years ago.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,712
Location
Riding my bike
Another issue with women playing 5 at slams is scheduling. If everyone played 5 there just wouldn't be enough court time.

I'd be happy to see all matches up to the 3rd round as 3sets (men included), then all matches go to 5 sets (women included).

Seems to solve all the main objections!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Jul 2007
Posts
18,025
Location
Various
Another issue with women playing 5 at slams is scheduling. If everyone played 5 there just wouldn't be enough court time.

I'd be happy to see all matches up to the 3rd round as 3sets (men included), then all matches go to 5 sets (women included).

Seems to solve all the main objections!
I'd be up for that. It also seems as though, with more slams having night matches, there should now be more time available in the schedule?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,712
Location
Riding my bike
I'd be up for that. It also seems as though, with more slams having night matches, there should now be more time available in the schedule?

I think Mauresmo got a raw deal over her comments at the French. Given that they could only have a single night match in the evening session. Would you rather see a 5 set men's match or a 3 set women's match that could last less than an hour?

Women need to be allowed to play 5 sets.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2003
Posts
9,474
Location
Europe
Great achievement. Didn't think he had it in him this year even after the fantastic start to the year he had. It would have been interesting to see how the Zverev match would have played out without the injury. Nadal wasn't moving nearly half as well in that match. 3 hours and less than two sets completed. It would have likely have been an epic.

Iga also deserves some praise. Even if the womens division isn't as strong as it has been, she can only beat what is put in front of her. 35 wins in a row matches Venus' records as the only over woman to it in the 2000s. She would have likely won Madrid easily too if she had played. Also one of a few women to ever win Rolland Garros twice.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
864
Raducanu has had the trainer on twice in 5 games in her first match at Nottingham. Not looking good, looks like a side strain or something that's causing problems when serving.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2009
Posts
11,174
No. Someone pointed out not not being able to buy a win and not being to able play anywhere near the same level after winning a grand slam tournament, as happened with Swiatek after she won the French open for first time. This is more than that. Emma is picking up so many niggling injuries which is really hampering any kind of progress.

She could be just fragile physically. In the sense that some people just get injured more easily and often than others. I thought back to Darren Anderton. Good player, but he picked up so many injuries.

Maybe she needs to address how she goes about training. Maybe that is having an impact on her ability to play these matches without some kind of problem.

When she won the US open last year, she'd only played a handful of tournaments. Now with a full year on tour and all the rigours that go with that, maybe it is too much for her, physically.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
864
I think the professional game is so physical now and the training requirements so high that some peoples bodies just can't handle it. Hopefully that's not the case with Raducanu and she manages to mature a bit physically over time. I even see the top 10-12 year old kids at my club doing drills like hitting whilst being held by resistance bands, sprint training/timing, strength training etc. I don't remember seeing any of that growing up a couple of decades years ago playing at a club with a lot of good players.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 Nov 2004
Posts
42,039
Again? A real shame considering what she achieved, but it seems she just isn’t up to it physically. She’s 19, she should be in her prime.
 
Top Bottom