For Women's Major Finals, Where Has The Third Set Gone?

By Nicholas McCarvel

Photo Credit: Clive Rose/Getty Images

Agnieszka Radwanksa played a three-set final against Serena Williams at Wimbledon 2012

(July 10, 2012) -- After winning the second set with an ace up the T to send things into a decider, the player raced to her chair with the crowd roaring, her players’ box on its feet, and the Wimbledon crown just six games away. She looked delighted.

This player was not Agnieszka Radwanska -- it was Amelie Mauresmo, playing in the 2006 Wimbledon final against Justine Henin. The Frenchwoman had battled back from a set down to even things up, and ended up winning a thrilling women’s final, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4. In fact, it was the last three-set final at the All England Club until Radwanska’s tussle with Serena Williams Saturday.

With Williams leading 6-1, 4-2 against Radwanska midway through their ladies’ final, it looked as though women’s tennis was in for another lopsided affair. It has become a nasty habit for the sport: the last five majors have been decided in straight sets, and 21 of the prior 23, dating back to the aforementioned Mauresmo-Henin battle.

But, as we all know, Radwanska turned the tables on the four-time Wimbledon champion late in the second set, capitalizing on tentative play from her more experienced opponent and summoning a game more like Mauresmo, Henin or Martina Hingis on grass: cutting angles, finding nasty spins and putting Serena in an awkward position time and again.

An awkward position is where women’s tennis has been for much of the last five years. Not for a lack of talent -- the game is being played at a higher level today by more players than any time before -- but because of a lack of high-quality and competive play deep in major events. Before Radwanska-Williams at SW19, only Kim Clijsters and Li Na produced a three-setter in the last two calendar years, at the 2011 Australian Open.

Between 2007 and 2009 no women’s final went the distance in the four majors, 12 straight matches in total. Williams’ 6-4, 7-5 win over Jelena Jankovic in the final of the 2008 U.S. Open was arguably the most enjoyable, closely fought match during that period, with Jankovic’s sturdy defense wreaking havoc against Serena’s famous power.

So as Radwanska and Williams entered a decider on Centre Court in the final, tennis pundits and fans couldn’t help but be happy to see them there. Serena ran away with the match, as many thought she would, but the points remained close and hard-fought, the Pole showing guts and fortitude in her first-ever Grand Slam final, losing 6-1, 5-7, 6-2.

It was a welcomed scoreline after much of the off-court discussion at The Championships this year again turned to equal prize money for men and women. No, it is not necessary for the women to play five sets like the men, but as the men’s game has watched three players form some of tennis’ greatest rivalries, just eight of the same 23 major finals on the men’s side (dating back to Wimbledon 2006) have been straight-setters. Six, meanwhile, have gone the distance in five sets.

What women’s tennis needs most high-quality, close encounters in the deciding rounds of its biggest events to buoy its already cemented image. Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka, Sam Stosur, Petra Kvitova, Li Na and Kim Clijsters constitute the list of winners of the last six majors prior to Wimbledon, and there is a whole crop (Sabine Lisicki, Angelique Kerber, Caroline Wozniacki) of others knocking on the door to win big for the first time.

Wimbledon was a great demonstration of such a thing this year, when four compelling women’s quarterfinals (Kerber over Lisicki 7-5 in the third and Radwanska over Maria Kirilenko by the same score) beat out the guys both in quality and competitiveness. No, a match does not need to go three sets to be interesting (see: Serena defeat of Jankovic at the 2008 U.S. Open or Li’s win against Francesca Schiavone at the 2011 French Open), but what the fans want is theatre and dramatics. Nothing is better than a match with, say, Serena and Sharapova 4-4 in the third.

Gilles Simon made enemies among the women for saying that the men’s game is what fans come to watch, both Serena and Sharapova firing back, the Russian musing that she doesn’t doubt her draw to tournaments is bigger than his. That certainly rings true, but a tennis fan probably walks away with more enjoyment -- more satisfaction -- from seeing Simon beat Stanislas Wawrinka 6-4 in the fifth than Sharapova drub Stosur one and two.

As Jon Wertheim mentioned last month on SI.com, it has increasingly become about nerves in the women’s game. Sara Errani held hers against Stosur in the semifinals at Roland Garros, giving the unheralded Italian woman her first-ever shot at a major title. But if the ladies want to capitalize on what is no doubt a golden era in women’s tennis (really, the talent level is unreal), then containment of nerves—the mental fortitude -- has to be just as much of the preparation process and gameplan as serves, volleys and groundstrokes.

The game has evolved in a way that power is now its dominant force. With that, we have seen less success from younger players (think Jennifer Capriati or Monica Seles) in their teens because young women have not fully developed the muscle to hit back against the top ranked players. There is something to be said for being young and just knocking a tennis ball with brut force, a certain abandon is present in young teens who have made themselves great not by thinking, but instead by just hitting.

So as the tour grows older (Wozniacki is the youngest in the top ten at 21), players will be thinking more about the tennis they are playing, the magnitude of the stage that they’re playing on and where their potential achievement lands them in history. But as two veterans showed us the year prior to the Henin-Mauresmo match, highly competitive tennis can come at any age: Venus Williams beat Lindsay Davenport in one of the closest fought women’s Wimbledon finals ever, 4-6, 7-6(4), 9-7. No, they don’t all have to be like that, but its not a bad standard to shoot for.