For Men's Tennis, Is Best of Three Best?

By Blair Henley

Del potro hugs Federer after marathon Olympic match

(August 7, 2012) -- I awoke Monday morning to the harsh reality that reality television had replaced Olympic tennis on the Bravo TV network. In my mind’s eye, I could see the pink backdrops being torn down at Wimbledon, tiny British flags still littering the lawns after Andy Murray’s triumph Sunday afternoon.

As it turns out, the tennis in London far exceeded my admittedly low expectations. A week of crazy crowds, ultra-patriotic players, and high-quality competition on Wimbledon grass left me feeling like I wanted to hit some balls myself (the same way I want to bust out a beam routine on a spare two-by-four after watching Olympic gymnastics).

But something else struck me while watching countless hours of Olympic tennis: I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the men play a best of three sets format. Sounds blasphemous, I know. So hear me out.

Tennis trailblazer Billie Jean King threw out an interesting, and no doubt controversial, suggestion in a recent interview.

“I would like the guys to play only two out of three sets [at Grand Slam tournaments], because I know we're wearing them out, and I want them to last longer,” King said. “The Federers, the Djokovics, the Nadals, I want them to play forever. The way we set it up is so demanding physically now.”

I immediately assumed she was pushing a format change to put the still-raging equal prize money debate to rest (which shortening men’s matches would most certainly accomplish). But upon further review, I could see her point. Often five-setters are grueling tests of endurance more than measures of skill. King admitted her serve-and-volley generation was “pitty-pat” compared to the physicality of today’s game.

Still, even with both women and men playing two out of three sets at prestigious tournaments like Indian Wells and the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, I couldn’t imagine what a major championship would look like without a best of five format for the men.

Enter Olympic tennis – a less reserved, more colorful version of Wimbledon.

As I watched match after match, I sensed the importance of each point. In a two out of three set contest, there’s less wiggle room, less time to catch up after a slow start. I also found myself appreciating the fact that watching a men’s match from start to finish didn’t require cancelling my plans for the day.

You see, I suffer from what I like to call “fourth quarter” syndrome. For instance, in an NBA game, I see the first three quarters as a means to an end (i.e. wake me up when things get exciting in the final quarter). I have similar feelings when it comes to men’s Grand Slam tennis. While I certainly appreciate the mind-bogglingly high-quality play a Federer/Djokovic, Djokovic/Nadal matchup creates, I’m far more interested in the deciding set. In other words, I didn’t object to the accelerated arrival of that deciding set at the Olympics. Let’s be honest: die-hard tennis fans might sit through a four or five hour marathon, but the average sports fan will not.

As Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim put it, five set matches “screw up the schedule and exhaust both players with it sometimes reaching a point of absurdity.” At the very least, the ITF should follow the U.S. Open’s lead and institute fifth-set tiebreaks in the remaining three Grand Slams. John McEnroe has long argued that the potential of an Isner/Mahut-like fifth set puts the eventual winner at a severe disadvantage in the next round. Rarely do those players bounce back physically.

A tiebreak-less third set, on the other hand, made for some classic tennis drama without crippling the competitors. The Olympic masterpieces created by Raonic/Tsonga (23-25 in the third) and Federer/Del Potro (19-17 in the third) were no less exciting because they were only three sets long. In fact, it seemed the shorter format upped the ante and the intensity in the opening sets.

If you were mainlining Olympic tennis like I was over the past week, you’ll agree that another significant benefit of a shorter format is that men can play doubles without fear of depleting their resources in case of a singles five setter. I felt I had entered an alternate tennis universe watching Roger Federer play doubles with Stan Wawrinka. And don’t even get me started with the dream team mixed doubles matchups. I loved every minute of it. But don’t expect a repeat at Flushing Meadows with the men playing three out of five sets.

Fitness and mental fortitude are no doubt on full display in a five-hour, five-set marathon, but those aspects of the game are certainly not erased in a best-of-three contest. The Olympic format makes complete sense, eliminating the formality of additional sets in the early rounds, and keeping the players fresh for a best of five showdown in the final.

King’s suggestion seemed laughable at first, but thanks to eight glorious days of Olympic tennis, I’m a believer in her two-out-of-three proposition. As she puts it, “You only have so many miles in your legs.” And I know I wouldn’t be complaining if saving up some of those miles helps Roger, Rafa, Nole, and Andy stick around a little longer. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Photo credit: AAP)