The final between Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz was the longest ever at the French Open, the best of this decade, and arguably one of the most entertaining matches in tennis history. That’s why what you’re about to read will be controversial and extremely unpopular.
Despite the spectacle these two best players in the world put on, I still believe Grand Slam matches should be played as best-of-three sets. Here are three reasons why:
1. Too Physically Demanding for the Players
Yes, these matches are compelling and everyone wants to watch them. But there’s a downside. Players are forced to expend enormous amounts of energy–both mentally and physically. Alcaraz, for instance, is likely to skip Queen’s and return for Wimbledon in three weeks.
To be fair, Sinner and Alcaraz were playing at an even higher level after five hours, but that’s partly because they had relatively easy paths to the final and weren’t seriously tested earlier (kudos to them, of course, but it matters).
Do we really want to see scenes like after the 2012 Australian Open final, when Djokovic and Nadal could barely stand and needed chairs during the trophy ceremony?
Andy Roddick discussed this on his podcast “Served,” saying:
“Tennis players are the best athletes in the world. You have to be strong, fast, mentally resilient. You basically do sprint intervals while also using your hands. It’s the most complete athletic challenge I can think of. And I’m not throwing shade at other sports. I’m just recognizing how demanding this is. An NBA game is 48 minutes, in air conditioning, with teammates, halftime, timeouts–the whole thing.”
If we want to see our stars (like Sinner and Alcaraz) play more often and for longer in their careers, maybe we should start thinking about preserving them. Reducing Grand Slam matches to best-of-three would lessen fatigue and reduce the risk of injuries.
The Drama Just Gets Diluted
Alexis Ohanian, Serena Williams’s husband, made a great point on X (formerly Twitter):
“As someone who discovered tennis through the women’s game, I fell in love with the drama of every point mattering. When I finally watched a men’s match, I was confused. Five sets? It made the early games feel like warm-up acts instead of high-stakes battles. The tension was diluted, not heightened.”
He’s not wrong. A fifth set is often more dramatic than the first–but only because the players know they have plenty of room to lose early on. If every set mattered equally, and defeat was closer from the first point, you’d get higher intensity from the start. Every shot would carry greater weight.
Take last year’s Beijing final between Sinner and Alcaraz: a best-of-three match lasting three hours and 21 minutes, ending in a thrilling tie-break. Alcaraz was down 0–3 before winning seven straight points with spectacular winners. It was just as electric–and it was two hours shorter.
It’s Confusing for Casual Fans
If you’re new to tennis, the format can be baffling. Why do most tournaments use best-of-three while Grand Slams use best-of-five? And why do men play best-of-five at Slams, while women play best-of-three in the same event?
Tennis is unique in this inconsistency. Volleyball, which has a comparable scoring structure, always sticks to best-of-five with a tie-break set. In sports like soccer or basketball, matches aren’t randomly lengthened just to raise the stakes.
This inconsistency hurts viewership. Of course, a blockbuster final like Sinner vss Alcaraz would keep fans glued to their screens even if it were best-of-nine. But not every match is a final. Many fans tune out or never start watching because they know a match could last over three hours.
Even fans in the stadium lose interest. At last year’s French Open, after a grueling five-set semifinal (ironically, also Sinner-Alcaraz), many spectators left before the second semifinal between Zverev and Ruud. They were simply worn out–and these were people who paid hundreds of dollars to be there.
As former chair umpire Carlos Bernardes and Mutua Madrid Open CEO Gerard Tsobonian have both pointed out: matches need to get shorter. Otherwise, tennis risks losing not only younger audiences with shorter attention spans, but even some of the dedicated ones.
A Smarter Way to Shorten Matches
If you’re a traditionalist and can’t bear the idea of changing tennis history, here’s a potential compromise.
Rather than switching to best-of-three, keep the best-of-five format but tweak the scoring system–for instance, using the one tested at the Next Gen ATP Finals. In that setup, each set is first to four games, with a tie-break at 3-3.
You could even reinstate the rule that requires a two-game lead in the final set, to preserve the potential for marathon thrillers (yes, I realize I’m contradicting myself a little, but let’s be honest: something like 22–20 in the final set is special and rare).
Of course, this system would require additional tweaks. One would be limiting the advantage of big servers, who would only need to hold three times (rather than six) to reach a tie-break.
Rafael Nadal spoke about this concern in an interview with Spanish sports media (translation from Google):
“Players are getting taller and moving better. The serve has become too decisive. If the rules don’t evolve to limit this power, someone over two meters tall with good mobility will come along and dominate — and no one will be able to break their serve.”
Main Photo Credit: Susan Mullane-Imagn Images
