{"id":85039,"date":"2025-06-13T07:15:44","date_gmt":"2025-06-13T11:15:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lastwordonsports.com\/tennis\/?p=85039"},"modified":"2025-06-12T15:17:35","modified_gmt":"2025-06-12T19:17:35","slug":"grand-slam-matches-best-of-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lastwordonsports.com\/tennis\/2025\/06\/13\/grand-slam-matches-best-of-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Grand Slam Matches Should Be Best-of-3 (Yes, Even the Finals)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The final between Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz<\/a> was the longest ever at the French Open<\/a>, the best of this decade<\/a>, and arguably one of the most entertaining matches in tennis history<\/a>. That\u2019s why what you\u2019re about to read will be controversial and extremely unpopular.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

1. Too Physically Demanding for the Players<\/h2>\n

Yes, these matches are compelling and everyone wants to watch them. But there\u2019s a downside. Players are forced to expend enormous amounts of energy–both mentally and physically. Alcaraz, for instance, is likely to skip Queen\u2019s and return for Wimbledon<\/a> in three weeks.<\/p>\n

To be fair, Sinner and Alcaraz were playing at an even higher level after five hours, but that\u2019s partly because they had relatively easy paths to the final and weren\u2019t seriously tested earlier (kudos to them, of course, but it matters).<\/p>\n

Do we really want to see scenes like after the 2012 Australian Open<\/a> final, when Djokovic and Nadal could barely stand and needed chairs during the trophy ceremony?<\/p>\n

Embed from Getty Images<\/a>