A totally unbiased view on the best-of-three vs. best-of-five tennis score formats
Tennis is a unique sport with a unique scoring system. While we could deep-dive into the the most well-kept secret in the sports world, which is why the heck do we count 15–30–40-DEUCE-AD, there are definitely enough trivia-related articles out there for your 2am bad sleeping habits.
What I truly think is important for all parties involved in tennis is the match format. Tennis, as fans of all levels of interest are familiar with, has no specific time to end, or number of points. At every level in a match, a player must win by two: in a game, in a set (except when a tie-break is played), and in the tie-breaks. The format, however, dictates the number of sets that must be won to end a match, no need of a two sets advantage: a best-of-three format, most commonly used, and a best-of-five sets. In the former, a player must win at least two sets to be the winner, whereas in the latter, they must win three.
It is important to look at the advantages and disadvantages of both formats, and for all parties involved. Said parties are: the players, the tournament staff, the media (broadcasters, journalists, etc) and the fans.
Let’s start with the best-of-three.
The most used format pretty much everywhere is the best-of-three. From the neighbourhood’s amateur league to juniors, then all professional tournaments in the WTA and all the ATP matches except for the Grand Slams. It’s basic, it works, it normally finishes in a reasonable time.
Should it not be the perfect format? Not really. While the advantages are practical and clear for everyone, it does have it’s drawbacks.
But let’s look at the advantages first.
Probably the most appealing thing of the best-of-three (BO3) format is that it will usually stay at around 2:30 hours. This is good for everyone: players get to spend less time on court and risk less injuries and extreme fatigue before their next matches, tournament staff gets to schedule with a bit more room to move things around (consider not all tournaments have roofs, and the majority are played outdoors. Rain is a big problem), and the media is happy — broadcasters have a better idea of what to show when, and journalists do not have to wait so long to write reports. Also good for the video editors who must cut the match into highlights and other videos.
But where it gets problematic is with the fans. And, as we know, fans are what allows everyone else to get paid, and get paid A LOT.
(Yes, some players like the best-of-five format, and women did express the willingness to play it as well, but there are not many players that are fully against and and vocal about any changes to BO3 that I am aware of.)
On the one hand, many fans like the shorter matches for a few reasons: they like the short format because they can watch the matches without compromising 4–5 hours of their day, they can enjoy good matches on site and go home at a reasonable time, likely (nothing really is guaranteed, but the odds are better). It is also easier to get into tennis if you do not have to ease yourself into enjoying those epics. I think. I always liked them, but I also know of people who hated tennis specifically for that reason.
Now, we get to the best-of-five.
On the other hand, we have the loyal fans who have been following tennis almost religiously once they found out they absolutely cannot live without it. These people will take time off and not schedule anything on the big-match days. And they will be even more strict on Grand Slams on the men’s side, because they know this might take a while.
The big thing here is the narrative. BO3 simply do not allow for some of the drama and intensity of the best-of-five (BO5). “Epic” is normally used on these matches. And not to say that this is exclusive to men, several fans have been trying to come up with solutions to make women play BO5 in the majors also. There is just something about a match that will test the minds and bodies of players for a brutally long time, and we as fans cannot help but be amazed at the desire and fitness levels required to sustain the highest level of tennis for so long. Most “best matches of all time” lists will have BO5 matches at least in positions 1–5, and I can assure 99% of fans would point out a Grand Slam final or semi as the best match of all time on the men’s side, and possibly a majority would say the same both genders included (which might have a sexist problem somewhere in there, but let’s not get into it here.)
But tennis is a sport after all, and it does not matter whether we have the world’s №1 and 2 in the most important match of the year, it is still a gamble. It could be 8–6 in the end (not anymore at the Australian Open and US Open) or 6–0, 6–2, 6–2. And at the end, you got more tennis, but was it good tennis? If the match was at 6–0, 6–2, 0–0 you can still at least hope for a comeback. But once we hit 5–2, it’s pretty much settled. No one is realistically hoping for a comeback at that point.
So, we have the “epic-ness” versus the “time-friendly-ness”. Which wins?
Neither wins or loses. Different formats will bring different stories. Otherwise, we would be completely satisfied with the new tie-break rules at the Australian Open, the US Open, and Wimbledon. But we still talk about these. Any small change can alter perception, even if it does not match play and actual tennis quality.
Did you say quality?
Back to tennis quality for a second here: it is true that a BO3 is shorter on average, but no one said quality is lower, just that the narrative is different. In fact, women’s tennis has no BO5 and many a time we will be discussing about how incredible the matches are, and how difficult it is to win a Grand Slam title even though the format is the same as the newly named WTA 250 events. Because depth of the competition matters.
We never saw how a Grand Slam tournament would perform in a BO3 format to draw quantitative (viewership, ticket sales) and qualitative (satisfaction measures, social media response) indicators on the men’s side. It seems to perform really well for women, so why would it not for men? After all, we still have epics in three sets, or even two straights. And, just because the possibility is there for a shorter match, it does not mean it will always be that way — it is not uncommon (although definitely not the norm) to see women’s matches going over three hours, and the longest men’s match played in BO3 was over four (although, to my knowledge, it is the only high-profile match to have hit this mark.)
So, in a BO3 match, is the tennis quality compromised? Not really. Not at all. It is more likely that what compromises quality are factors such as tournament size, injury, and fatigue. And sadly, in a BO5 these tend to be more common (although overcoming fatigue is part of the spectacle. AO 2012, anyone?)
It is possible that in the shorter format, players would play with more urgency, making the first set absolutely crucial, and the second is already a must-win for the losing end. And then, tension is already peaking within about 1 hour or less of play. Surely, dropping to a two-sets-to-love deficit in BO5 is basically a death sentence, but there is still hope, especially depending on how the previous sets went.
So what now?
In any case, what will work better in the future? Is there any clue available? Will the most important tennis fans completely boycott the sport and fill social media with negative messages if the transition is done? And even if change is normally faced with negativity, will this be an actual failure for the sport that will see the most powerful governing bodies go back in the decision or will it be a healthy change in the long term?
Notice that these questions are valid for both implementing BO3 in the men’s Grand Slam tournaments OR implementing the BO5 in the women’s. And we cannot forget that all stakeholders are important: players, tournaments, media, and fans.
Tough call.