Should We Get Rid of Five-Set Tennis Matches?
Such a change would get rid of the gender imbalance at Grand Slams.
When the French Open begins next week, it will feature one of the more curious rules in sports, one that has become so normalized that we hardly recognize it at all. While men’s matches will be played as best-of-five sets, women’s matches will only be a best-of-three.
The reason why largely stems from longstanding beliefs that women were not as physically capable as men. Across all sports, this view was dominant until at least the last half-century, with the effects still felt today. In a tennis context, it suggests women would be unable to play five sets at a high quality. If there is even any truth to that, there certainly isn’t to the extent that people believed when the three-set match for women was standardized.
A few people here and there have raised concerns about the discrepancy, pointing out the sexism behind the rule and asking for both genders to play matches of the same length, but there has been no major movement for change. However, a very interesting argument can be made due to tennis’ progressive equal pay structure.
In 2007, Wimbledon became the last Grand Slam to award equal prize money to the men’s and women’s tournaments, and tennis has been rightly applauded for achieving gender equality — at least in this area. There are still imbalances in tennis leadership, as well as greater promotion and time featured on main courts favoring men, but compared to other sports, tennis is a leader in overall equality.
But if both genders are paid equally on the basis of equal pay for equal work, it raises the question: is the work actually equal when men play more sets? Novak Djokovic has suggested that men might deserve to make more for a different reason, citing the increased popularity and revenue generated by the men’s game.
The viability of these arguments depends on our definition of equal work. If we only look at the number of sets that are played, then men do more work. But some sports have built-in gender differences. Women’s tees in golf are slightly shorter than the men’s, but they still play eighteen holes. If we view tennis in the same vein, women and men still have to win seven matches to become a Grand Slam champion. This would suggest there is indeed equal work.
Djokovic’s argument is the most complicated one. Sport popularity and revenue generation is a popular counter to the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team’s fight for equal pay. These people claim that despite the women’s incredible success (particularly in comparison to the U.S. Men’s National Team), since the women’s game doesn’t bring in the same revenue, they shouldn’t make as much.
But how can women ever be expected to generate the same attention as men if they aren’t given the same resources?
I’m not sure what the answer here is. If male professional tennis players banded together and demanded higher pay than women, it would be highly controversial and send shockwaves through the sport. All I know is that I wouldn’t want to be the one to make a ruling.
Historically, there is a precedent for both women playing five sets and men playing three. Women’s matches were five sets in WTA championships from 1984 to 1998, and in the U.S. Open from 1894 to 1901. Men play just three sets in nearly every setting outside of the four Grand Slams but even played three sets in early rounds of Grand Slams back in the 1970s.
Women going up to five sets would likely only lead to scheduling nightmares, as match lengths are far more unpredictable with five sets, and scheduling Grand Slams is already difficult enough for the men’s game as is. A far more reasonable solution would be to eliminate five-set matches entirely, creating a uniform three-set format for professional tennis matches everywhere.
Aside from easier scheduling and equivalence with the women’s game, three-set matches would potentially be safer for men. Five-set matches can take a toll on the body, and those extra sets add up over the course of a two-week tournament. The heat can also be an issue and has forced many players to retire in recent years.
Fifth-set tiebreakers can also be problematic. Rather than play a traditional tiebreak when the game score reaches 6–6 in a set, Grand Slams have traditionally played on until one player wins by two games.
This has led to some ridiculously long matches, especially featuring American John Isner, who is known for his strong serve, leading to matches with few break games.
In 2010, Isner played Nicolas Mahut in the first round of Wimbledon. The fifth set took three days to complete, with Isner eventually winning 70–68. 70–68! In total, the match lasted over 11 hours. In the semifinals of Wimbledon in 2018, Isner fell to Kevin Anderson 26–24 in the fifth set of a 6-hour, 36-minute match.
Clearly, matches this long feature a high risk to players, and should not be allowed. In the aftermath of the Isner-Anderson match, Wimbledon and the Australian Open changed their fifth-set tiebreak rules. The Australian Open adopted the traditional tiebreak, while Wimbledon goes to a tiebreak at 12–12. The French Open, however, still has no fifth-set tiebreak.
Despite the safety argument, a switch to three-set Grand Slams will likely not occur any time soon. The spectacle of five sets leads to greater tension and fan appeal. Especially on TV, where matches can take up more time and draw higher ratings, a reduction to three sets is unappealing.
Five sets also allow for more time to determine the best player. This generation has seen the total dominance of Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer, largely for this reason. In the women’s game, there is higher variance making it more difficult to win Grand Slams.
Of course, the number one reason holding back a change is simply tradition. People generally like things the way they are, and players don’t want to look weak or out of shape by advocating for playing three sets.
But the argument is certainly there. Three-set tennis matches at Grand Slams may reduce injuries and lead to fairness between men and women. For now, though, we can still root for an exciting, best-of-5 final in the men’s singles.
Originally published at http://toplevelsports.net on May 25, 2019
