Imagine the match is balanced on a knife-edge. One player has found a way to attack the backhand; the other has started serving bigger, taking the ball earlier, and dragging the rallies into uncomfortable territory. At two sets all, the scoreboard says everything is still to play for. That is not a scheduling glitch. That is Grand Slam tennis at full voltage.
Best-of-five men’s matches are demanding, sometimes inconvenient, and plainly harder to fit around dinner plans than a tidy two-hour contest. Those are real drawbacks. But remove the format and you lose something more than extra games: you lose a test of adaptation, resilience, and sustained excellence that gives a Grand Slam title its particular weight. The answer is not to pretend the costs do not exist. It is to manage them carefully while keeping the format that makes these matches feel different.
What best-of-five actually asks of players
In men’s singles at the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open, a player must win three sets to take the match. Women’s singles are best-of-three: two sets win the match. Every major now uses a 10-point match tiebreak at six games all in the deciding set, so a best-of-five match does not continue indefinitely. The format can still produce a long afternoon or night, but the finish has a defined limit.
That extra distance changes the tennis, not just the clock. In a best-of-three match, a slow start can be fatal. In best-of-five, there is more room for a player to understand what is happening, test a new pattern, and see whether an opponent can keep delivering the same level. It is a longer conversation between two players, with each set adding fresh evidence.
Think of Stan Wawrinka’s five-set win over Novak Djokovic in the 2015 French Open final. Djokovic had beaten Rafael Nadal in the quarterfinals and Andy Murray in the semifinals, and was chasing his first Roland-Garros title. Wawrinka’s backhand, willingness to take risks, and ability to keep attacking turned the match. The story was not simply who started better; it was who could sustain and adjust under the pressure of a major final.
The strongest case: a Grand Slam should test more than a hot start
Best-of-five does not guarantee the better player will win. Tennis is too unpredictable for that. But it gives players more time to show whether their first good stretch is a sustainable level or a short burst. A player who is being outplayed can change return position, vary the height and spin of the ball, attack the net, or target a different part of the court. The opponent then has to solve the new problem.
That tactical layering is part of the appeal. A serve that looked untouchable in the first set may become readable as the returner spots a pattern. A player who has been defending can start stepping inside the baseline. And a risky tactic might work for a set, only for the other player to find a counter. The match becomes not just a contest of strokes but of decisions, concentration, and adjustment.
There is a fairness argument here, too. A short match can be decided by a brief wobble: a handful of loose service points, one bad tiebreak, or an injury scare. More sets can give both players additional chances to respond. That does not make the outcome perfectly fair—no format can—but it makes winning a major match require a deeper body of work.
There is an important caveat: extra time is not automatically fairer. A longer match can favor the fitter player, and it may weigh heavily on someone who has already spent more time on court in earlier rounds. Best-of-five changes which skills matter; it does not remove luck, fatigue, or unequal recovery conditions.
The recovery concern is real—and needs practical answers
Five sets can mean more running, more serving, and more repeated explosive effort. That matters over a two-week tournament, when players may have to recover quickly and compete again. It is reasonable to ask whether the format places too much strain on athletes, especially when a match ends late or when the schedule leaves little time before the next round.
But the match format is only one part of the recovery picture. The timing of the match, court conditions, rest days, previous workload, travel, injury history, and access to medical and performance staff also matter. It is too simple to say that every long match causes injury, or that shortening every match would solve player health concerns. Athletes respond differently, and the causes of injury are complex.
Grand Slams should treat recovery as a scheduling responsibility, not as a reason to dismiss the format. That means avoiding unnecessarily late starts, setting sensible limits on how many matches are placed on a court, protecting rest between rounds where possible, and making tournament medical support accessible. It also means being transparent about scheduling decisions and listening to players when conditions are unreasonable.
The tiebreak rule is one example of a measured compromise. The majors adopted a 10-point tiebreak at six games all in the final set in 2022. A match can still reach a dramatic fifth set, but the tournament no longer risks an open-ended finish like John Isner and Nicolas Mahut’s 2010 Wimbledon match, which lasted 11 hours and five minutes across three days. That historic marathon is an extreme case, not a normal expectation—but it showed why a finishing mechanism was needed.
Competitive fairness cuts both ways
Critics rightly point out that men and women play different formats at the majors. That raises questions about equal treatment, especially when both competitions award the same champion’s status and are staged on the same tournament schedule. The formats are not interchangeable in their consequences: best-of-five requires more time and stamina, while best-of-three produces a different rhythm and puts a premium on starting sharply.
Keeping best-of-five for men should not be used to suggest that women’s tennis is less demanding or less worthy. It is not. The women’s game has its own tactical intensity and physical demands, and a best-of-three match can be extraordinarily grueling. The case for retaining five sets is about the distinctive tradition and challenge of men’s Grand Slam singles—not a claim that one side’s tennis matters more.
Nor does the longer format create a level playing field in every practical sense. A player who has survived several draining matches may be at a disadvantage against an opponent with shorter wins. Tournament draws, court assignments, and rest days can amplify that difference. Organizers should work to reduce avoidable imbalance. They should not assume the format itself is a complete fairness policy.
| Question | What best-of-five can offer | What organizers still need to address |
|---|---|---|
| Match quality | More time for tactical changes and responses | Long matches can become physically punishing |
| Competitive test | Requires sustained performance across more sets | Fatigue and earlier-round workload can affect players unequally |
| Drama | Creates space for momentum shifts and comebacks | Unpredictable duration makes court schedules difficult |
| Tradition | Preserves a defining feature of men’s major singles | Tradition alone is not a reason to ignore player welfare |
Broadcast length: the awkward problem with no perfect fix
Broadcasters want a schedule they can sell and viewers can plan around. A best-of-five match has no reliable runtime: a straight-sets win might be relatively quick, while a close five-set contest can occupy much of a day. That complicates television windows, evening programming, and the experience of fans who are waiting for a later match.
Yet unpredictability is also part of live sport. A Grand Slam is not a scripted entertainment slot, and some of its most memorable matches would lose their shape if the contest were cut short for convenience. The 2012 Australian Open final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal lasted five hours and 53 minutes. It was an extraordinary exception, not a standard template for every final—but its length was bound up with the contest’s remarkable physical and tactical swings.
The practical response should be better planning, not pretending every match can fit a neat television box. Organizers can use more courts effectively, communicate schedule changes clearly, avoid placing too many marquee matches back-to-back on one court, and use streaming platforms to let fans follow the match they want. They can also consider how late-night scheduling affects both players and spectators.
There is no magic scheduling formula. A short match can delay the next one for other reasons, and a long match can be gripping enough that viewers gladly stay. The goal should be to make the event easier to follow without making every match answer to a broadcast clock.
Why the five-set format still belongs at the majors
Grand Slam tennis is supposed to feel like a summit. Best-of-five gives men’s singles a distinct physical and tactical challenge, and it helps explain why winning seven matches at a major is such a formidable achievement. A player has to be prepared for an opponent who changes the pattern, for a bad set, for nerves, and for a match that refuses to settle quickly.
That does not mean every five-set match is better than every three-set match. Some are lopsided. Some are exhausting without becoming compelling. But the format creates the possibility of a particular kind of contest: one where a player can look beaten, regroup, and turn the match through adjustments rather than a sudden streak of winners.
The sport should keep that possibility while taking recovery seriously. Use the final-set tiebreak. Schedule responsibly. Give players meaningful rest. Improve how matches are distributed across courts. Then judge the format by the whole experience—not by the longest match in history or the inconvenience of an unpredictable broadcast slot.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are all men’s Grand Slam singles matches best-of-five?
Men’s singles matches at the four Grand Slam tournaments are best-of-five sets. Men’s qualifying and other events can use different formats, so the rule applies specifically to the main-draw singles competition.
Can a Grand Slam match still go on indefinitely?
No. All four majors use a 10-point tiebreak at six games all in the deciding set. A player must reach at least 10 points and win by two to take the match.
Would best-of-three make Grand Slam tennis fairer?
It might reduce match time and physical load, but it would also change the nature of the contest. Best-of-three gives less room to recover from a poor start; best-of-five asks more of stamina and recovery across the tournament. Neither format removes all competitive advantages or disadvantages.
Does a longer match automatically mean greater injury risk?
Not automatically. Longer matches add physical workload, but injury risk depends on many factors, including prior workload, recovery time, playing conditions, and an individual athlete’s health. Responsible scheduling and medical support matter alongside the match format.
Final Thoughts
Best-of-five men’s matches are not perfect. They can stretch late into the night, complicate broadcasts, and demand a serious physical toll. Those concerns deserve real solutions, not hand-waving. But the format also gives Grand Slam tennis its marathon quality: time for players to adapt, answer back, and prove they can hold their level when the match gets tight.
Keep the five sets. Put sensible limits around the strain. A major should still ask its champions to go the distance—and it should do everything it reasonably can to make that distance safe and fair.
