Carlos Alcaraz has no interest in seeing one of tennis’ oldest traditions disappear.
Speaking ahead of his title defense at the Japan Open in Tokyo, the World No. 1 pushed back strongly against the idea of replacing best-of-five-set matches with best-of-three at the Grand Slams.
“I think the beauty of the Grand Slams are playing the best of five,” Alcaraz said. “If we take that away and play the best of three, I think we would just be killing the legacy of the Grand Slams and killing the Grand Slams.”
The subject has resurfaced after new Tennis Australia CEO Andrew Abdo recently floated the possibility that majors could eventually experiment with shorter formats in some rounds. The Australian Open subsequently made clear that five-set tennis will remain in place for 2027.
For Alcaraz, best-of-five is part of what separates the majors from everything else on the tennis calendar.
“We’ve been playing the best of five in the Grand Slams since the beginning and I think that’s what makes those tournaments different and special,” he said. “So, I wouldn’t touch anything from that.”
Alcaraz, the top seed and defending champion in Tokyo, will open his campaign Thursday afternoon against American Alex Michelsen. The match is scheduled for not before 4 p.m. local time.
The 23-year-old is bidding to become the first man to successfully defend the Japan Open title since Pete Sampras accomplished the feat in 1994.
Absolutely agree with Carlos on the best of 5. That’s what separates the majors from any tournaments where you have many different champions. The elite stand out in the best of 5.
True tennis aficionados will agree with Carlos, but those 5 set matches are part of the game “back in the day” , when tennis was a more elitist game and and followers had more time to watch.
80 years on, I believe modern fans want more gratification in a shorter time and that the game has to change
But this is only for the men. If it’s a legacy, than women also should be playing best of 5. To make it equal, why not go with the format of best of 5, but if it’s 2-2, than play play a 10-point tie break instead of a full set and have this format for women as well. “Equal pay for equal play”!!!
100% corrrect, no reason women should have to only win 2 sets to get millions of dollars when the men have to win 3. If they want it that way, then they should get 2/3’s of their pay.
Then they need to change the scheduling! Matches that play way past midnight are ridiculous! Compromise with a match tiebreaker to ten points at 2-2 in sets!
For women it should be the same! There’s no reason they can’t play 4 sets and a match tiebreaker!
Women have never had to play the best three out of five during the grand slams. I think for parody, the men, too should only have to play the best two out of three sets like the women.
There is no difference in the format of regular tournaments and grand slam tournaments for women, because they all played the best two out of three sets for 250 event and the grand slams and they get the same amount of pay as the men, which I think is really unfair and unjust. It’s like it’s taboo to even talk about this glaring difference, why I don’t know; but it’s like staring at the elephant in the room and being afraid to say anything about it.
So and one who wins Grand Slam with best of 3 out of 5 would have to put an asterisk after their name!