Also, some of the greatest games I can remember in slams have been over 5 sets before the final.

I mean if it was only 3 sets for the Borg- Gerulaitus semi in 1977, it would have been the same winner most probably; but not the great classic I remember;

Oh crumbs, looking up (to spell his surname) in Wiki, I did not even know he was dead, entry below, that's made me very sad:

"Gerulaitis died on September 17, 1994, at the age of 40. While visiting a friend's home in Southampton, Long Island, a malfunction in a propane heater caused carbon monoxide gas to seep into the guesthouse where Gerulaitis was sleeping, causing his death. Gerulaitis failed to show up for a dinner at 7pm that evening and his body was found the following day by a maid who went to the guesthouse."

I loved his ‘no one beats Vitas Gerulaitis 19 times in a row’ line after he finally beat Jimmy Connors after 18 attempts. And Half Man Half Biscuit saw fit to pen their own tribute (before his tragic demise I hasten to add).

There have been some epic non-final five-setters in recent memory, but the best games typically involved a contrast of styles between players that is becoming less and less frequent in this generation, culminating in the absence of any serious serve-and-volley player to take on a baseliner since Sampras, Henman and Rafter. To this end most games become a battle of wills with the odd bit of finesse (Isner-Mahut being an extreme case in point).

Maybe do a first week/second week split with best of three sets up to the last 16 and five sets thereafter. Or even have that mad Championship tiebreak that they used for the Olympics Mixed Doubles for the fifth set up to the final (kind of the equivalent of the penalty shoot-out I guess, but they’re not without drama).

I’m not saying that the current format is broken, but I can’t help believe that doubles gets overlooked by the schedules and spectators (who would sooner watch the best singles players practice than watch competitive doubles) and anything that might help bring established singles players back to doubles might just redress that imbalance a wee bit.

They tried that with the no-ad scoring and championship tiebreaks to make doubles shorter. And it doesn't make singles players any more likely to play doubles, it just devalues doubles.

Devaluing singles to try to help prop up the doubles game just seems like the worst of all worlds. Anyway, it's quite good that doubles has its own specialists if you ask me, it reinforces that it needs a particularly different skill set.

Of course there is a specialist skill to the doubles game that should be admired, but that is hardly the point. The reality is that the interest in doubles has waned since singles players chose to focus more on singles, especially in the men's game; this isn’t a sudden trend but one that dates back to the days of McEnroe and Fleming. The Williams sisters have bucked this trend but whilst they will draw a crowd when they play, few will pick out the Bryan brothers in an ID parade. Even when Jonathan Marray won the Men’s Doubles at Wimbledon that accomplishment was soon eclipsed by Murray Mania.

The doubles game arguably has comparisons with cricket, which has gained a wider audience with the introduction of 20-20 due in part to the increased possibility that established England internationals will take time from their busy schedule to turn out for their county for a few hours. Compare that with the County Championship which may still have the prestige within the game but nowhere near the following. There’s been considerable ‘devaluation’ here, but the game is in rude health compared to 10 years ago.

Maybe there’s no arresting this slide, but I think that the Olympics experimental format has helped to raise the profile of the doubles game (ok there’s the incentive of a gold medal too which can’t be understated) through its increased presence of singles players, who would normally only play doubles at Davis Cup ties. Surely it can’t hurt to try to ease the packed schedule just to open the door.

It was only the Mixed that used the match tie-break. And it's not that much of an new inovation, the US Open already uses it for it's Mixed Doubles event, with limited success in drawing people in to watch.

I think Tennis is in rude health at the moment. Now is not the time to mess with formats.

They tried opening the door though by changing the scoring system, it hasn't really made a jot of difference.

Any two of the big four play a 4 hour plus match with each other in a slam semi, the only place they want to be afterwards is in an icebath, not a doubles court. The game has changed too much from when McEnroe played and is much more physical, singles stars need all the rest they can get.



This, we're in the midst of a classic era for singles, why would you want to get slams down to three set lotteries?

Talk about a forehand smash.



Flushing Meadow has always been a tournament for heavy hitters.

I would actually like to see all grand slam matches for women at 5 sets. I think it would make it a lot more exciting. 5 set tennis somehow seems to bring in a dramatic structure that 3 set tennis doesn't often have.

There might be scheduling issues at the grand slams, but I'm sure those are solvable.

(There is also an issue of sexism in a format that assumes that women can't play matches of the same length as those played by men.)

And, personally, I'm not sure I'd miss doubles if it didn't exist at all. (N.B. I'm not actually advocating that it should be canned or anything, before anyone starts...)

I really enjoyed this rather long NYT Magazine piece on the Williams sisters.

I think 5 sets in women's quarters onwards might work but I can't see much point in watching 6-0 third sets where the loser was already throwing in the towel after two.

Why would that be any more likely in the Women's game than the Men's, satchmo? 10 years ago it was the case that the opening rounds of the Slams in the Women's draw were pretty routine, but that hasn't been the case for a while. you get more seeds knocked out of their draw than in the Men's.
I think this is mostly because of a leveling down in standards rather than a leveling up, but that is by-the-by.

I agree with Jimski, the Women should play five sets in slams. Equal work for equal pay and all that. However, past experiments with Women playing five setters have not worked very well, with a high percentage of matches ending with injury/fatigue based retirements. There is no particular reason why that ought to be the case, Women manage the marathon (for example) just as well as Men, beyond that it was only ever a one-off tournament and not a slam that asked this of them. So, perfectly reasonably, players were not tailoring their training for the stamina, which is surely a trade-off against explosive strength.
So, have the Women's slams over five sets. With a minimum notice of 18 months before the first one, so the players can get themselves in shape for it.

Hell, it might even make the Women's game more interesting, as subtlety and court nous might triumph more often over pure power than it does now. Radwanska at the expense of Serena or Kvitova.

I've somehow just lost a longish post on the US Open, and I can't be arsed to write it again.

To summarise; Murray for the title in the Men's.

Laura Robson beats Kim Clijsters. Bye bye, Kimmy, she will be missed; and is this the breakthrough from Robson, who sort of plateaued last year? How she does against Na Li in R3 may tell us, especially if Na is playing close to the form she showed a couple of weeks back in Cincinatti, which was really exceptional.

You going for Murray Janik? Big call. I predicted Djokovic a while ago and i will stick by that especially as Federer and Murray will probably have to meet one another late on Super Saturday. I really hope that i am completely wrong and that your prediction comes true. To see Murray winning a slam would be wonderful. I want to see it more now having watched a documentary on the Dunblane massacre a few nights ago. It really struck home how great it would be that a boy who came out of that school that day could put his town on the map for something positive on such a global scale. I wonder if that is why he points to the sky after wins.

I've also wondered if his sky pointing might be related to that. He won't answer about it, as is his right.

Most of my reason for picking Murray is that I've always thought New York would be the place he finally makes a breakthrough. It seems the best suited of the slams for him, both in terms of how quickly the court plays and general temperaments, both his and the city's. It was the place where he won a junior Slam, and where he first made the final of a senior Slam. The lost post couched the tip a little more obliquely, but it was sort of there.

As for the draw, and the godawful scheduling the USTA inflicts on the top men, yes it is a hindernace and an advantage for Djokovic. But it's not a suprise for Murray, he knew his projected schedule for the title would include Federer/Djokovic on consecutive days. All that was to be determined was the order of it. Plus, the likelihood is, if things pan out as expected, that Murray-Federer would be the first semi on court. When the turn around is so short, those extra three ghours can matter. Also, whilst Federer-Murray might be a more intense match, playing David Ferrer is pretty wearying in it's own right.
But there is good news draw-wise today; Tsonga is out, having played like a drain. He was the projected QF opponent, and a very tough one at that. There are still challenges ahead for Murray, the probable route is now Lopez, Raonic, Cilic, but these are overcomable ones.

The momentum is with Murray due to the Olympics. It's his to lose.

I was out for the Tsonga match. Was he injured?

Robson is a set all with Li Na, the lost set being a breaker, in a match I've only just got home for. But presumably she's played well to have got this far. She had some bad luck in the tie break as well, Li Na won a point after getting a lucky net cord and the set was won with a shot that landed right on the baseline.

Would love Murray to win the men's, but he seems to have been on a bit of a hangover since the Olympics. I know he's lost all motivation for non-slam events now which is fine, but he was absolutely terrible against Bogomolov. Hopefully he gets back into his grass court form pronto.

I too think Murray for the men's title, and Serena Williams for the women's. Hardly controversial picks though.

I don't think Tsonga was injured. Just way out of sorts.

Robson breaks to go 3-2 up.

Good mental strength; on a break point ealier in the game, Robson hit a shot onto the line and Li didn't get it back in play. Unfortunately, the umpire overrulled her line judge and called it out. Robson challenged this and it showed the ball was in, but as the umpire had intervened the point had to be replayed. So Robson had to win the game for a second time.