And I also hate to point out that the only men's tennis tournaments where best of 5 sets are played are the 4 majors.
Last edited by dabvu2498; 01-01-2011 at 10:43 PM.
When all is said and done more is said than done.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Most of the men do, too. The really good men players don't as they have more important things to do than play Doubles.
That pretty much leaves basketball and tennis. Since the only tournaments that anybody watches when it comes to women's tennis are the Majors, then they should change to best-of-five sets just as the men do if they want to be taken seriously.
Watch Wimbledon and you'll notice that the schedule is always a topic of conversation. Assuming everything goes as planned, there's not much free time in the two weeks. Delays are such an issue that Wimbledon went through the expense of installing a roof over center court. Changing from three to five sets will add 50-150% to the match time. Let's assume the average of that to be 75%. Let's assume that a women's match lasts around 1:30. Now the average match lasts 2:38. That's an additional 143 hours of match time. And that's if include only womens' singles.
And as others stated, five sets is the exception and not the rule for the men.
Last edited by paintmered; 01-02-2011 at 09:29 PM.
What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?
All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.
In the early years of Tennis, men couldn't accept defeat. So after 1 game, the loser said, "Best of 3 games". Still not content, the man said, "First one to 6 games wins." Then loser said, "you must win by 2 games". The loser still not happy, says, "Best of three sets". And finally the loser says "Best of 5 sets" wins the match.
As the game and the talent pool expanded, more and more top players went to different schools. It started to thin out the top teams. Except for UConn.
So now UConn is collecting the same number of top players as before, (if not more because they're the biggest super power) and the rest of the teams are starting to see the talent level flatten out. Now pretty much everyone from about 2-20 can give each other a game, but all were going to get creamed by UConn.