Indian Wells, CA – World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka’s suggestion to move to best-of-five set matches for women’s singles at Grand Slam tournaments, starting in the quarterfinals, has ignited a debate within the tennis world. The Belarusian, a two-time Australian Open champion and two-time US Open champion, believes the change would favor players with superior physical conditioning – including herself. “I think I would probably have more Grand Slam titles. I perceive very strong physically, I am certain that my body could support it,” Sabalenka stated earlier this month. But not everyone agrees. Former coaches are weighing in, proposing alternative solutions to enhance the physicality of the women’s game.
The discussion comes as the WTA continues to explore ways to elevate the spectacle and competitive balance of women’s tennis. While the idea of longer matches isn’t new, the specific proposal of five sets has drawn mixed reactions. Erfan Djahangiri, a former coach to Timea Bacsinszky and Tathiana Garbin, believes a different approach is needed, one that increases the physical demands of Grand Slam play without venturing into the potentially grueling territory of five-set encounters.
Djahngiri, speaking to watson, voiced his reservations about five-set matches, extending his concerns to the current best-of-three format in Grand Slams for women. He argues that a greater physical dimension is needed in these four major annual events. “For me, there must be a dimension of physicality during these four major annual events. It already exists for men, who move from three to five sets, but not for women. It’s even the opposite: it’s simpler for them to win a Grand Slam than another tournament because they play seven matches in two weeks compared to five in one week at other tournaments,” Djahangiri explained.
He acknowledges the potential for five sets to be overly taxing, particularly in challenging conditions like the heat of the Australian Open or the humidity of the US Open. Instead, Djahangiri proposes a modified format: five sets comprised of just four games each. This, he believes, would extend match duration and introduce intriguing mental challenges, creating opportunities for comebacks.
“This format lengthens the duration of the matches while creating interesting situations, especially on a mental level. You end up with fairly long matches, conducive to turning points,” Djahangiri said. However, he anticipates resistance from tennis traditionalists, comparing the potential debate to ongoing discussions surrounding the “let” rule in serving.
Djahngiri elaborated on his point about the “let” rule, questioning why a ball hitting the net and landing in is replayed during a serve, while a similar occurrence during a rally is considered a valid point. “Personally, I would be in favor of the ‘let’ similarly being valid on the serve: this would, bring interesting game situations,” he stated.
His proposed five-set, four-game format would apply from the very first round of Grand Slam tournaments. In the event of a 4-4 tie in any set, a seven-point tiebreak would determine the winner. The standard scoring system of advantage and deuce would remain in place, with a two-game lead required to secure a set.
Djahngiri believes this format would better reflect a player’s true ability and the disparities in skill levels. “In the current best-of-three format, a match can sometimes be decided by very few points: it only takes a bad finish in the first set, a mental lapse, and everything can quickly fall into place. With a five-set, four-game format, there are more opportunities to arrive back,” he argued. “Anyway, the longer a match is, the more likely We see to crown the best player. This is a principle found in other sports, like hockey during the playoffs: in a best-of-seven series, the best team eventually prevails. You can lose one or two games, but rarely four. Tennis operates under the same logic.”
He drew a parallel to a famous quote from Vitas Gerulaitis, who famously declared after finally defeating Jimmy Connors after 16 consecutive losses, “Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row!” – a testament to the resilience and mental fortitude required in the sport.
Djahngiri also highlighted how increasing the physical demands would alter the evaluation of player performance. “Currently, players who struggle through the early rounds don’t feel the effects of their energy expenditure in subsequent matches. This is different for men; I remember Pete Sampras being diminished against Evgeni Kafelnikov in the 1996 Roland Garros semi-final because he had burned through several cartridges earlier in the fortnight. The physical component has always been part of the game in Grand Slams and should have the same importance for women as it does for men,” he concluded.
Aryna Sabalenka, currently enjoying a career-high ranking as the world No. 1, will next compete at the upcoming Miami Open, beginning March 24th. The debate surrounding the format of women’s tennis is likely to continue as the sport evolves and seeks to maximize both competition and spectator appeal.
What are your thoughts on the proposed changes? Share your opinions in the comments below.
