The Great Format Debate: Should Women Play Best-of-Five at Grand Slams?

For decades, the divide in professional tennis has been starkly visible in the scoreboards of the four majors. At the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open, the men battle through a grueling best-of-five-sets marathon, while the women compete in a best-of-three-sets sprint. It is a discrepancy that has survived the era of “equal pay” and the rise of global parity in sports, remaining one of the most contested traditions in the game.

The question isn’t just about fairness or biological capacity—it is about the extremely nature of the sport. Is the best-of-five format a superior test of championship mettle, or is it an archaic endurance test that adds more fatigue than value? As the women’s game reaches new heights of power and athleticism, the conversation surrounding best-of-five matches for women has moved from the fringes of tennis forums to the center of the editorial room.

Having covered Grand Slams for over 15 years, from the humidity of New York to the manicured lawns of SW19, I have seen the momentum shifts that only a fifth set can provide. But I have also seen the physical collapse that occurs when a match stretches beyond the four-hour mark. The debate is a collision of ideology, physiology, and the cold, hard reality of television scheduling.

The Case for Parity: Testing the True Champion

The primary argument for moving women to a best-of-five format is rooted in the concept of the “true” champion. In a best-of-three match, a single bad set or a momentary lapse in concentration can be fatal. A player can be the better athlete and strategist over the course of a match but lose because they started slowly.

Best-of-five sets act as a filter. They reward the player who can adapt their tactics mid-match, recover from a crushing blow, and maintain a high level of physical output over several hours. Proponents argue that the women’s game—now characterized by the baseline dominance of players like Iga Świątek and the explosive power of Aryna Sabalenka—is more than capable of sustaining this length. If the goal of a Grand Slam is to crown the most complete player, then the format should be identical regardless of gender.

There is also the element of the “epic.” Some of the most legendary moments in tennis history have occurred in the fifth set of a men’s final. The psychological warfare of a deciding set creates a narrative tension that a third-set tiebreak simply cannot replicate. By denying women this format, some argue the sport is denying them the opportunity to create the same legendary “marathon” narratives that define the legacies of the men’s game.

The Logistical Nightmare: Courts and Calendars

While the ideological argument for equality is strong, the operational reality is a different story. Tennis is a sport beholden to the clock and the court. At a Grand Slam, the schedule is a precision-engineered machine. Matches are slotted into specific windows to accommodate broadcasters and ticket holders.

If every women’s match were best-of-five, the number of courts required to finish a tournament on time would skyrocket. A best-of-three match typically wraps up in under two and a half hours. A best-of-five match can easily stretch to four or five. When you multiply that by 128 players in a draw, the “court crunch” becomes a genuine crisis.

Critics of the change point out that if several matches on the outer courts go to five sets, the tournament would struggle to complete its daily schedule. This would lead to more matches being pushed to late-night slots or, worse, postponed to the next day, disrupting the rhythm of the athletes and the experience of the fans. In an era where television networks demand predictable windows for their prime-time stars, the unpredictability of five-set matches is a hard sell for organizers.

The Physical Toll and the Injury Risk

Then there is the question of physiology. While modern female athletes are stronger and more conditioned than ever, the risk of injury increases with every hour spent on court. The repetitive stress of sliding on clay or the jarring impact of hard courts takes a toll on the joints and ligaments.

Some analysts argue that the best-of-three format actually protects the quality of the tennis. In a best-of-five match, if the players’ energy levels drop significantly in the fourth and fifth sets, the quality of play often plummets. You move from strategic, high-intensity tennis to a war of attrition where the winner is simply the person who can stand up the longest. For many fans, a high-intensity three-set battle is more appealing than a sluggish five-set slog.

Interestingly, the conversation isn’t just about moving women “up” to five sets; some believe the men should move “down.” Patrick Mouratoglou, a high-profile coach who has worked with some of the game’s biggest stars, has suggested a radical alternative: instead of women playing five sets, the men should only play three. His reasoning centers on player longevity and injury prevention, suggesting that the reduced load would allow men to play more consistently and recover faster between tournaments.

“Instead of the women playing 5 sets, the men should only play 3 sets. They would have less injuries,” Mouratoglou noted, suggesting a shift toward a more sustainable model for all athletes.

Tactical Shifts: How the Game Would Change

If the WTA were to adopt the best-of-five format, we would likely see a fundamental shift in how women approach the game. Currently, many players employ a “high-risk, high-reward” strategy from the first ball, knowing they only have to maintain that peak for two sets.

In a five-set environment, conservation of energy becomes a tactical weapon. We would see more “managing” of sets—players potentially conceding a set to save energy for a late-match push. The role of the coach and the physical trainer would become even more pivotal, as nutrition and hydration strategies would need to be calibrated for four-hour windows rather than two.

We might also see a change in the types of players who dominate. The “grinders”—those with immense aerobic capacity and mental resilience—would gain a significant advantage over the “power hitters” who rely on explosive bursts of energy. The strategic depth of the match would increase, as players would have more time to figure out an opponent’s weaknesses and adjust their game plan.

The Fan Experience: More is Not Always Better

From a commercial perspective, more tennis seems like a win. More time on court means more ad spots for broadcasters and more “content” for social media. However, the modern sports consumer has a shorter attention span. The “sprint” nature of the women’s game is often cited as a reason for its growing popularity; it is fast, intense, and fits easily into a broadcast window.

There is also the “value” argument. Ticket holders for a Grand Slam match generally want to see the stars play. If a match ends in 60 minutes, fans feel cheated. If it goes to a fifth set, they feel they’ve had a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Moving to best-of-five would undoubtedly increase the “event” feel of the women’s matches, making them feel as weighty and consequential as the men’s finals.

To put this in perspective, consider the difference between a 90-minute soccer match and a five-set tennis match. The tennis match is an odyssey. For a global audience, that odyssey is part of the allure of the Grand Slams. It separates the majors from the ATP or WTA 1000 events.

Comparing the Formats

To better understand the trade-offs, it helps to look at the practical differences between the two formats across key metrics:

The Verdict: Evolution or Tradition?

Is best-of-five a good idea for women? If we are talking about the purity of the sport and the principle of equality, the answer is yes. The women’s game has evolved to a point where the physical gap is no longer a valid excuse for a different format. The athletes are ready, the fans are hungry for more, and the prestige of the trophy would be undeniably higher if it required winning three sets.

However, sport does not exist in a vacuum. It exists within the constraints of logistics, television rights, and athlete health. The “perfect” game on paper is often a nightmare in practice. The risk of burnout and the chaos of scheduling are real threats that could undermine the tournament’s success.

The most likely path forward isn’t a sudden jump to five sets for everyone, but perhaps a hybrid model. Imagine a world where only the semifinals and finals of Grand Slams are best-of-five for both men and women. This would preserve the “epic” nature of the championship rounds while keeping the early rounds efficient and manageable.

the goal of any format change should be to enhance the spectacle without breaking the players. Tennis has always been a game of balance—between power and touch, between aggression and defense. The debate over set counts is simply the latest attempt to find that balance in a modern, globalized era of sport.

The next major checkpoint for this conversation will be the upcoming seasonal reviews from the ITF and the Grand Slam Board. As they assess player workloads and broadcast ratings, the pressure to modernize the format will only grow.

What do you think? Would you rather see more high-intensity three-setters or a few grueling five-set epics in the women’s draw? Let us know in the comments.