Five sets for all at majors, no better time to start

Coco Gauff at Indian Wells. (Getty/Harry How)

Who remembers men's semifinal Friday at the 2026 Australian Open? Pretty much every tennis fan, as well as seasonal watchers of the sport, were in awe of the two matches that took place at Melbourne Park.

Carlos Alcaraz's Houdini escape against Alexander Zverev before Novak Djokovic wound back the clock against Jannik Sinner.

Both matches had drama, sublime shot-making and a script that even M. Night Shyamalan would find it difficult to imagine.

It caused a debate about whether the women's events should be elevated from best of three to five sets from the quarter-finals and beyond, with outgoing Tennis Australia CEO discussing it throughout January's extravaganza at Melbourne Park.

"You can't replicate that (men's) semi-final day. That was amazing," Craig Tiley said.

"I'm still getting chills just thinking about it, and then you can't replicate that final last night on the women's side. It was unbelievable.

"One of the things I've been saying now is that I think there should be three out of five sets for women.

"We should look at the last few matches, the quarters, the semis and the finals, and make the women's side three out of five.

"So it's something we should put on the agenda and start talking to the players about it because there's some matches in those last rounds which would have been fascinating had they been three out of five sets.

"Now I don’t know whether the players would want to do it or not, but it is something we need to consider on the women’s side."

Listen to The First Serve Live every Monday at 8pm AEDT in its 18th year on the SEN Network/App, Australia's only dedicated weekly tennis program on commercial radio running through till the end of November.

In order to get the idea off the ground, Tiley did mention that he needed to discuss the notion with the other four majors, as well as hold long and in-depth talks with the playing fraternity about whether it could come to fruition.

"Certainly if we're going to do it and we think it's the right thing, we'll definitely go in 2027," he said. "So there's nothing in the rules stopping that from happening.

"But we need to do it with really deep consultation with the players."

Whether this is derailed by the fact that Tiley will take up the CEO role at the USTA, who knows, but it is wonderful to see this thought process for a tennis purist who desires to see the most dramatic matches at the pointy end of Grand Slams.

Indian Wells concluded this week, and after being engrossed in all of the action from tennis' so called 'fifth major', it is easy to see Tiley's point because if an unseeded female player wins, they are essentially doing the same thing as winning a Slam, especially since the third-set tiebreak scrapped the advantage final-set rule.

The top 32 seeds receive an opening round bye, but for someone like Bianca Andreescu in 2019, what is the difference between her run at Indian Wells or the US Open later that year?

The Canadian, who stunned the world seven years ago at Flushing Meadows by defeating Serena Williams in the final, played 16 sets of tennis en route to her first major title. Five months prior, she played 17 to win Indian Wells.

So what is the difference between the two? It was more physically taxing for Andreescu to win in the desert than in New York, but it obviously doesn't share nearly the same gravitas as what the US Open does.

Yes, it is rare to see unseeded players win the women's Indian Wells and Miami, but if it occurs, they have achieved the same amount of wins in less time, with Indian Wells running for 12 days compared to 15 at most Slams.

Grand Slam draws must be elevated above the rest because they are the sport's pinnacle tournaments, and by a country mile.

Players were asked at the Indian Wells media day as to whether they would accept the change, and Coco Gauff's reaction was a mightily intriguing one.

"It probably would favour me because I'm physically up there with the best, but I probably wouldn't want to see that happen," she explained.

"If it were to happen, I would prefer it to be the whole tournament, not just the quarters. I think changing the format in the middle of the tournament defeats the purpose of the playing field.

"I think it would be a lot on players, and also fans and TV. Imagine, sometimes five sets last all the way to the 7pm session. If all of us were going five sets, I don't even think we would be able to finish (a Grand Slam) within the two weeks."

A perfectly understandable contention, but how do we separate the women's majors from 1000-tier events like Indian Wells and Miami?

Five sets for women is surely the perfect way to start, and the whole tournament would ultimately be ideal because it would eliminate the ability for players to just hit their way through a match in under an hour. It would bring physicality and fitness right to the forefront of Grand Slam tennis.

The only problem is Gauff's point about actually finishing the tournaments would be a nightmare; more courts or bigger sites would be needed across the events, which could throw events off and hurt smaller events in the lead-in, not to mention broadcast headaches.

Jessica Pegula had a similar take on adding weeks, but also added how she is not a fan of the best-of-five format in general.

"I don't really think we should have to. I'm honestly just not a massive fan of the three out of five, even with the men," the former US Open finalist said.

"Even though I know that there have been amazing three-out-of-five matches, I do think in three-out-of-five matches, there is also a lot of those where guys throw sets because they're tired, and they have told me that before. They have to reserve their energy in different ways.

"You're definitely managing your energy much different, from at least what I have been told from the guys, than you do two out of three.

"So I think that's something. I think we have amazing female athletes that, honestly, I think we could do that. I don't think it's the fact that we can't. I just don't necessarily think that we should.

"I don't even know how you would schedule tournaments. We'd have to add weeks."

Australian Open champion Elena Rybakina was also against the notion, stating that a change of format could throw a plethora of players off in their preparation.

"I think it's a huge change, even if it's only the second week. You start in one format, and then it gets longer. Mentally, to be ready to play so many sets if it goes to that point, I think it's not easy," she said.

"And of course, physically, then you need to understand how you're gonna feel. Even if you have this one day in between, it might not be enough, and then in the second week, sometimes you play two days in a row.

"I think it's a huge change, and I don't think it might be interesting also for the people, because they maintain the level for so many sets.

"So I think it's a tricky topic, and me, as a player, I would say I wouldn't want to play three out of five."

There is palpable negativity among the players, but tennis fans would ultimately love the idea of having more tennis and getting more value for money at events, not to mention the added atmosphere of a deep five-setter.

Is it a case for some that they like having the advantage of keeping matches short so their fitness levels aren't exhausted early on in a tournament?

Additionally, if women played best-of-five throughout the full seven-match schedule, it would end the debate about equal pay at majors due to the men playing a minimum of 21 sets compared to the women's number at 14. It is an argument that this writer would love to see tossed out the window once and for all.

If it cannot be for the full tournament, something needs to change with the majors to elevate them above the premier WTA competitions because a match tiebreak simply doesn't cut it.

Grand Slams must be harder to win, and sometimes it might have to take something Herculean, but that is what a major is. Best of five is thrilling, engaging and iconic, and yes, they may peak and trough, but you're going to remember a match that went to five.

It is the way forward, and how organisers structure the events is up to them, but players will need to come around eventually.

Cremonini Clay specialises in converting en tout cas tennis courts into Cremonini Italian clay tennis courts at a fraction of the cost of a total court rebuild, with over 50 years of experience. To find out more, head to www.cremoniniclay.com.au