After last night, does anyone want men's matches?

Question

reduced to best of 3 and not best of 5?

1. You cant question that Murray has guts (he didnt fold)

2. Gasquet has had problems with his federation about his love of partying. (fitness issues)

Answer 1

Absolutely not. That match wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining had it been two men playing best of three, to me frankly it would've been boring. A five set epic battle on Centre Court at the most prestigious grandslam of them all shows you who is actually willing to go the distance to play for the chance to say they won a grandslam and hold that gorgeous golden trophy in the air. Murray started off playing shaky and Gasquet used up all his energy into the first two sets and Murray brilliantly captilized and Gasquet lost focus and therefore lost the match. It didn't seem like a question of fitness for Gasquet the way he's been playing doesn't show he's unfit it's just a matter of keeping focus and he tired himself out and let Murray run away with the match. I don't see anything wrong with playing best of three for regular tournaments, but out of respect for the history and prestige of the grandslams they should still play best of five. I get that it's equal prize money but women have to put out the same athletic ability in three sets, and especially a third set with no tiebreaks like at Wimbledon, three sets are as easily demanding as five.

Answer 2

What?  Why???  Instead of having a 5 set thriller last night, Gasquet would've won 2-0.

There is no good reason for having best of 3.

Answer 3

There is an article in the recent ESPN magazine issue about how no one watches or seems to care about professional tennis anymore, you might be interested in reading it.