The Great Tennis Debate: Do we need shorter Grand Slams, and would Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have the most titles in a best of 3 world?

The Big 3, Rodger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic, battle it out in a Best of 3 format

The modern world bears little resemblance to the early days of tennis and the inaugural Wimbledon Championship.

In June 1877, a club organized a Gentlemen’s tennis tournament to fund the repair of it’s pony roller, needed for maintaining the lawns.

Delayed for 3 days by the British rain - it eventually took place in front of a crowd of around 200 people who had each paid an entry fee of one shilling. The winner received 12 guineas in prize money and a silver challenge cup, valued at 25 guineas. Worth roughly £5,000 in today’s money, a small sum when compared to 2025’s £2.7 million cash prize for both Men’s and Women’s singles.

The final played in best of five sets, lasted just 48 minutes. A format that would become the standard for the Grand Slam Tournaments across the World and remain until this day, later being adopted by the The U.S. National Championships in 1881 (now the U.S. Open), The French Championships (later the French Open) in 1891, and The Australasian Championships (now the Australian Open) in 1905.

With the return of the Australian Open and first Grand Slam of the year, the big debate is back. Is the grueling best-of-5 sets format a testament to the greatness of the sport, or is it pushing players to the brink: compromising their health, longevity, and even tennis’ appeal to modern audiences?

Matches now commonly exceed 4 hours, with this year’s notable performances coming from British No.1 and 15th seed Jack Draper who produced 3 show-stopping 5 set wins in a row. This included an epic 4-and-a-half-hour battle against Thanasi Kokkinakis before eventually needing to retire against Carlos Alcaraz in the fourth round with a suspected hip injury.

Jack Draper wins in a grueling 5 sets at the 2025 Australian Open against Thanasi Kokkinakis

The sheer athleticism is exceptional but at what cost. Tennis great, Billie Jean King suggested the format could be accelerating the wave of injuries plaguing the game. Citing the 2012 Djokovic-Nadal Australian Open final, King remarked, “It probably took a year off their careers.”  The iconic Djokovic’s epic victory over Nadal lasted five hours and 53 minutes – the longest Grand Slam final of all time and possibly the greatest match ever played. Djokovic commented in an earlier interview that “We took the last drop of energy from our bodies” leading to both players having to famously sit down for the prize giving ceremony. 

Do we want the beautiful or brutal game? Players such as 2020 US Open Winner, Dominic Thiem sees the format as integral to Grand Slam prestige. Thiem added, “It’s tradition. It makes [the Slams] special.” Interestingly, Thiem would have lost his only Grand Slam title to Alexander Zverev in a best-of-3 format but he would have potentially salvaged the 2020 Australian Open title against Djokovic instead. Younger stars like Carlos Alcaraz also approve of the current format “I prefer five sets. I see myself as a really good player in the fifth set. I feel like I have more time to come back.”

There is no doubt that there is something heroic, almost brutal, about conquering an opponent over 5 sets but most tennis fans would probably accept that a standout match of 2024 was the Djokovic-Alcaraz Paris Olympics final. A quicker but no less thrilling best-of-3.

Would a shorter format have a profound impact on the legacy of the sport and how would tennis’ Big Three; Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal have performed in a best-of-3 world? To answer this question, we analyzed the first 3 sets of their Grand Slam performances - Does Djokovic still comes out on top with his record-breaking number of wins or is it Federer who reclaims the throne?

Novak Djokovic points to someone in the Melbourne crowd as he celebrates winning match point against Tomas Machac on January 17, 2025 [Cameron Spencer/Getty Images]

Djokovic: The Marathon Man

Novak Djokovic’s dominance in long matches has been a cornerstone of his success. His ability to outlast opponents in grueling five-setters has earned him 24 Grand Slams. However, our analysis of his 37 Grand Slam finals reveals that he would lose two of those titles in a best-of-3 format - the 2020 Australian Open (against Dominic Thiem) and the 2021 French Open (against Stefanos Tsitsipas). His probability of winning finals would also drop from 65% in best-of-5 to 59% in best-of-3.

Nadal: The Clay King’s Endurance

Rafael Nadal’s unrivaled dominance on clay and extraordinary mental toughness have defined his career. Yet even the King of endurance would lose one of his Grand Slam titles, taking him from 22 to 21 in a best-of-3 world. Out of his 30 Grand Slam final appearances, he would have lost the iconic 2022 Australian Open title against Medvedev. Out of the Big Three, Nadal has the highest probability of winning a Grand Slam final, falling slightly from 73% in best-of-5 to 70% in best-of-3.

Federer: The Maestro’s Precision

Roger Federer’s elegant style and precision have often given him the edge in quicker matches. Federer is the only member of the Big Three who would gain an additional title from his 31 Grand Slam Final appearances under a best-of-3 format - his 2009 US Open loss to Juan Martín del Potro would become a win. Raising his total from 20 to 21 titles and his probability of winning a final from 65% in best-of-5 to 68% in best-of-3.

Revised Results for the Big Three

Title Changes Based on Match Format

Player	Slam Finals	Wins - Best of 5	Wins - Best of 3	Change in Titles
Djokovic 🇷🇸	37	24	22	-2
Nadal 🇪🇸	30	22	21	-1
Federer 🇨🇭	31	20	21	+1

Win Percentage Comparison by Format

Player	Slam Finals	Win % - Best of 5	Win % - Best of 3	Change in %
Djokovic 🇷🇸	37	65%	59%	-6%
Nadal 🇪🇸	30	73%	70%	-3%
Federer 🇨🇭	31	65%	68%	+3%

Source: wdwk.org 

Is Tennis in a pickle?

The 5-set format has produced unforgettable moments and defined the legacies of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, whilst rewarding endurance and resilience. Yet, in an alternate best-of-3 world, the Big Three’s dominance remains largely intact, with Djokovic still leading the pack at 22 Grand Slams, Nadal and Federer tied at 21, making only subtle shifts to the history books in a Best-of-3 parallel reality. It seems that in the case of best-of-5 vs. best-of-3, statistically, there isn’t a major impact on the champions of the game like we might have expected. The probability of Novak Djokovic staging a comeback in a final after being down 2 sets is currently just 5.41%. While low, it still surpasses Rafael Nadal’s 3.33% and Roger Federer’s 0%.

Outside of the Big Three, a shorter format would have benefited players like Stefanos Tsitsipas, Alexander Zverev, and Dominic Thiem who would have claimed career-defining Grand Slam titles.

So is it time to switch? With an abundance of choice for entertainment, 5 hour matches may seem increasingly daunting to younger viewers. The pace of life has quickened since the first Wimbledon tournament in 1877 and attention spans have undoubtedly shortened in the TikTok era. Daniil Medvedev is a proponent of the shorter format: “People love epic matches, but many stop watching if the match drags.”

Djokovic who would have benefited the least from a revised format has championed reform, citing tennis’ relentless calendar. “We have the longest season of any sport. Shorter matches could help players recover and stay at their peak,”.

Some commentators have offered alternative solutions. Nick Kyrgios suggests “Best-of-3 until the quarterfinals would save energy and make the later rounds more intense. Best-of-5 can stay for the semis and finals.” John McEnroe thinks championship tie-breaks should replace fifth sets. “With so much choice for viewers, five-hour matches could turn fans off. We want this sport to grow, for God’s sake,”. In 2023 Wimbledon made the shift from best-of-5 to best-of-3 for Men’s doubles without causing much controversy, showing audiences are willing to adapt.

Grand Slams aside, the extension of ATP Masters 1000 events to 2 weeks has added further strain, with players like Stefanos Tsitsipas expressing concerns about the schedule. “Players aren’t getting the recovery or training time they need,”. The increasingly packed ATP schedule calls for changes to take the pressure off players. Is the real issue playing 5 sets or too many tournaments in the calendar?  

Another major concern is increasing competition from emerging racket sports like Padel and Pickleball, which are gaining traction among casual players and celebrities alike. Djokovic has warned of the danger these sports pose to tennis at the grassroots level. “Tennis is the king or queen of racket sports, but on a club level, it’s endangered,” he said, citing the financial appeal of converting tennis courts to Padel. “You can build three Padel courts on one tennis court. It’s simple math.”

The appeal of Padel and Pickleball lies in their appeal to all levels and accessibility. Unlike tennis, these sports are less taxing on the body, making them a favorite among celebrities such as Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, and the Kardashians. With Padel boasting 30 million players worldwide and Pickleball growing rapidly in the U.S. with 13.6 million players, these newer sports are drawing attention away from tennis at an alarming rate. Djokovic previously commented “If we don’t act collectively, Padel and Pickleball will overtake tennis clubs.”

Cristiano Ronaldo playing Padel, from Instagram.com

As these newer sports grow in popularity, tennis faces pressure to remain relevant and appealing to modern spectators. Whether a shift to best-of-3 sets or another compromise is the answer, the sport must find a way to balance tradition with innovation. What’s clear is that no matter the format, Djokovic’s place in the history books is secure for now, in both words. Would shorter formats allow us to see our favorite players compete more often, remain injury-free, and extend their careers? Is it time for tennis to evolve, or is preserving tradition worth the cost? A decision that will likely shape the future of the sport - and it’s champions. After all, Tennis was introduced in 1875 by the Wimbledon Lawn Club to compensate for the waning interest in croquet! Adaptation is survival.

Fred Perry takes the 1935 Wimbeldon Final

What's your opinion?

• Best-of-5
• Best-of-3