Following Iga Swiatek’s routine demolition of Amanda Anisimova in yesterday’s Wimbledon final, many have debated whether a rule change might prevent another whitewash like this in the future.
After all, it was a really tough match to oversee, watching the 23-year-old unravel before our very eyes on the biggest stage in world tennis.
She never really got going, and her opponent didn’t allow her even the tiniest foothold. It was brutal.
However, some have suggested that, had the match instead been a best-of-five set contest, things could have been different.
Annabel Croft has now delivered her thoughts.
Annabel Croft gives her verdict on women playing best-of-five sets
Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live, immediately after she had conducted the post-match on-court interviews with Iga Swiatek and Amanda Anisimova, Croft was swiftly thrown into the middle of an ongoing debate.
After all, the nature of the match, which saw the former crush her opponent in record time, has left some to suggest that a new format should be introduced to prevent such an outcome.
Asked if she’d like to see women play best-of-five matches at the majors, the pundit replied: “Well, I guess it’s a point, isn’t it? Um, but I had a discussion with somebody yesterday, uh, and we were, you know, they were saying, did I want to see best-of-five sets? And I said, No, I didn’t.
“You know, there are many matches, even at Queen’s Club when we were watching the tennis there, and some of the women’s matches of best-of-three were going three hours.
“You know, on the grass, and the men are a little bit quicker because of their big serves and power going through the court, you know, the matches were sort of a little bit more efficient, but if you’re three hours for three sets, can you imagine, you know, five hours.
“I think everything is quite long anyway, and somehow the sport has to find a way to speed itself up, because it is getting longer and longer. I remember time very clearly, back when Nadal played a five-and-a-half-hour match, I think it was against Murray, and then went into a final against Djokovic in Australia, and it was six hours, and that was the first time we’d ever heard of matches that long. It was just very unusual. And now it’s not that unusual for us to talk about men’s best-of-five set matches.
“Well, look, we’ve had some here, haven’t we? Four and a half hours? I think Cam Norrie was four and a half in one match. It’s a lot, and I don’t think it’s good for their bodies.
“You know, if they need to sustain themselves on the tour, I don’t think the body can keep hammering itself with the amount of injuries that players are sustaining these days. It’s just the nature of the sport.
“So I don’t think I am that keen on best-of-five sets for the women onwards. I think there’s enough injuries as there are in the game anyway.”
Conversely, there are many reasons why women playing best-of-five set matches would benefit the sport.
Would Amanda Anisimova have benefited from a best-of-five set Wimbledon final?
Realistically, with the way Anisimova was playing and the relentless string of errors that were flying off her racquet in the Wimbledon final, it’s hard to believe that a change in format would have helped her win.
However, what it might have done is ease the pressure that her opponent was enforcing upon her.
With a best-of-three set match, it allows no time for slow starts. If you fail to get going instantly, you are immediately under pressure. Losing the first set, you are now within one more set of defeat.
On the men’s side, however, they are afforded ample opportunity to dawdle into matches, building as it goes on, and peaking when necessary. Carlos Alcaraz has already benefited from that in this year’s French Open final, widely regarded as one of the greatest ever.
It increases the chances of drama and excitement, and would have at least allowed Anisimova time to breathe.
Instead, she was suffocated from the start, and was handed a horrid beatdown across just two brief sets.
