Just name checked the book you mentioned Rosamund. I'd hold onto it if I were you - it costs around £100 to buy it on Amazon or Abe (the specialist online bookseller). Sounds like an interesting read, though published in 2007, it has 14 years of catching up to do.

Re- the 3 set or 5 set debate, I feel that a move to 3 set matches would massively improve men's matches. At one time 5 set men's matches had their place. Go back to the 1960's, when I first started watching tennis, and there were hardly any good players. The early rounds were full of players who were not playing full-time and no hopers who simply got into tournaments because there wasn't the tour structure that there was now and the disparity between the good pros and the also rans in the first and second rounds of Grand Slams was huge. Consequently it was only in the later rounds that competitive and long close matches tended to happen, and as the players were all good and all crowd favourites, there was much more interest in seeing the handful of top players slug it out.

Now with the massive amounts of professional players and numerous tournaments, the professionalisation of tennis means way more competitive matches than used to happen, and for me, the closer that more matches get, the more there is a case for putting a lid on how long they can go on for. I'd have 3 set matches ending in a tie break for both men's and women's singles and doubles.

For me, 3 set matches in the men's game would create more space for tournaments such as Wimbledon to not build up a backlog of matches, and it would also mean a lot more men would enter singles as well as doubles - playing five sets at Wimbledon in the men's doubles always feels like a huge anachronism, and it is a big reason why few serious male singles players will enter the men's doubles at Wimbledon.

There is also of course an equality issue; whatever one sex does, the other should be treated equally. At one time it was thought that women wouldn't be fit enough to play 5 sets - I know it sounds mad, but is the true reason why the disparity in length of matches existed; not sure that there would be a single person argue this now, but all the more reason to even everything up.

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Tuesday 16th of February 2021 11:25:23 PM

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Wednesday 17th of February 2021 12:30:37 AM

I'll watch the first match live, but pretty limited interest to be honest. Actually prefer the remaining field in that Melbourne 250, but obviously the slam status trumps it. Hope Muchova is as fit as she can be, and can ask some questions, but yes, I think Barty and Brady will progress as well.

5-0 in 16 minutes - quicker so far than even I thought.

Just reading some of Andy Parkers posts there as the first set is taken by Barty in 24 minutes. She looks fairly imperious at the moment in a similar way to how Osaka is looking. Barty and Brady for me tonight as well.

AP makes some great points above there, we might have more of the men playing doubles and it might raise the standard and create interest. One of the the reasons I dont take it seriously is for that reason. I also think it would benefit the other tournaments season round if we cut out 5 set matches from the 128 players stage.

Its a difficult one because weve all watched some classic 5 set matches and I still enjoy them and dont mind them staying but in reality as we move forward I do think they will go.

It reminds me a bit of the Serena vs Wang QF at the 2019 US Open, but even worse. 18 UEs now. At least it surely can't get much worse.

Looks like the trainer is coming.

Oh my, the medical timeout has turned this it seems and its now 2-2, second set. A temporary change perhaps but at least its a bit more of a competition now.

Great game from Muchova for 3-2. Its almost like shes been substituted and replaced since the medical timeout.