While the men dominated headlines with two of the longest semifinal matches in Australian Open history, tournament director Craig Tiley posed a question that immediately reignited debate across the tennis world: why not the women?
As Carlos Alcaraz and Alexander Zverev battled for five hours and 27 minutes, and Novak Djokovic required more than four hours to overcome Jannik Sinner, the contrast between the men’s and women’s formats once again came into focus. At Grand Slams, men play best-of-five sets, while women remain on a best-of-three format — the same structure used at regular tour events.
A familiar criticism, resurfacing again
Criticism of women’s tennis has often resurfaced around night sessions, scheduling, and perceived “value for money,” with arguments claiming fans receive less tennis. While this narrative has lost traction in recent years — particularly in Australia — it has never fully disappeared.
Early rounds in Melbourne again challenged that notion. Matches such as Maddison Inglis (before Naomi Osaka’s withdrawal) and Iva Jovic against Hon were given prime-time evening slots, drawing strong crowds and engagement. Unlike Roland Garros, where justifications around scheduling and tradition are often cited, the Australian Open lacks the same structural obstacles.
That context has strengthened Tiley’s view that the conversation deserves revisiting.
Momentum builds after historic men’s semifinals
The scale of the men’s semifinals only intensified the discussion. Patrick Mouratoglou recently advocated for best-of-five matches for women at majors, arguing it would not only elevate the sport but also neutralize debates surrounding equal pay and night-session equality.
While the women’s semifinals in Melbourne did not go the distance, the final itself delivered a high-quality three-set contest. Notably, both finalists — Elena Rybakina and Aryna Sabalenka — reached the championship match without dropping a set, raising the question of whether longer formats could have further tested depth, endurance, and adaptability.
Possible changes as early as 2027
Tiley acknowledged that any shift would take time, but confirmed the idea is now firmly on the table — potentially as early as 2027.
“That men’s semifinal was something you can’t replicate — it was incredible,” Tiley told AAP. “I still get goosebumps thinking about it. And the women’s final was just as extraordinary.”
“One thing I will say now is that I think women should play best-of-five.”
Tiley emphasized that the proposal would focus specifically on the later stages of Grand Slams — quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals — rather than the entire tournament.
“We should look at the last matches — the quarters, semis, finals — and move the women’s side to best-of-five. It’s something that should go on the agenda, and we should begin talking to the players about it.”
Historical context: When women already played best-of-five
The idea of women competing in best-of-five sets at the highest level is not without precedent. From 1897 to 1901, the women’s singles final at the US National Championships (now the US Open) was played over five sets. More recently, best-of-five formats were used at the WTA Tour Championships finals between 1984 and 1998, producing some of the most physically and mentally demanding matches in women’s tennis history.
Perhaps most famously, the 1990 WTA Finals final between Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini — a five-set classic — showcased exactly what proponents still argue today: depth, endurance, tactical adjustment, and psychological resilience unfolding over hours, not minutes.
The format was ultimately phased out largely for scheduling and broadcast reasons rather than concerns about competitiveness or quality. Since then, the women’s game has evolved dramatically — in speed, power, athleticism, and physical preparation — making the argument that today’s players are better equipped than ever to handle extended formats.
As Craig Tiley’s comments suggest, the question is no longer whether women can play best-of-five, but whether the modern Grand Slam stage is finally ready to ask them if they want to again.
Players’ voices still central
Tiley was careful to stress that no change would be imposed without consultation. Whether WTA players would support such a shift remains unclear, especially given scheduling, recovery demands, and career longevity considerations.
“I don’t know if the players want it or not,” Tiley admitted. “But it’s something we need to consider seriously on the women’s side.”
As tennis continues to wrestle with questions of equality, entertainment, and evolution, Melbourne’s marathon semifinals may have done more than crown finalists — they may have reopened one of the sport’s most fundamental debates.
Related WTA Articles You Might Enjoy
Kasatkina Stirs the Pot: Why Women’s Slam Tennis Feels Sharper Than the Men’s Right Now
Women’s Tour Faces Uphill Battle in ATP-WTA Merger Despite Women’s Tennis Rising in Popularity