Carlos Alcaraz has argued that men's best-of-five matches should remain part of Grand Slam tennis, saying the longer format is central to the history and competitive identity of the majors. His intervention shifts the workload debate away from shortening the sport's biggest matches and toward reform of the wider calendar.
The question matters because elite players face long seasons, travel across continents and repeated changes of surface. Shortening early Grand Slam rounds has been suggested as one way to reduce physical strain, but Alcaraz's position is that the majors should preserve the test that distinguishes them.
What Alcaraz said about five-set matches
In comments reported by Reuters on October 1, Alcaraz described five-set tennis as important to a player's Grand Slam legacy. He accepted that workload is a real concern but favoured changes elsewhere in the schedule rather than converting men's major matches to best of three sets.
Novak Djokovic has previously floated the possibility of best-of-three matches in the early rounds of Grand Slams, while Tennis Australia leadership has said alternative formats can be discussed. Those proposals are not the same as an adopted rule. The four majors control their own events within the sport's broader rules and governance structure.
Readers should separate three issues that are often blended together: match length, the number of tournaments a player enters, and the spacing between mandatory or high-value events. A shorter match can reduce hours on court, but it does not remove international travel, short recovery windows or the pressure to defend ranking points.
Why five sets change a Grand Slam match
A best-of-five contest requires a player to win three sets rather than two. That creates more time for tactical changes and makes it harder for one poor set to decide the match. It can also increase the physical cost, especially in heat or when rallies are long.
The format shapes preparation. Players must manage energy across potentially five sets while knowing they may need to compete again within two days. Coaches plan hydration, recovery and tactical phases differently from a regular best-of-three tour match.
Supporters say this produces comebacks and reveals endurance under pressure. Critics respond that very long matches can increase injury risk, disrupt schedules and make viewing less accessible. Both arguments can be true: a demanding format may create sporting value while also imposing a workload that administrators need to manage.
What calendar reform could mean
Calendar reform does not point to one automatic solution. Options include better spacing between tournaments, fewer mandatory events, longer off-season recovery and more consistent rules around late finishes. Each choice affects players, organisers, broadcasters and fans differently.
The ATP, WTA, International Tennis Federation and four Grand Slam organisations do not operate as one single league. That fragmented governance makes reform difficult because changing one section of the calendar can shift costs elsewhere.
Alcaraz's proposal is therefore a priority choice: protect the five-set major and seek workload relief outside it. Whether administrators agree will depend on evidence about injuries, match duration, commercial commitments and player participation.
What happens next
There is no confirmed rule change arising from the latest comments. Any proposal would need formal consideration by the relevant tournament and governing bodies. Fans should treat discussion of a shorter format as a debate, not an announced decision.
For a clear breakdown of how long matches work, read our best-of-five tennis explainer.
Quick answers
Has best-of-five tennis been abolished? No. The current discussion is a policy debate, not an announced removal of the format from men's Grand Slam singles.
Would shorter matches solve workload on their own? Not necessarily. Match duration is one factor alongside travel, tournament spacing, surface changes and recovery time.
Who can change a Grand Slam format? The relevant tournament and governing bodies would need to adopt and publish a rule change. A player's interview does not change the rules.
Updated October 1, 2026, 12:23 IST.
