Phoenix 24
Carlos Alcaraz Rejects Calls to Shorten Grand Slam Matches
For the Spaniard, reducing five set tennis would weaken what makes the majors unique.
Tokyo
Carlos Alcaraz has rejected proposals to shorten men’s Grand Slam matches from the traditional best of five sets to best of three, arguing that such a change would damage the history and identity of tennis’ most important tournaments. Speaking ahead of the ATP 500 event in Tokyo, the Spaniard distanced himself from players and former champions who believe shorter matches could reduce physical strain on the modern tour.
The debate has intensified as concerns grow over injuries, late night finishes and an increasingly demanding calendar. John McEnroe recently suggested that fifth sets could be replaced by ten point match tiebreaks, while several current players have pushed for reforms designed to protect athletes from excessive workloads. Alcaraz agrees that scheduling problems need attention, but he draws a clear line when it comes to the fundamental structure of Grand Slam competition.
His argument is based on tradition and difficulty. Winning a major over five sets requires endurance, tactical adaptation and the ability to recover emotionally when momentum changes across several hours. Alcaraz believes those characteristics separate Grand Slam tennis from regular tour events and help explain why major titles carry exceptional historical weight.
The discussion arrives as Alcaraz continues his own return from a right wrist injury that kept him away from competition for more than four months. After returning at the US Open and contributing to Europe’s Laver Cup victory, he says the wrist is improving every day and that his immediate priority is accumulating high level matches.
His position therefore contains an important distinction. Alcaraz supports measures that protect players but does not believe player welfare requires removing the five set format. Scheduling, recovery periods and excessively late matches can be addressed independently without changing what he considers one of the defining traditions of the sport.
The debate reflects a larger tension inside professional tennis. Modern players compete across a global calendar shaped by commercial expansion, ranking obligations and increasingly physical styles of play. At the same time, the sport’s identity depends heavily on traditions that distinguish its biggest events from the rest of the season.
Alcaraz’s message is clear. Tennis may need reform, but not every tradition should be treated as an obstacle.
For him, changing Grand Slam matches to best of three would not simply shorten the competition. It would alter the test that makes winning one so significant.
Truth is structure, not noise.