Tennis has once again been told to employ a rule change which would completely transform the men’s game.
After all, following Iga Swiatek’s bruising Wimbledon win over Amanda Anisimova earlier this month, crushing her in the final 6-0, 6-0, there was a great debate that raged in the aftermath.
Some argued that, had the women played best-of-five set matches, the American would have had more time to settle, thus creating a more even match and a greater spectacle for the fans.
Instead, it was a whitewash, with the youngster brushed aside in under an hour.
And yet, Rick Macci, famed for his spell coaching Serena and Venus Williams, has suggested that it is not the women’s format that should change.
Men told they should only play best-of-three sets
Taking to X, he proposed an alternative theory that would instead see the men’s format changed forever.
His argument posited that injury and fatigue lessen the spectacle of their tour, and five-hour battles fought over five gruelling sets contribute massively to this.
Many chirping that the Women should play 3 out of 5 at the Slams. Can they? Yes. Should they ? No. The reason is matches will be won /lost over the tournament because of injury. What should happen is the men should play two out of three because many matches lost because of a…
— Rick Macci (@RickMacci) July 20, 2025
View Tweet
Macci did state that women could quite easily play best-of-five set matches if needed, but argued that they shouldn’t, as it would reduce tournaments to battles of fitness and recovery rather than technical superiority.
He even tagged Novak Djokovic at the end, seemingly suggesting this claim for his benefit.
After all, the Serbian superstar did admit after his loss in the Wimbledon semi-finals that he just cannot compete physically with the youthful energy of Carlos Alcaraz or Jannik Sinner in the latter stages of these events.
This tennis rule change would rewrite history
If Macci’s proposed change were to be enacted, it would change so much about the sport.
Not least, it would effectively rewrite history, given how many Grand Slam matches, and finals, were won when the eventual victor found themselves two sets to love or two sets to one down.
The most recent example would be Alcaraz’s infamous French Open final triumph, where he mounted the most remarkable of comebacks to overturn a two-set-to-love deficit against Sinner.
Delving further back, and in the Italian’s first-ever Grand Slam final, he was two sets to love down against Daniil Medvedev before he fought back to win the title.
Even Alexander Zverev, who is widely regarded as the best player never to have won a major, would now have two titles under his belt.
This change, had it always been the case, would also have rewritten historic matches like Andy Roddick’s 2009 Wimbledon final loss to Roger Federer, allowing the latter no time for a comeback.
Photo by Tom Jenkins/ Getty Images
It also would have cut short iconic thrillers like Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer’s 2008 Wimbledon final, or 2017 Australian Open final too.
Reducing the length of the matches in Masters 1000 events made sense, and has been received well in recent years.
But to remove that allure from Grand Slams would be a crying shame.