The world of tennis is once again abuzz, and this time it’s not just about the latest Grand Slam champion or a stunning upset on the court. Instead, a spirited debate has erupted over a potential seismic shift in women’s tennis: the introduction of best-of-five-set matches at Grand Slam events. The discussion, which has simmered for decades, has reached a boiling point following comments from Australian Open Tournament Director Craig Tiley during and after the 2026 edition of the tournament.
Tiley’s proposal is straightforward but bold. He suggested that starting in 2027, women’s matches at the Grand Slams could mirror the men’s format from the quarterfinals onward, giving fans more of those marathon, edge-of-the-seat encounters that have become legendary in men’s tennis. “One of the things I’ve been saying now is that I think there should be three out of five sets for women,” Tiley remarked as the 2026 Australian Open drew to a close. “Certainly, if we’re going to do it and we think it’s the right thing, we’ll definitely go in 2027.”
The timing of Tiley’s comments was no accident. The men’s semifinals in Melbourne had delivered two unforgettable five-set thrillers: Carlos Alcaraz outlasting Alexander Zverev in a battle that stretched over five hours, and Novak Djokovic staging a comeback against Jannik Sinner in more than four hours. The sheer drama and physicality of these matches reignited questions about whether the women’s game could—or should—offer the same spectacle.
But is the tennis world ready for such a change? The answer, judging by the reactions from some of the sport’s top female stars, is far from a resounding yes.
Amanda Anisimova, speaking candidly at a press conference on February 9, didn’t mince words: “I mean, we’ve always played best-of-three, so I feel like that would be a crazy change for us. Also very physical on a woman’s body. So, yeah, I prefer to obviously play three sets, for sure.” Her sentiment was echoed by Italian contender Jasmine Paolini, who added, “At the moment, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Honestly, to me, maybe it’s better to reduce the sets of the men maybe until the quarterfinals. I’m not sure. I think also some good matches are of course in the best-of-five, but it’s a tough tournament. We could see also in the men that the Australian Open was tough for them. Maybe from the quarterfinals on would be a nice idea. But to the women, I don’t think it’s a good idea, honestly, to me. I mean, we are built different physically. So if the men had a tricky tournament physically, for us, we are different physically, so it’s going to be, I mean, it’s tougher. It’s not a lie. We’re just built different.”
Their skepticism is not unique. Six-time Grand Slam champion and world No. 2 Iga Swiatek, renowned for her rapid-fire dominance, weighed in with a nuanced perspective. “I think with the world right now that is kind of, like, speeding up, I don’t really think it makes sense for us to play such long matches. Especially when I think it would be tough to keep the quality up throughout the whole match,” Swiatek explained. “But if you ask specifically about my game, I consider myself one of the players that is kind of tough in coping with endurance and longer matches. I think maybe I would have some advantage. Honestly, I’ve never played such a long match, so I have no idea how my body would react. I think also the whole season would change, because we would need to plan everything differently and prepare for these long, long matches. There would, for sure, be many, many more questions about the scheduling then.”
Other stars, like Coco Gauff, have taken a measured approach. The two-time Grand Slam champion admitted she could probably play five sets, but questioned the necessity and consistency such a change would require. “I mean, could I play best-of-five sets? Probably, yes. Do I want to? I mean, it’s a lot of playing. I don’t know,” Gauff said. “I feel like, from a spectator’s standpoint, it would be just too much for the men and women to play best-of-five.”
Not all voices are strictly opposed. Rising star Iva Jovic and Olympic gold medalist Zheng Qinwen have expressed openness to the challenge, with Zheng suggesting that her stamina could even give her an edge in longer matches. Yet, the overall sentiment from the locker room is cautious, if not outright resistant.
Physicality is at the heart of the issue. Aryna Sabalenka, who recently lost a tight Australian Open final to Elena Rybakina after leading 3-0 in the deciding set, has been frank about her reservations. “I think probably physically I’m one of the strongest ones. Maybe it would benefit me. But I’m not ready to play five sets. I think it’s too much on the woman body. We are not ready for this amount of tennis. I think it would increase the amount of injuries. So this isn’t something I would consider.” Sabalenka’s comments reflect a broader concern: while some elite athletes might adapt, the toll on the field as a whole could be significant.
Amid the flurry of opinions, one thing is clear: the players themselves have not been fully consulted about a change that would fundamentally alter their sport. The debate has also reignited discussions around equality and prize money, with some arguing that matching the men’s format would bolster the case for equal pay, while others warn that physical differences and injury risks must be taken seriously.
The context for this debate is hardly academic. The 2026 Australian Open was a showcase of both the men’s and women’s games at their finest. Elena Rybakina’s triumph over Sabalenka in the women’s final capped a tournament that saw both grueling battles and swift, clinical wins. For the men, the marathon semifinals highlighted the extreme demands of five-set tennis—demands that, as Paolini and others point out, might not translate so easily to the women’s circuit.
As the tennis world digests Tiley’s proposal and the varied responses from its stars, the path forward remains uncertain. Will the Grand Slams embrace this historic change, or will tradition—and the players’ wishes—prevail? The coming months promise more heated debate, with the 2027 season looming as a potential turning point.
For now, the conversation continues, with the voices of those who know the game best—its players—at the center of the storm. Whatever the outcome, it’s clear that any decision will need to balance the demands of spectacle, equality, and athlete well-being. Stay tuned: tennis may be on the verge of its next great revolution.