You make a very good & compelling point using objective evidence by numbers about requiring the endurance & consistency to win more points especially at the pro level.twiddler wrote: on Monday Novenber 4 , 2024 at 5:57am
I think the upsets are caused by the 3/5.
To win this match you need 33 points- 3 x 11
In the old days to 21 best of 5 one needed 63 points to win- almost double. Even in a 2/3 one had to win 42 points to win.
These matches are too short. Single elimination 3 out of 5 is set up so there are these upsets.
I think Adham Sharara has raped the sport in every which way but I agree with Adham about 11 point games instead of 21 points games. Because the game is never over & at the pro level we need an illusion to the spectators that the underdog at least won a game or two
However I agree with you that 3 out of 5 matches of 11 points having less points & better player not winning. But is the better player really a better player if they cannot win 3 out of 5 (11 point games instead of 2 out of 2(games of 21).
At the pro level you need to weigh the benefits of better & exciting spectator presentation against what is in it for the players themselves. In most other sports , the pros make enough money (or tons more) and so it may be secondary to what most fans want
It would of course be nice if at least all individual matches (not team) were at least 4 out of 7 games, I for one think at least the semi finals of not only singles but even doubles & mixed doubles must be at least 4 out of 7 games (Some events are indeed doing this)
But one has to weigh this against the logistics of longer matches in earlier rounds . It would be difficult. Also if you are a pro, you should have (developed) the endurance & consistency needed to win thru earlier rounds. Yes sometimes you are unlucky but that is life.