Alcaraz weighs in on whether to change the format of Grand Slams

Carlos Alcaraz is already ready to compete again at the ATP 500 in Tokyo, the venue where exactly a year ago he signed one of the most special tournaments of his extraordinary 2025 season. The player from Murcia won the title in his first participation and now returns with huge expectations. Before his debut against Alex Michelsen, Alcaraz spoke to the media and, besides discussing his physical condition, made his position very clear regarding whether or not the historic format of the Grand Slams should be changed.

The Spaniard faces Tokyo still within a recovery process that started after several months away from competition due to issues with his right wrist. He returned at the US Open, and since then every match has served to assess how his body responds after such a long absence. Precisely for this reason, any gesture, decrease in speed on certain shots, or technical change has fueled doubts about his condition.

Carlos Alcaraz clears up doubts about his wrist

In recent weeks, comments have arisen regarding the possibility that Carlos Alcaraz may not yet be completely free with his right wrist. Even certain aspects of his game, especially his serve, have raised questions about whether he continues to protect the joint in some way.

Alcaraz, however, insists on conveying calm. In Tokyo, he explained that he is training normally and assured that his wrist "improves every day", as reported by EFE. For him, the great objective now is not so much to overcome a specific problem but to accumulate matches and finally regain competitive rhythm after so many months without continuity.

Additionally, the venue has a special component. Exactly a year ago, he lifted his eighth title here in a spectacular 2025 season, defeating Fritz in the final and closing his first participation in Japan as champion. Now the circumstances are completely different. He arrives after a significant injury and needs competition, but he returns to a place where he already knows what it means to win.

Alcaraz does not want to change the essence of the Grand Slams

The player from Murcia was asked about the growing debate regarding the duration of matches and the possibility of introducing significant modifications in the Grand Slams. His stance on this was unequivocal.

Alcaraz believes that eliminating the best-of-five set format would mean altering one of the fundamental characteristics that distinguish the four major tournaments from the rest of the calendar. For him, reducing them to best-of-three would mean, in his own words, "killing the legacy of the Grand Slams".

For decades, winning a men's major has required overcoming seven matches in the best of five sets. Not only is a player's tennis rewarded, but also their endurance, adaptability, physical management, and ability to resolve matches that can change completely after two or three hours. It is precisely this structure that several players on the circuit have begun to question.

Carlos Alcaraz’s crowning moment as he saved 2 match points to defeat Fritz!@LaverCup #LaverCup pic.twitter.com/Ian8ZHtFV1

— Tennis TV (@TennisTV) September 26, 2026

Djokovic proposes sets to four games and Australia opens the debate

One of the most striking proposals recently came from Novak Djokovic. The Serbian proposed directly modifying the scoring: instead of playing sets to six games, play to four and eliminate advantages after 40-40.

Djokovic would maintain matches as best-of-five, but with much shorter sets. His goal would be to achieve matches that hardly exceeded two hours and to adapt tennis to an increasingly fast-paced sports consumption, especially among younger generations.

Another discussion arose around the Australian Open. Andrew Abdo, the new chief executive of the tournament, publicly suggested that in the future it could be analyzed whether all matches need to be played as best-of-five from the early rounds or even if the scoring system should evolve. His statements generated enough impact for the tournament itself to later publicly reaffirm its commitment to five-set tennis.

Why best-of-five favors Alcaraz and Sinner?

For players like Carlos Alcaraz or Jannik Sinner, reducing the Grand Slams to best-of-three would also affect them in another way. The fact that matches are played as best-of-five sets gives them more time to overcome their rivals, as they are physically and technically better than them. In best-of-three, their opponents have more chances to win against them.

In a best-of-three match, a player situated several levels below can play an extraordinary first set, take advantage of two bad games from their opponent, and immediately find themselves one set away from causing an upset. The margin for response is minimal. In best-of-five, something different occurs.

Winning two brilliant sets may not be sufficient. The inferior player needs to maintain that level for much longer, manage fatigue, and find solutions when the favorite changes their strategy. For someone like Alcaraz or Sinner, having three, four, or even five sets multiplies the chances of correcting a poor start and ultimately imposing their greater technical, physical, and tactical repertoire.

This difference helps explain why long matches are often a particularly challenging test for second or third-tier players when up against one of the great dominators of the circuit. Reducing the Grand Slams to best-of-three would increase volatility. It would not guarantee more surprises, but it would reduce the time the favorite has to neutralize them.

Modernizing tennis can help solve real problems related to scheduling, the duration of days, or player fatigue. Alcaraz has, in fact, recently called for solutions to avoid matches that end in the early hours, but adjusting the schedule is one thing, and changing what makes a Grand Slam different from any Masters 1000 or ATP 500 is another.

This is an automatic translation. You can read the original news, Alcaraz se moja sobre cambiar o no el formato de los Grand Slams