What I took from Emma Navarro's post is how difficult it is for athletes to get the right diagnosis.

For every Navarro there's likely so many others that believe they just need to plough on, or believe it's psychological, or decide they just need a mental break.

Carlos wants to be the greats tennis player of all time ,he already told us this ,the form of slams changing in any way affects that

I don’t think it is being institutionalized to support best of 5.. it’s an emotional reaction from many of us who don’t want to lose matches like 2025 RG or 2008 Wimbledon.. most of the greatest matches of all time in the men’s have gone the distance. It would be tragic to do away with the format all together and I would lose a degree of interest in grand slams if it became best of three - as they’d feel much the same as masters.

My proposal would be the following:

The semis and finals remain best of five - they are usually the most special days where the stakes are felt by all parties. I think that would be really cool with the women’s as well.. and wouldn’t be such a drastic change to the overall format. Two sets finals between the best players in the world can feel pretty anti climatic at the end of a slam. With the last two rounds being best of five you would have the best of both worlds.. five rounds of best of three - and then when it ramps up at the business end the tournament would still be given the possibility for the longer epics.

Also.. scrap the two week masters and would 5 sets even be such an issue? That would give 9 extra weeks to players to either go home if they wish or at least do training instead. It’s not just the tennis itself that is causing injury .. it’s the time management. Being at tournaments an extra 9 weeks a year.. that is very mentally taxing on players.

I see the scheduling as a far bigger issue than 5 setters. One week masters and best of 5 either from semis onwards would save players a lot of energy.

Overall I think meeting in the middle is the only approach that makes sense.. if 5 sets really had to get the chop then what about when players reach two sets each the match is decided by a super tiebreak. I still prefer the idea of best of five semis and finals though.

Sabalenka ending as the year nr 1 would just feel wrong. We would be back to those awkward Wozniacki years of 2010 and 2011 when she ended the year as nr 1 without having won a Slam (or the WTA player of the year award).

Honestly IMO anything but Rybakina ending the year as nr 1 and getting the Player of the Year award would feel wrong.

57:26 The WTA's financial plight is disastrous. In the post-COVID era from 2022 onwards, 2026 is going to be their 5th straight year running at a loss. Their reserves have shrunk to just $15 million. I believe that they've actually paid more money to executives, and reported higher staff compensation costs, than the ATP. That's despite the ATP's year on year revenues being more double those of the WTA, and the fact that unlike the WTA is it actually profitable.

Against that backdrop, the WTA spending a big chunk of their own money, to bring their prize money pool in line with the ATP's, seems like a terrible and reckless decision. It is prioritising short term vanity and over more medium to long term sanity and security. I'm saying this as a fan and out of concern. In recent years I've much preferred women's tennis over men's.

But WTA prize money is simply too high, relative to the organisation's financial capacity and market demand, especially when it faces a genuine risk of bankruptcy.

If GS go to best of three they will be no different than a 1000.  Go back to the 1 week 1000’s and not make them all mandatory.  And keep best of 5.  Love it.

At least he is not done .

I’ll probably stop watching GS if it goes to best of three🌚

We simply cannot take away best of 5. They add so much to the gravitas and weight of the grand slams. I’m almost in favor of bringing back 5 set masters 1000 finals. What needs to be changed, as Matt cleverly hinted at, is how many freaking mandatory tournaments we have in the calendar. That’s the real issue. Don’t let the late finishes at the US Open this year distract you from that simple fact

Someone disagrees with Catherine.  
Catherine: "They are institutionalised".

Catherine is showing herself and her privilege. Whenever I have ever uttered the words "you look well," it has been made to someone who has gained weight and therefore looks healthier. Catherine just did the "tell me you live in a privileged bubble without telling me you live in a privileged bubble" thing. Most people know someone who has fallen ill and has lost weight, or has suffered from some sort of addiction/disorder and has lost weight. "You look well" is mostly said to people who have recovered the weight that they have lost!

I don't like b/5 and it needs to go. Most of them just drone on for hours with little to no entertainment value. There are  very few players that I want to sit through a 5 set match for.

Any idea what these appearance fees are?? $50,000, $100,000? Would love to know.

no respect from the west, huge love from china. novak

I have empathy for Emma Navarro. Yet, everything is better when you're a billionaire. I wish Emma included just ONE line about being fortunate enough to get the very best care imaginable for anything imaginable. I just thought I'd see maybe ONE line, of her over 210-line post expressing empathy to those without the resources to get proper medical care. Oh well.