Do you think Slams shall add 3rd place match to their schedule?

[mick1303]

The arguments against it:
- the players are overplaying - the calendar is too long as it is, they need more rest.
- after the lost semis the players may lose interest and the matches may be subpar.
The arguments for it:
- This 3rd place match does not extend calendar all that match - the players are already there and it does not involve additional travel.
- This will be a high stakes match, if proper amount of points will be given to the winner. I reckon points shall be only slightly less than for losing finalist.
- With 1-2 dominant players other very good players do not have a lot of chances to meet in slams. For instance I was surprised to discover that Wawrinka never played David Ferrer in any slam. This additional high stakes match will give more food for thoughts to many fans who rely heavily on H2H.
- Now for some players reaching semis at a slam is their career highlight. But with winning such a match it can be elevated even more, creating additional degree of success. Hopefully such match may get a vibe similar to Olympics bronze medal match.

[patrick]

No.

[ponchi101]

When would you play it? Of course, both losing semifinalists will have the same rest time as the finalists. But imagine that you play the 3rd place tach before the final, and it becomes a marathon because, as you say, you can provide proper incentive.
Plus: the winner of the 3rd place match will end up the tournament with the same record as the loser of the finals (6-1). Who was the best player?
I say it introduces too many oddities in the draw.

[mick1303]

When would you play it? Of course, both losing semifinalists will have the same rest time as the finalists. But imagine that you play the 3rd place tach before the final, and it becomes a marathon because, as you say, you can provide proper incentive.
Plus: the winner of the 3rd place match will end up the tournament with the same record as the loser of the finals (6-1). Who was the best player?
I say it introduces too many oddities in the draw.

The reason I've got interested in this question is that when I was looking at the old tournament draws (while collecting doubles) I've noticed that in the 70s quite a few singles draws had these matches. Somehow they managed to include it in the schedule. Regarding the last question: Silver medal is better than bronze.

[ptmcmahon]

Plus: the winner of the 3rd place match will end up the tournament with the same record as the loser of the finals (6-1). Who was the best player?
I say it introduces too many oddities in the draw.

I don't think anyone would argue the person winning the 3rd place match is "better" than the loser of the finals. Especially since half the time that will be the person that beat them in the semis. For example, let's pretend we had it at USO and Tiafoe won the bronze. Yes he would be 6-1 and so would Fritz. But Fritz beat him in the semis. I don't think people would then argue Fritz wasn't better just because they have the same record.

Many non tennis events have 3rd place matchups, especially the World Cup, or Olympics where you have gold-silver-bronze. I've never once heard someone say it's unclear if the Silver or Bronze team is better.