Written with the help of artificial-intelligence tools and checked by automated controls.
Novak Djokovic likes to shake up conventions. The Serb with twenty-four Grand Slam titles put a new idea on the table last week by proposing to reduce sets to four games, with or without advantage, to bring matches down to around two hours. An idea designed to appeal to a younger audience and impatient broadcasters. Kim Clijsters, for her part, wants none of it. The former Belgian world number one expressed her disagreement bluntly on her podcast Love All, reigniting a debate that divides the circuit.
The controversy goes beyond a simple disagreement between two champions. It reveals a deep tension between the quest for modernity and the attachment to traditions that have built tennis's legend. Djokovic, thirty-nine years old and still chasing a twenty-fifth Major, thinks as a builder as much as a player. Clijsters, retired from the courts since 2022 but still highly influential, defends a romantic vision of the game. Two ways of loving tennis, two opposing diagnoses of what it needs to remain relevant in an increasingly competitive global sports landscape.
The controversy goes beyond a simple disagreement between two champions.
Djokovic's proposal: a more compact tennis
The Serbian champion's diagnosis is well known: marathon matches, sometimes exceeding four or five hours, discourage part of the audience and complicate tournament scheduling. His solution is radical. Sets played to four winning games, possibly without advantage, while keeping the best-of-five-sets format. The stated goal: guarantee a maximum duration of about two hours per match, aligned with the standards of other major sports.
Djokovic made this proposal in early August, following several statements on the future of tennis. The thirty-nine-year-old player, who sits on the players' council, actively advocates for modernizing the circuit. He relies on audience data: matches lasting more than three hours lose viewers, especially among those under thirty-five. His voice carries weight, but it does not convince everyone. Several top-50 players have already privately indicated that they consider the measure too drastic.
Clijsters: "Nothing more formidable than a four- or five-hour match"
Kim Clijsters chose her podcast to respond. The Belgian, a four-time Grand Slam winner and former world number one, defended an opposing vision of the tennis spectacle. "I think there's nothing more formidable than watching a four- or five-hour match," she said. For her, duration is not a flaw but an essential component of the sporting drama that tennis can produce.
The former champion also questioned the coherence of Djokovic's argument. "Did you think that way twenty years ago?" The question hits the mark. Djokovic built part of his legend on his ability to win physical and mental marathons, notably his 2018 Wimbledon semifinal against Rafael Nadal or his 2012 Australian Open final against the same opponent, both battles exceeding five hours. Reducing the format today would amount to erasing the very type of ordeal that forged his myth. Clijsters, herself accustomed to great three-set battles in an era when women's tennis produced epic matches, knows what she is talking about.
The circuit's generational divide
The split is not limited to two champions. It runs through world tennis. On one side, the proponents of modernization dictated by the attention economy and broadcasters' constraints. On the other, the guardians of a tradition that makes endurance and resilience cardinal virtues of the game. The Grand Slam tournaments, which generate most of the circuit's revenue, are watching the debate closely without taking a position.
Djokovic's proposal has the merit of opening a discussion that tennis has postponed for too long. Audiences for non-Grand Slam tournaments are eroding. Younger generations consume sports through highlights. But Clijsters's solution reminds us that tennis's magic often arises in those moments when everything seems lost, when a player comes back from two sets down under crushing heat. Those moments would disappear with four-game sets. Between economic urgency and preserving the soul of the game, tennis walks a tightrope.
The ball is now in the governing bodies' court. The ATP and WTA are observing, consulting, but have not yet decided anything. The debate promises to feature at the next circuit meetings, and perhaps even at the US Open in three weeks. One thing is certain: no one is done talking about it.