Who can forget the great 5-set US Open match between Vince "Beast" Spadea and Marat Safin? Wait a seccy, that's not Marat Safin...There's been proposals of late, most pronounced by Jon Wertheim of Sports Illustrated--I just can't call it SI. When I was growing up, Sports Illustrated was the mag you had to read if you wanted to know anything about sports--to switch slams to a best-of-3-set match format as opposed to the current best-of5-sets. Even his colleague at Sports Illustrated, Bruce Jenkins, after being dead-set against the idea, has come around to also espouse best-of-3-set matches. My stance is that I like the best-of-5 format at the slams because then a match can become epic in its denouement. Sure, the arguments against the shorter format are strong: playing best of 5 set matches, especially 7 over a fortnight, on hard courts at the US Open and Australia, certainly takes it's toll on the body. Timing in at 5-6 hours, these matches are just too long for the viewing public, especially at the match stuck in their chairs, to sit through. But I don't think you can have a truly remarkable or memorable match unless you go best of 5 sets. Think of the Agassi-Sampras 2001 quarters match at the Open, where every set, granted only 4 of them, went to a breaker. I'm not a big fan of today's marathon matches played by Djoker, Nadal and Murray because these guys tend to play only from the baseline and the points take on a similar arc every point. But then it becomes a physical and mental battle where the fifth set is crucial. I also feel that the players should not be allowed to receive treatment for an injury at any time during a match. I know it's a one on one sport with no substitutions, but I feel if a player can't go, that's it, the match is over.What do you think, Tennis-Prosians? 1. Should the best of 5 set match format continue at slams?2 Or should it switch to best of 3?2. Or have best of 3 to semis and then switch to best of 5?