Women deserve epic matches, too

It\'s high time women had the chance to play the best-of-five sets in the Slams like the men. The most epic, memorable matches played by men like Borg vs. McEnroe (1980), Federer vs. Nadal (2008) and the big one, Isner vs. Mahut (2010) would have been swiftly forgotten in a best-of-three-set scenario. The drama heightened to a \"hurts so good\" level as each match progressed into yet another set, and the tennis \"gladiators\" had to continue to test each others\' skill, fitness and focus, while the ebb and flow of fortunes hung in the balance. The legendary tiebreak of the 1980 match, and Roger Federer\'s fightback in 2008, would not have happened in the shorter format, and Nicolas Mahut, not John Isner, would have prevailed in the \"longest match of all time\" after just 1 hour 50 minutes. A female winner of a best-of-five-sets Slam match would gain the extra respect and gravitas that is solely the preserve of the male greats. Why not give women the chance to create their own epic matches? Female athletes are obviously fit enough, as they compete in the triathlon, boxing and the marathon at the Olympics. Letting them play best of five would instantly put to bed the \"equal pay\" argument that still rumbles on, and more interest would be created as a wider range of players would stand a chance of winning a Slam. Would the powerful Williams sisters be fit enough to last five sets or would fitness fanatics like Caroline Wozniacki, Sara Errani or Sam Stosur benefit in a \"war of attrition\"? Either way, the winner in a best-of-five-sets Slam match would gain the extra respect and gravitas in her achievement that is now solely the preserve of men. I suspect Andy Murray would have traded his eight three-set victories over Roger Federer for his one five-set victory over Federer, mainly because it\'s impossible for a single lucky set to tip the longer match format, which gives the win its greater weight.