5 sets for me otherwise its just a masters over 2 weeks.
Yes, I agree with that.
I like the best of five format for the slams. It sets the slams apart. I think if the slams are supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport they need to be different from all the other tournaments. The best of five format provides that.
I think the best of five is interesting physically, but also psychologically. It shows up players capable of focusing for long periods, but also players capable of staying in control in tricky situations and finding a way through, even if they are a set or two down. Look at Andy against Verdasco at Wimbledon for example. Had that been best of three Andy would have been out.
Changing to best of three might be easier to show on TV (why is tennis so worked up about what is best for TV anyway, above and beyond the players, or rather, some of them?) and it could be argued that it would be easier on the players, especially in rivalries such as Andy and Djokovic, where matches are often long and attritional, but I think it would devalue the slams. I can just see now someone in commentary looking down their noses at people who win best of 3 set slams as opposed to 'the good old days when we played best of five'. Wilander and Cash would be first in the queue.