Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

The great Rafael Nadal very nearly succumbed to another shock first-week defeat at a Grand Slam under the Wednesday evening lights of Rod Laver Arena.

Somehow, though, the Spaniard found a way to rebound from physical problems and a two-sets-to-one deficit against American qualifier Tim Smyczek and limp into the third round in Melbourne. It was a match that swung back and forth, the level of play of both men rising up and falling down throughout. It was the type of match only a best-of-five-setter can produce.

The first set went to plan for the No. 3 seed, rolling through it 6-2. Then the troubles began. Nadal said after: “At the end of the first set, I started to feel my body was very bad, very tired.” The fantastic Smyczek, who has only ever won two matches at the Australian Open, fought back to level the match, before fighting back from 5-3 down in the third set to clinch the tiebreak. Nadal practically threw up serving for the set. Yet, World No. 112 Smyczek was playing some stunning tennis, with his forehand down-the-line particularly smooth.

The 2009 champion looked completely out of it, not injecting much pace into his serve and just having to try and unleash on forehands to end points quickly. Smyczek fell into the trap of not staying aggressive and keeping his wounded opponent down. Nadal fought back to take the fourth, but the American held his ground as we went deep into a fifth stanza. It was that type of five-setter that had everyone fooled; no one really knew what was going to happen out there.

Both men got close to getting a break, with the stunned Melbourne crowd roaring on both players to a tense and dramatic conclusion. The Spaniard finally got the break with some trademark forehand blows to make it 6-5. He then saw three match points slip away in the next game before eventually closing out the match on his fourth opportunity.

It was a wonderful five-set duel, demonstrating Nadal’s absolute determination and belief to win despite visibly feeling awful for long periods of time. At 5-5 in the fifth, his mind, legs and forehand were suddenly renewed, and he was barrelling around the court unloading forehands like there had never been a physical problem.

The United States’ Smyczek showcased his undeniable talents during the four hours and 12 minutes of play, too. Even when he was two points from defeat, he showed his class by allowing Nadal to retake a first serve after rowdy fans had called out during the delivery.

Granted this kind of drama could have partially occurred over a three-set match, but we wouldn’t have been able to see the Spaniard fight back against his health and opponent in quite the same manner.

The value of five-set matches has been debated over recent years by players, legends and fans alike. Some point to them not being friendly for the TV viewer because of their length, with many now lasting four and five hours due to the nature of the men’s game.

The call is that people simply do not have the time to sit there and watch such a match unfold in its entirety, so TV channels are losing out on ratings. However, if a person is at work during the day, when many tennis matches are played, it doesn’t matter either way if it’s best-of-three or best-of-five, because they still won’t be able to watch it anyway.

Maria Sharapova showed her support for a reduction in an interview with the BBC, arguing that three-set matches would be “more exciting from the beginning of the match because you know that the first set is extremely important.” Still, winning the first set can establish a player’s momentum and the tone of the match equally in both three- and five-set contests. The beauty of five-setters is that constant shift in momentum that often occurs, as we saw with Nadal and Smyczek.

Their impact on players’ bodies is another argument for shortening men’s Grand Slam matches. We only have to recall the 2013 Australian Open final between Nadal and Novak Djokovic, which was five hours and 53 minutes of breathtaking rallies. The extension of points through prolonged baseline rallies is how the game is played today, meaning that sometimes it boils down to who is fitter on the court.

But this is what sets apart the four majors from the rest of the events on the calendar: how hard it is to win them. We all remember the marathon matches, don’t we? The Federer-Djokovic Wimbledon final of last year; John Isner and Nicolas Mahut out on Court 18 for three days at SW19.

Some argue that the standard is higher in matches over three sets, which can be the case. But five-setters require more than talent; they command mental and physical strength. That is what endears the likes of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Andy Murray to us: Not only are they great to watch, but they can produce their best tennis when it really matters with their backs against the wall.

Murray himself is firmly behind keeping things the way they are:

You spend more time in the gym putting your body through its paces to get ready for the Grand Slams, but they are the biggest events and should be the toughest test of a player physically and mentally. I like that it's best of five sets because I don't think you get fluke results.

The men play best-of-three sets all year around the world, even in the prestigious ATP World Tour Finals now. Therefore, keeping five-set matches at those four tournaments is essential to maintain their historic status as the iconic events to win.

In fact, Murray’s mother, Judy, advocates a further step: making women’s Grand Slam semis and finals best-of-five sets. After Petra Kvitova demolished Eugenie Bouchard in just 55 minutes in last year’s Wimbledon final, Murray told the Mail Online that “there is no reason why women can’t play best of five sets. When you have a big showcase like a Slam final, there is a case to be made for it being best of five sets.”

The women are incredibly athletic and surely have the stamina to go to five sets at the end of a Slam, potentially even from the second week onward. For instance, Caroline Wozniacki can run a marathon in less than three-and-a-half hours, so she clearly could go to five sets.

Many of the classic Grand Slam matches we have seen over the last decade may not have occurred if they had been best-of-three. The 2008 Wimbledon final between the silky Swiss and powerful Spaniard, which many have marked the greatest match of all time, would have been over after two sets. Eventual 2013 Wimbledon champion Andy Murray would have been out to Fernando Verdasco in the quarter-finals.

Jake Simpson writes: “A switch to best-of-three-set matches for men at Grand Slam events may keep top players competitive for longer, but it would deprive the world of a singularly awesome spectacle.”

Barnstorming five-set tennis matches in front of full stadiums, with drama, guts and passion on display in abundance, like the one Nadal and Smyczek conjured up on Wednesday, should certainly continue. Let’s hope for some more as the 2015 Australian Open kicks into full gear and then propels to a conclusion.