About halfway through Wimbledon, a Yank who sits near me in the offices of The National, a guy who is not a tennis fan, asked:

“Why do the women play only best of three?”

That is a very good question.

Yes. Why.

In an era where women run the same distances as men do, and play by the same rules in nearly every sport, from triathlons to boxing, why does this particularly stark difference at the pinnacle of the sport of tennis still exist? Why do they play best-of-three-sets while men play best of five?

It’s time to fix this.

Women in tennis are very proud that they have for several years now been paid the same amount of money to win a Grand Slam event as do men. It took a long time.

But why do they continue to play best-of-three-sets tennis? Why do they not want (as far as we can tell) to wipe out the last vestige of “they’re too frail” from the game of tennis?

When tennis became popular, more than a century ago, the idea was that women were not up to the physical demands of playing best-of-five.

That was the same reason given for why women did not compete in runs greater than 800 meters at the Olympics until 1972 (when the 1,500 was added; the marathon arrived in 1984). That is why they did not wrestle. Why they didn’t box. Why they didn’t compete in the pole vault.

Now, however, the Olympics has a women’s version of everything the men do, with only a few exceptions. Some that come to mind: baseball (the women play softball); the decathlon (the women still do the heptathlon); and two gymnastics disciplines — the rings and the pommel horse.

Tennis just jumps out at us now, at the four Grand Slam events, when men go best of five … but the women still go only best of three, just as they did in the 1880s.

Yes, why?

Why do we not hear a hue and cry from women’s players demanding equal treatment? They are making as much money; shouldn’t they have to play matches as long? If that is the test of a great champion, why does it apply only to men?

A blogger for The Economist, a British financial publication, made the case back in January. Play five.

He (or she; the blog is unsigned) suggested elite female players do not reach the same level of conditioning as do elite men — because they simply don’t have to.

During a bit of a kerfuffle at Wimbledon, in the first week, when Gilles Simon of France suggested men’s tennis is more interesting than women’s, top female players responded immediately.

In the linked story, Andy Murray made the point that women’s tennis is a light enough workload that players can compete for championships in both singles and doubles. And Serena Williams, for example, just won both titles at Wimbledon. On the same day.

Murray noted that the top men don’t attempt that, and they pay a penalty (in prize money) for it. Five-set tennis is why. Murray said women  have “more chance to make money that way, because there’s very few of the singles guys that have a chance or a realistic shot of winning the event will be playing doubles here.”

This is very simple. Women are equal to men in sports endeavors. We’re fine with that, right?

So, can anyone come up with a good reason why they should not play as many sets in Grand Slam tennis as do the men?

(And don’t even try “because that’s how we’ve always done it.” If we went with that women still wouldn’t run further than 800 meters at the Olympics.)

Then let’s do it. Five sets for women, as well as men. And the sooner the better.