Wimbledon 2016

Eddie

Eddie

Eddie

Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2006
Posts
5,724
Location
--->
drunkenmaster said:
I try to watch on mute but, I don't know, sport without noise just feels so odd to me. Even if I hate the commentary the noise of the ball, scores, whatever is going on, screams of joy/anger after a great/bad shot, it's all part of it. Without the sound I can't concentrate or get into a game(of any sport really).

On the equality pay side of things the length of the game isn't as important, it's the physicality of 5 sets. You can see someone utterly dominate for 2 sets but then fall apart and lose the it all. 5 sets gives time for comebacks, 3 sets just creates very different types of matches.

1 bad game can cause a break and lead to one set down and best of 3 means 1 bad game has effectively too big an effect on the result when it comes to the womens game.

More people watch the men's game, the men's games are also much longer and much more exciting as best of 5 create far more varied matches and far more excitement. There is no way women should get the same money.

It would be like lets say female lawyers saying they should get the same money as men, but they can work 3 days a week instead of 5. Yes that doesn't quite work because you train more than you actually play but broadly speaking the point is they don't provide the same games, the same value for money, the same excitement or competition and shouldn't be paid the same.

Right now women are massively overpaid for the revenue they generate and the games they produce, men are incredibly unfairly rewarded in tennis as a result.

Another way to think about it, if mens tennis stopped tomorrow, probably 80% of the money would disappear and women would have a massive pay cut. If women's tennis stopped tomorrow, 20% of the money would go and men would get more money... as 20% less is spread over give or take 50% less players, so money per player increases.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree, the argument against makes so much sense that I suspect women were given equal prize money just to shut them up! :p

Women should definitely play best of five sets in Grand Slam events.

cheesyboy said:
Women only get paid as much in the Slams - the rest of the year they play the same number of sets as the men, but get paid a lot less.
Click to expand...

That's just for the women only events, or so I'm reading (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35859791), the Grand Slams and Masters are equal.

I can understand men only events having higher winnings than women only events as I imagine more people will buy tickets to see the men's game than the women's game - less revenue equals less prize money.
 

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,504
Location
Gloucestershire
I happen to agree that women should play 5 sets in the Slams - at least in the latter stages.

It's actually a disadvantage for the women, having three sets. As mentioned, it precludes the possibility of getting one of those classic 5-setters, with the ebbs and flows such length of match provides.

The men's quarters for Murray and Federer would have been crap if it were best of three. Instead, they were stone-cold classics.


I think if you surveyed the players, they would vote in favour of 5-sets for Slams. It's the venues themselves who are against it due to scheduling. I believe the WTA have pushed for it, but were rebuffed by the Slams. Consider the the equal prize money as compensation in lieu of such expansion.
 
Last edited:

marc2003

marc2003

marc2003

Soldato
OP
Joined
6 Feb 2004
Posts
20,599
Location
England
Not this year.. :p Querrey beat Novak and then Raonic knocked out Querrey.

Anyhoo, Federer just got broke by serving a double fault on break point... :p

edited: I mistakenly said Berdych knocked out Querrey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom