Tennis

I think it probably did get some eyes on tennis that usually wouldn't watch, so in that way it did kind of serve a purpose. If it was universally just treated like a bit of fun (as Kyrigos and Sabalenka did seem to do) it would have been fine, sadly the brainrotted BBC presenters tried to make it out to be something it wasn't. Felt a bit sorry for Annabel having to sit with the other two clowns.
 
Last edited:
scarps said:
Only in the slams. 4 events a year. Rest of the season they get paid less for playing same sets.

Majority of players earn their living on the tour, not the slams
Click to expand...

They do/did, but that is due to the WTA. ATP makes up the difference in prize money when it's not x amount. WTA has the option to, but since it's so poorly run, hasn't had the interest or the real finances to do so.

It will get better now, with the new commercial agreement.
 
I've written about this before on here. I used to be a middling badminton player back in the early naughties. Think, top men's singles player in Hampshire, that type of level. Solid, competent club player. The female world number 2 came to our club for an exhibition thing and I got to play a set against her.

Now, I'm not saying she tried her very hardest, but what I'm saying is that it would've made zero difference. I destroyed her. Technically she was a much better player than I was or ever could be, but she was so weak and slow. It was so weird to observe against in real time. To your average person the styles and speed and shots look exactly the same, but there's a galaxy between the males and females, in badminton anyway. Can't speak for tennis as I don't know the realities of the game, on court, in real time. Maybe it's broadly applicable, maybe it's not, but for badminton anyway, your competent male club player of any nation will destroy the top 5 world female players. And they won't even try hard.

A few years ago I watched the world number 1 female player from behind the court she was playing on. It was interesting tracking her speed and movements in real time. I was late 30s at the time and not picked up a racket in 15 years. But what I saw there, knowing what I know, I was still wondering what would've happened if we played a set. Realistically she would've smashed me, but by how much, I don't know.

Anyway, it's is, and always been a dumb debate. Anyone that argues otherwise invariably do so out of emotion instead of lived experience. And certainly never on a badminton court (or tennis court).
 
Last edited:
It's the same for almost every single sport or physical activity aside from extreme endurance marathon running where women are better. That's it.

This weird society thing that's going on now - and has been for a few years about it being equal and should have equal pay is a bit bizarre to me.

Ronda Rousey nailed it on the head, bring in more money, you get more money.

Then you have Alisha Lehmann on the polar opposite end of the scale confused as to why her boyfriend Douglas Luiz (who got a £50m move) to the same club was earning more money than her for doing the same thing.

Rafa kept getting asked about it in pressers as well, I'm sure he said something about models getting paid more.

I'm just not sure what the whole point of the battle of the sexes is or was? Women's tennis can't win in any from it, they need to stop trying to compare it and allow it to shine for what it is.
 
regulus said:
I've written about this before on here. I used to be a middling badminton player back in the early naughties. Think, top men's singles player in Hampshire, that type of level. Solid, competent club player. The female world number 2 came to our club for an exhibition thing and I got to play a set against her.

Now, I'm not saying she tried her very hardest, but what I'm saying is that it would've made zero difference. I destroyed her. Technically she was a much better player than I was or ever could be, but she was so weak and slow. It was so weird to observe against in real time. To your average person the styles and speed and shots look exactly the same, but there's a galaxy between the males and females, in badminton anyway. Can't speak for tennis as I don't know the realities of the game, on court, in real time. Maybe it's broadly applicable, maybe it's not, but for badminton anyway, your competent male club player of any nation will destroy the top 5 world female players. And they won't even try hard.

A few years ago I watched the world number 1 female player from behind the court she was playing on. It was interesting tracking her speed and movements in real time. I was late 30s at the time and not picked up a racket in 15 years. But what I saw there, knowing what I know, I was still wondering what would've happened if we played a set. Realistically she would've smashed me, but by how much, I don't know.

Anyway, it's is, and always been a dumb debate. Anyone that argues otherwise invariably do so out of emotion instead of lived experience. And certainly never on a badminton court (or tennis court).
Click to expand...

Top county player is far from middling ha!

It's similar in tennis though, any man good enough to get an ATP point will probably beat the top women handily. The physicality is just not really comparable, especially when it comes to things like serving.
 
In tennis the male and female players are actually much closer than many other physical sports.

Unlike the badminton example, a top female tennis player like Sabalenka, would not lose to a top club player. No chance. They would however lose or have a close game with an ITF pro playing challengers.

Serena allegedly once said she'd beat any make player outside the top 200. That didn't work out well.
"...could beat any man outside the top 200, was German player Karsten Braasch, who was ranked 203rd at the time and defeated Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2. Braasch was known for his unconventional lifestyle, even smoking and drinking during changeovers,"

IIRC there was a little more to the story. He'd played a round of golf first, and smoked a 20 pack, or something daft like that. He said he played like a top 500 player.

In reality there is very little difference between a 100 player and top 1,000 player, compared to the difference between a good club player and a pro.
 
Last edited:
RobHu said:
Top county player is far from middling ha!

It's similar in tennis though, any man good enough to get an ATP point will probably beat the top women handily. The physicality is just not really comparable, especially when it comes to things like serving.
Click to expand...
I actually think it's the movement more than the serving / power. From the points I've seen, Kyrgios was hitting corners, but slowly (and in a small court), and Sabalenka was struggling to run them down. They're shots that a top 100 men's player would get to and return pretty untroubled, and a top 10 would be trying to hit winners off.

Some of the top women actually hit harder and flatter than many men, because being able to do that wins women's matches. In men's, you can nail it hard and flat but it's probably coming back unless you hit the lines, and a flat shot for the lines is high risk. The top men generally play higher percentage tennis, and accelerate when the opening is there, because playing high risk tennis often doesn't pay off due to their movement.
 
manic111 said:
I actually think it's the movement more than the serving / power. From the points I've seen, Kyrgios was hitting corners, but slowly (and in a small court), and Sabalenka was struggling to run them down. They're shots that a top 100 men's player would get to and return pretty untroubled, and a top 10 would be trying to hit winners off.

Some of the top women actually hit harder and flatter than many men, because being able to do that wins women's matches. In men's, you can nail it hard and flat but it's probably coming back unless you hit the lines, and a flat shot for the lines is high risk. The top men generally play higher percentage tennis, and accelerate when the opening is there, because playing high risk tennis often doesn't pay off due to their movement.
Click to expand...
In my badminton example and when I played that set, it was strength and speed that got her. It's very difficult to explain unless you're on the court, in real time. To the observer, the back lines are cleared by both male and female players, seemingly with comfort. And that is the case, but it arrives at her side a few split seconds quicker than she is used to. It throws her slightly off balance because the whole reality is now different. Everything is quicker, and harder, but it doesn't look like that to the untrained eye. While she was incredibly cunning and deceptive, it didn't actually matter in the end. I just couldn't get over how weak and slow the shuttle was coming back at me. What I would've loved was to play another set, but have a chat with her beforehand and tell her to go absolutely maximum, all out. Which I believe she was closed to, judging by the angles she was trying to cut and the speed at what she was attacking me with. It's like an exhibition boxing match. You make it seem real to the crowd but not trying to hurt each other. Some of her shots was trying to hurt. Although it's been 20+ years now, so I could be remembering some things wrong.

I would venture a guess that it's different these days. The girls are top top professionals, well trained and financed. It was a bit different 20 years ago before things became super professional. But a top top club male player versus a world class female. I know where my money is going every single time. A national level male player, never mind an international level male player, don't make me laugh. Literally ZERO chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom