Why's he wrong... Straight away if a man / woman does a Part-Time job (i.e. doesnt work as long hours) then they dont get the same wage as what someone would get if they were working Full-Time hours.
If Women's Tennis in the Grand Slams went to five sets and wasnt equal prize money then I'd agree but it doesnt.
A men's game and a women's game can both last 3 sets
Same number of games in men's draw as women's draw
Same audiences watching both draws
Equal prize money is a demonstration that the two draws are regarded as equally worthy, financially speaking - they are already regarded as equally worthy in terms of scheduling, audience etc as above
More prize money for men belongs to a different, chauvinistic era
Deal with it ffs, men have an advantage in most workplaces, and male tennis players earn more through sponsorship anyway
Women's tennis has always lacked the depth of talent that you find in the men's game. Because of that you just don't get the amount of see saw matches on the WTA that you do on the men's tour, it makes it boring to watch. I have no problem with the women being rewarded equally when their product justifies it but it isn't anywhere near there yet.
Women's tennis has always lacked the depth of talent that you find in the men's game. Because of that you just don't get the amount of see saw matches on the WTA that you do on the men's tour, it makes it boring to watch. I have no problem with the women being rewarded equally when their product justifies it but it isn't anywhere near there yet.
if i ruled the world, i'd chain you in a dungeon and make you watch the cibulkova/radwanska game from the other day until you recant
also, the final should be good, provided kerber keeps it together
Women's tennis has always lacked the depth of talent that you find in the men's game. Because of that you just don't get the amount of see saw matches on the WTA that you do on the men's tour, it makes it boring to watch. I have no problem with the women being rewarded equally when their product justifies it but it isn't anywhere near there yet.
if i ruled the world, i'd chain you in a dungeon and make you watch the cibulkova/radwanska game from the other day until you recant
also, the final should be good, provided kerber keeps it together
There are 128-Women / Men who go into the Main Draw
So that means the First Round sees 64 Matches... So far EVERY match between men has seen at least three sets being played... In the Ladies draw there have only been 37-matches across all the rounds which have lasted that long!!
Some interesting stats here, which do show that leaving aside the 5 sets vs 3 sets issue, currently men's tennis gets far more viewers, which reflects the poor state of the women's game at the moment, when you contrast it with previous eras.
Viewing figures for Wimbledon 2015 finals UK (BBC) Wimbledon men’s final (BBC) – 9.2m viewers Wimbledon ladies’ final (BBC) – 4.3m viewers US (ESPN) Men’s final most viewed day, despite no representatives from US and Serena competing the day before. 24.4m live minutes viewed – the most ever for a single day of tennis Australia (Channel Seven) Wimbledon men’s final– 1.2m viewers Wimbledon ladies’ final – 700k viewers
No. of sets played by Wimbledon 2015 semi-finalists and finalists Men Novak Djokovic – 24 (winner) Roger Federer – 23 (runner-up) Richard Gasquet – 24 (semi-finalist) Andy Murray – 20 (semi-finalist) Women Serena Williams – 16 (winner) Garbine Muguruza – 17 (finalist) Maria Sharapova – 13 (semi-finalist) Agnieszka Radwanska – 14 (semi-finalist)
And by only playing the best of 3, it means that women can also play in the doubles as well, hence someone like Serena will take home MORE than the men's champion.
I've always said why can they not play all together. Atleast 1 Torny a year, Men vs Women!!! Women vs Women and Men Vs Men. If people want equality then what's wrong with that? That way there would be no dispute about equality. IMO on average Men are better than women in professional tennis so ultimately a better player is being punished because he is a Male and will find it tougher to earn prize money because he is playing against more Superior players.
I dont want to watch a match where someone hits the ball and you get an AAARGGHHHHHHHHHH added.
Is up there with spitting for me!!
Blokes grunt as well to be fair it's just not as painful on the ear.
Yeah the blokes grunt makes it sound like they're struggling to hit the ball whilst the grunt from the ladies makes them sound like they're having to put up with a night from @Ricky_Otto!!
Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
I remember hearing once that the ridiculous thing is that the players union/council said they'd be happy to play 5 and got told no.
Raonic wins in 5 sets, he'll be a massive threat on Sunday, the future of men's tennis
Sadly though if it is against Murray and if Raonic wins, the emphasis will be completely on Murray and how he didn't win a Grand Slam when for the first time he wont be in a Final against either Djokovic or Federer.
Yet its like Murray said on Wednesday... These are good tennis players and are there on merit!!
Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
I remember hearing once that the ridiculous thing is that the players union/council said they'd be happy to play 5 and got told no.
The scheduling of the Grand Slams would be an issue if women played 5 setters, you'd have to extend the tournament by a few more days, that's probably why
Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
I remember hearing once that the ridiculous thing is that the players union/council said they'd be happy to play 5 and got told no.
The scheduling of the Grand Slams would be an issue if women played 5 setters, you'd have to extend the tournament by a few more days, that's probably why
Surely would just be a case of playing more games out the outside Courts?
Raonic wins in 5 sets, he'll be a massive threat on Sunday, the future of men's tennis
Sadly though if it is against Murray and if Raonic wins, the emphasis will be completely on Murray and how he didn't win a Grand Slam when for the first time he wont be in a Final against either Djokovic or Federer.
Yet its like Murray said on Wednesday... These are good tennis players and are there on merit!!
Raonic will be there on merit, he's not someone who got there through luck, he's got a great chance on Sunday
the crowd have just sat there for three and half hours watching the first semi. Probably gone to get a drink, stretch their legs, or bite to eat to get them through next couple of hours
Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
I remember hearing once that the ridiculous thing is that the players union/council said they'd be happy to play 5 and got told no.
The scheduling of the Grand Slams would be an issue if women played 5 setters, you'd have to extend the tournament by a few more days, that's probably why
Why not make the early rounds 3 sets, and the later rounds 5 sets, for both men and women?
Comments
If Women's Tennis in the Grand Slams went to five sets and wasnt equal prize money then I'd agree but it doesnt.
Same number of games in men's draw as women's draw
Same audiences watching both draws
Equal prize money is a demonstration that the two draws are regarded as equally worthy, financially speaking - they are already regarded as equally worthy in terms of scheduling, audience etc as above
More prize money for men belongs to a different, chauvinistic era
Deal with it ffs, men have an advantage in most workplaces, and male tennis players earn more through sponsorship anyway
I haven't watched a single Women's match this tournament because like with Serena Williams a match is over before it begins!!
also, the final should be good, provided kerber keeps it together
So that means the First Round sees 64 Matches... So far EVERY match between men has seen at least three sets being played... In the Ladies draw there have only been 37-matches across all the rounds which have lasted that long!!
Some interesting stats here, which do show that leaving aside the 5 sets vs 3 sets issue, currently men's tennis gets far more viewers, which reflects the poor state of the women's game at the moment, when you contrast it with previous eras. And by only playing the best of 3, it means that women can also play in the doubles as well, hence someone like Serena will take home MORE than the men's champion.
I dont want to watch a match where someone hits the ball and you get an AAARGGHHHHHHHHHH added.
Is up there with spitting for me!!
Drives me up the wall.
Good game.
A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams?
I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
Yet its like Murray said on Wednesday... These are good tennis players and are there on merit!!