PDA

View Full Version : Equality Issue - Should the women play five, or should the men play 3???


MBM
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:50 PM
We have equal pay, but the general concensus seems to be that something now needs to be done about women playing best-of3 sets, while men play best-of-5. Equality would mean both genders playing the same number of sets, but should they play best-of-3, or best-of-5???

Ignoring the entertainment value of epic 5 setters completely, and focusing simply on the scorelines and specifically the general outcome, there are arguments for and against playing best-of-5 sets. Furthermore, many people argue that best-of-5 early rounds for the men are boring and only really ever between two low quality players

First, here are the possible scenarios for the men:
- A beats B in 3 sets = The scoreline was decided after two sets, so best-of-3 would not have changed the result
- A beats B in 4 sets = Player A was up 2-1 after 3 sets (A must have won the fourth), so best-of-3 would not have changed the result
- A beats B in 5 sets has two scenarios:
1. The outcome was decided after 3 sets (A was up 2-1, B leveled it at 2-2, but A won the fifth to take it 3-2), so best-of-3 would still have provided the same outcome
2. In three sets, B would have won as he was up 2-1, but A won the next two sets to "steal" it 3-2

Only one of these scenarios has a different outcome based on whether best-of-3 or best-of-5 sets is played.

So the real question to answer is "how often do players come back from 2-1 down?"

Here are the results of the last two grand slams, focusing on number of sets taken to win, for the men (I have ignored retirements and walkovers):

FRENCH OPEN

First Round
3 – 33
4 – 13
5 Decided after 3 sets – 9
5 Necessary – 4 (Hewitt V Karlovic / Devilder V Wawrinka / Ferriero V Lopez / Granollers V Ouanna)
5 Retirements / WO

Second Round
3 – 17
4 – 9
5 Decided after 3 sets – 5
5 Necessary – 1 (Vassallo Arquello V Andreev)
0 Retirements / WO

Third Round
3 – 9
4 – 6
5 Decided after 3 sets – 0
5 Necessary – 0
1 Retirements / WO

Fourth Round
3 – 4
4 – 3
5 Decided after 3 sets – 0
5 Necessary – 1 (Haas V Federer)
0 Retirements / WO

QF
3 – 3
4 – 1
5 Decided after 3 sets – 0
5 Necessary – 0
0 Retirements / WO

SF
3 – 0
4 – 0
5 Decided after 3 sets – 1
5 Necessary – 1 (Del Potro V Federer)
0 Retirements / WO

F
3 – 1
4 – 0
5 Decided after 3 sets – 0
5 Necessary – 0
0 Retirements / WO

Tournament
3 – 67
4 – 32
5 Decided after 3 sets – 15
5 Necessary – 7
6 Retirements / WO

Overall
5 sets unnecessary – 114
5 sets necessary - 7

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WIMBLEDON

First Round
3 – 30
4 – 17
5 Decided after 3 sets – 9
5 Necessary – 3 (Rochus V Cuevas / Bolelli V Coellerer / Almagro V Monaco)
5 Retirements / WO

Second Round
3 – 13
4 – 8
5 Decided after 3 sets – 5
5 Necessary – 4 (Petzschner V Zverev / Gimeno-Traver V Troicki / Robredo V Koubek / Kolschreiber V Minar)
2 Retirements / WO

Third Round
3 – 6
4 – 7
5 Decided after 3 sets – 3
5 Necessary – 0
0 Retirements / WO

Fourth Round
3 – 5
4 – 1
5 Decided after 3 sets – 1
5 Necessary – 1 (Hewitt V Stepanek)
0 Retirements / WO

QF
3 – 2
4 – 1
5 Decided after 3 sets – 1
5 Necessary – 0
0 Retirements / WO

SF
3 – 1
4 – 1
5 Decided after 3 sets – 0
5 Necessary – 0
0 Retirements / WO

F
3 – 0
4 – 0
5 Decided after 3 sets – 1
5 Necessary – 0
0 Retirements / WO

Tournament
3 – 57
4 – 35
5 Decided after 3 sets – 20
5 Necessary – 8
7 Retirements / WO

Overall
5 sets unnecessary – 112
5 sets necessary – 8

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So combining the last two grand slams shows that:
Best-of-5 sets is unnecessary in 226/241 matches (93.8%)
Best-of-5 sets is necessary in 15/241 matches (6.2%)

I have listed the matches that went the distance to produce a different outcome had the match been best-of-3. Federer's two matches at the French Open are notable as he ought to have not got past the fourth round!

Out of these 15 matches, I watched a grand total of...1! (Federer V Del Potro), and I am not a Federer fan so I wouldn't have minded him losing this or against Haas!

I COMPLETELY agree that it is unfair to pay equal prize money for two weeks of unequal work, but I personally don't think that making the women play 5 sets is the right thing to do.

I also agree with a lot of people that early 5-setters are BORING!!! (at least in comparison to 3-setter semis!) and there are VERY few exceptions.

So I guess, if I were the CEO of the ITF, I would bring equality by making QF/SF/F 5-setters, or maybe just SF/F, or perhaps even all second-week matches (4th round forward).

At Wimbledon, this would have meant 5-sets of Mauresmo V Safina, and Azarenka V Petrova... which I would consider beneficial in terms of entertainment value. Venus V Ana would also benefit, but best-of-5 instead of best-of-3 would not change her injuring herself.

SO... are you guys happy that the mentioned men's matches went to five, and would therefore like to see women play five? Do you think men should play 3 sets? Or do you agree that only later rounds should be best-of-5 sets...???

Golovinjured.
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Done to death. :rolleyes:



It's fine as is, just leave it.

Men's five set matches are great.

Women's three set matches are okay, but they'd be even worse if they were five.

njnetswill
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:22 AM
I think being forced to play best of 5 would force women to play smarter tennis. The transition period might include some ugly-ass tennis though. I just don't buy that women wouldn't be able to physically manage best of 5 sets tennis 4 times a year. It is not like female marathon runners run shorter distances. If anything best of 5 would help the girls who are either in fantastic physical shape or have games that don't break down as easily. It might push the women to concentrate on improving their serves so that cheap, fast points are more easy to come by. I have always jokes that best-of-5 might give my girl Dementieva a better chance to win a slam since she always seems willing to grind out those long matches. :o :lol:

danieln1
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:34 AM
I think the grand slam final should be played in five sets, because over the last years, we had a lot of boring finals, straight setter... I think it would add drama to the final!

madmax
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:10 AM
I think women final actually should be best-of-five match...this way we would know for sure which player was clearly better, instead of which one dealt with her nerves better at the start. It would be more entertaining affair and I guess it would give grinders like Dementieva and Safina more hope of winning a slam...

Andy.
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:16 AM
Men should play best of 3 I get board with best of 5 sets they go for way too long.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:22 AM
Men play best of three. Mens tennis is a waste of space at the best of times little lone watching it for 4 to 5 hours. It would then be a lot easier to schedule the day's matches at slams and night matches wouldn't run till 4am in the morning.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:26 AM
I think the grand slam final should be played in five sets, because over the last years, we had a lot of boring finals, straight setter... I think it would add drama to the final!

This wouldn't work. The women played best of three set matches up till the final at the YEC and then a five set final the last time being in 98. The players voted to have all matches best of three for the 99 tournament on wards. :)

Larrybidd
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:43 AM
The only place 5 sets of tennis is bearable is at Wimbledon, because the points are so quick relatively. Even then, 3 sets for everyone would be OK for me. I'd definately watch more men's tennis if it were best of 3. Now my philosophy on watching men's tennis is, call me for the tiebreaker.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:46 AM
No, it should stay like this
The women have just to play better.

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 08:10 AM
Given that the men play best of three in every non GS tourney, make it best of 3 there too. :p

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 8th, 2009, 08:56 AM
Given that the men play best of three in every non GS tourney, make it best of 3 there too. :p
NO !!!
We would have never seen Rafa Roger last year ! This is crazy.

BournemouthBoy
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:33 PM
a) woman have smaller hands than men so the ball with feel slightly larger and heavier
b) men have stronger shoulders than woman so serving for 5 sets is easier
c) men don't have to carry a chest around for 4 hours
d) a maximum of 3 sets means you can play more matches on a court in a day than a 5 set events, a match that goes more than 3 sets is dull to me and I would prefer to see more matches than 2 or 3 long ones.
e) woman are better to look at
f) if you attend a movie in the cinema that last 3 hours, does this mean it will be better than a film that last 90 minutes? NO Quality over Quantity.
g) hope this helps.

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:42 PM
thats what separates the slams from the MM/also ran events
5 sets is much better


the women have it alot easier, they get to play 7 matches over 2 weeks whilst in their normal tour they have to play 6 matches in 6-7 days to win their biggest title. (Miami/IW excluded)

Lunaris
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:44 PM
I COMPLETELY agree that it is unfair to pay equal prize money for two weeks of unequal workATP brings in more money because it's more attractive to people, generates higher TV ratings, therefore men deserve to be paid more than women. It's really simple as that. Good work to present all those stats though.

AndreConrad
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:49 PM
I don't think I have an answer. I would like to see an experiment. Perhaps WTA could test it in one of the big tournaments to see if it works, otherwise our conversation is purely theoretical.

BournemouthBoy
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Men play 5 sets because very few entertaining points in the first 3 sets, if you get a rally of ,more than 3 shots the crowd go wild.

CJ07
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:55 PM
Anyone who doesn't appreciate 5 set matches should re-evaluate whether they're a fan of tennis or whether they're a fan of women's tennis. Men's tennis is basically another sport. In that arena, anything but 5 sets would be completely unacceptable.

Protoss
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Aren't women paid less than men outside of the slams where both men and women play best of 3?

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Aren't women paid less than men outside of the slams where both men and women play best of 3?

thats cos the sponsors are diff and they see sense.

BlameSerena
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:32 PM
Anyone who doesn't appreciate 5 set matches should re-evaluate whether they're a fan of tennis or whether they're a fan of women's tennis. Men's tennis is basically another sport. In that arena, anything but 5 sets would be completely unacceptable.

I don't appreciate 5 set matches unless they are highly entertaining. Most of the time I'm bored. That doesn't mean you're not a fan of tennis.

And if anything other than 5 sets would be completely unacceptable then why do the tournaments outside of the slams play 3 sets?

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:36 PM
And if anything other than 5 sets would be completely unacceptable then why do the tournaments outside of the slams play 3 sets?

thats why slams for the Men are much more appreciated and regarded are tougher to win

BlameSerena
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:38 PM
thats why slams for the Men are much more appreciated and regarded are tougher to win

okay. true for the most part. but each match is different. it is possible to struggle in a best of 3 and cruise in a best of 5, right?

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:41 PM
NO !!!
We would have never seen Rafa Roger last year ! This is crazy.
Am I supposed to care. One good match doesnt make up for the hundreds of mens borefests at GSs every year. :p

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Anyone who doesn't appreciate 5 set matches should re-evaluate whether they're a fan of tennis or whether they're a fan of women's tennis. Men's tennis is basically another sport. In that arena, anything but 5 sets would be completely unacceptable.
Thats crap and you know it. Just because not everyone wants to sit through a 5 hour grind fest best of 5 mens match doesnt mean they arent true tennis fans. If the match is entertaining then fine, but that very rarely happens. But anyway I am first and foremost a fan of WOMENS tennis and Im happy about that. For ME its far more interesting than watch 2 Spaniards plaz a 5 setter at RG that lasts for 5 hours.

Lunaris
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:48 PM
Am I supposed to care. One good match doesnt make up for the hundreds of mens borefests at GSs every year. :pHow do you know it's only one good match if you don't watch 5-setters/men's tennis?

BournemouthBoy
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:01 PM
thats cos the sponsors are diff and they see sense.



i think you will find the Woman get paid more outside slams :) Madird recently is a good example and that was suppoised to be a MAsters Event for the men :devil:

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:06 PM
How do you know it's only one good match if you don't watch 5-setters/men's tennis?
Where did I say I dont watch them. I said I dont LIKE to watch them...I have to watch enough at the AO waiting for the players I actually wanna see to play. :p

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:06 PM
i think you will find the Woman get paid more outside slams :) Madird recently is a good example and that was suppoised to be a MAsters Event for the men :devil:
Most of the time the men get paid more at regular tourneys actually.

Lunaris
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Where did I say I dont watch them. I said I dont LIKE to watch them...I have to watch enough at the AO waiting for the players I actually wanna see to play. :pMaybe if you didn't approach men's matches with despect, bias and disgust you would enjoy them more.

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:15 PM
i think you will find the Woman get paid more outside slams :) Madird recently is a good example and that was suppoised to be a MAsters Event for the men :devil:

thats only cos the ATP do round by round payouts differently

Bijoux0021
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:27 PM
The men should play 3. Their tennis careers would last a lot longer.

Slutiana
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:35 PM
I say women should play 5 sets from the QFs or SFs on in slams.

And yes there are people who are saying that men's tennis is just not as popular, but what about back in the 1997-2003 era when the WTA was BETTER and MORE popular than the men? When the tournaments were gaining more money from the women, when TV ratings were so much higher for the Women, when there was SO MUCH buzz for the young rivalries and bitchiness of the Williams Sisters, Hingis, Kournikova, as well as the Davenports, Capriatis and then later on, the exciting back to back emergence of the belgians Clijsters and Henin in the 2001 FO and Wimbledon finals (I think?). Why didn't the WTA get equal prize money then? Back then the ATP was just boring, spearheaded by the ageing Agassi and Sampras with upsets left, right and centre.

In fact, it's pretty similar to the situation we have here now, with Venus and Serena at 29 and 27 the leaders of the tour, and at their age of course they're not gonna be consistently picking up titles everywhere they go, which is why we have this problem, no solidarity, but these things always renew themselves, there will be someone to pick up the pieces the way the aforementioned picked up the pieces from Seles, ASV, Graf and etc. so why not give equal prize money now? The time will come when the WTA has the better product and then what? We give the WTA more money and take away from the men? That's never gonna happen, so it is right to have equality across the board, in every situation.

BournemouthBoy
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:40 PM
lets find a equal medium here, how about make men & woman play 4 sets?

Expat
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:15 PM
lets find a equal medium here, how about make men & woman play 4 sets?

:haha::haha: And what happens when both players win 2 sets each?

BlameSerena
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:18 PM
I say women should play 5 sets from the QFs or SFs on in slams.

And yes there are people who are saying that men's tennis is just not as popular, but what about back in the 1997-2003 era when the WTA was BETTER and MORE popular than the men? When the tournaments were gaining more money from the women, when TV ratings were so much higher for the Women, when there was SO MUCH buzz for the young rivalries and bitchiness of the Williams Sisters, Hingis, Kournikova, as well as the Davenports, Capriatis and then later on, the exciting back to back emergence of the belgians Clijsters and Henin in the 2001 FO and Wimbledon finals (I think?). Why didn't the WTA get equal prize money then? Back then the ATP was just boring, spearheaded by the ageing Agassi and Sampras with upsets left, right and centre.

In fact, it's pretty similar to the situation we have here now, with Venus and Serena at 29 and 27 the leaders of the tour, and at their age of course they're not gonna be consistently picking up titles everywhere they go, which is why we have this problem, no solidarity, but these things always renew themselves, there will be someone to pick up the pieces the way the aforementioned picked up the pieces from Seles, ASV, Graf and etc. so why not give equal prize money now? The time will come when the WTA has the better product and then what? We give the WTA more money and take away from the men? That's never gonna happen, so it is right to have equality across the board, in every situation.

I completely agree.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Am I supposed to care. One good match doesnt make up for the hundreds of mens borefests at GSs every year. :p
So because women play like shit (most of the time), men should play only 3 sets ?
I don't really understand.

I agree that sometimes men's matches can be really boring (for exemple Roddick vs Karlovic only serves). But most of the time it can be really interesting.

germex
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:24 PM
In my opinion the equal pay is a matter of principles, and I think it is a great thing that tennis projects that image that men and women tennis are considered of the same importance.

Now if that wasn΄t the case, I think the payment would be based on which one draws more income, being attendance, TV rights, merchandise, etc. And not by which one last longer. (I dont know which one is that).

About 5 setters, I love tennis, and I appreciate a great final like the one we just saw (Federer - Rodick), and I remember a great Federer - Nadal in Rome a couple of years ago; but for one of those there are thousands of matches that are too long and too boring. Is terrible when you want to watch the Dementieva -Venus match and turn the TV on, and it is Fernando Gonzalez against Carlos Moya . . . on clay. . . and they are just beginning. . . and you know it is going to be 5 sets. That is probably 3 hours of waiting. I know that, it is subjective but that is my opinion.

toxina90
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:26 PM
Anyone who doesn't appreciate 5 set matches should re-evaluate whether they're a fan of tennis or whether they're a fan of women's tennis. Men's tennis is basically another sport. In that arena, anything but 5 sets would be completely unacceptable.

I sometimes wonder whether these people who say "5 sets are boring" are actually fans of the sport :confused:. Why wouldn't you want to see a longer match which is deeper than a straight sets easy win in the latter stages of a Grand Slam tournament? I just feel sorry for all these "fans" of the WTA who pay alot of money to go and watch their players in the 4R, QF, SF, F of a Grand Slam and end up never getting their moneys worth. Serena V Elena has to be a rarity, and it could really have gone either way.

I personally think alot of players take a while to get into their groove, therefore the 1st set isn't really of much importance. If the women played longer, and earned their money in the latter stages of a Grand Slam tournament, we would at least be guaranteed to see an entertaining match. Even a ball basher, after being crushed in the first two sets, might decide to try new tactics in the 3rd and turn things around. As to whether women can cope for these match durations, I thought these players were professional athletes :confused: and this would only be four times a year :rolleyes:

Current system for Grand Slams on Women's side = Rare interesting matches, where they questionably deserve equal money to the men.

New system where 5 sets are played in 2nd week = Guaranteed satisfaction for the people who go and watch, and perhaps some excitement for spectators around the world, and an end to the debate of women's tennis being as deep as a puddle.

Perhaps ;)

:wavey:

Lunaris
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:26 PM
And yes there are people who are saying that men's tennis is just not as popular, but what about back in the 1997-2003 era when the WTA was BETTER and MORE popular than the men? When the tournaments were gaining more money from the women, when TV ratings were so much higher for the Women,
Some people keep mentioning this but I am yet to see any proof that it's not just a wishful thinking on their part. Personally I don't believe WTA was at any stage of its existence more popular than ATP. Some WTA matches could possibly generate higher TV ratings than their ATP counterparts, but overall I think ATP was always ahead.

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Maybe if you didn't approach men's matches with despect, bias and disgust you would enjoy them more.
Or maybe if they weren't so damn boring I'd like them more? :p

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 09:47 PM
:haha::haha: And what happens when both players win 2 sets each?
match tie break! :bounce: :p

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 09:49 PM
So because women play like shit (most of the time), men should play only 3 sets ?
I don't really understand.

I agree that sometimes men's matches can be really boring (for exemple Roddick vs Karlovic only serves). But most of the time it can be really interesting.
Men already play best of 3 sets at every other tourney apart from the Grand Slams anyway, so I don;t really see what the big deal is. :shrug:

And for ME most mens 5 setters ARE really boring. They just go too long.

DutchieGirl
Jul 8th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I sometimes wonder whether these people who say "5 sets are boring" are actually fans of the sport :confused:. Why wouldn't you want to see a longer match which is deeper than a straight sets easy win in the latter stages of a Grand Slam tournament? I just feel sorry for all these "fans" of the WTA who pay alot of money to go and watch their players in the 4R, QF, SF, F of a Grand Slam and end up never getting their moneys worth. Serena V Elena has to be a rarity, and it could really have gone either way.

I personally think alot of players take a while to get into their groove, therefore the 1st set isn't really of much importance. If the women played longer, and earned their money in the latter stages of a Grand Slam tournament, we would at least be guaranteed to see an entertaining match. Even a ball basher, after being crushed in the first two sets, might decide to try new tactics in the 3rd and turn things around. As to whether women can cope for these match durations, I thought these players were professional athletes :confused: and this would only be four times a year :rolleyes:

Current system for Grand Slams on Women's side = Rare interesting matches, where they questionably deserve equal money to the men.

New system where 5 sets are played in 2nd week = Guaranteed satisfaction for the people who go and watch, and perhaps some excitement for spectators around the world, and an end to the debate of women's tennis being as deep as a puddle.

Perhaps ;)

:wavey:
Well sorry if not wanting to watch a 5 set grind fest between say 2 Spaniards makes you think I am not a tennis fan. Why would I want to watch such a match? God, the amount of people who criticise the womens matches every day here makes me wonder why they even bother to post on here, but that doesn;t mean they aren;t fans of womens tennis. :shrug: If it was a good match, then it's fine, but it's not like the majority of mens best of 5 matches are that great anyway.

jzrnsk
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:38 PM
I think the grand slam final should be played in five sets, because over the last years, we had a lot of boring finals, straight setter... I think it would add drama to the final!

i agree, but i think venus and serena would beat the sport even more because of their great serving. They don't need as much effort on the court, as they can simply outhit their opponents and get free service points.

still, i think women should go to five. clearly, most women still play their best tennis after three sets. this will show the players who can win a lot of sets and not win simply by luck. it also will show who has the endurance to win.

jzrnsk
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:42 PM
I don't appreciate 5 set matches unless they are highly entertaining. Most of the time I'm bored. That doesn't mean you're not a fan of tennis.

And if anything other than 5 sets would be completely unacceptable then why do the tournaments outside of the slams play 3 sets?


the schedule doesn't work. at gs, they have one day rest. at other tournaments, they are three sets because they have no rest. sometimes they have to play two matches in one day if there was rain previously.

jzrnsk
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:47 PM
match tie break! :bounce: :p

then karlovic would simply ace to win the match. those pros who aren't totally warmed up need some time.

jzrnsk
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:47 PM
I sometimes wonder whether these people who say "5 sets are boring" are actually fans of the sport :confused:. Why wouldn't you want to see a longer match which is deeper than a straight sets easy win in the latter stages of a Grand Slam tournament? I just feel sorry for all these "fans" of the WTA who pay alot of money to go and watch their players in the 4R, QF, SF, F of a Grand Slam and end up never getting their moneys worth. Serena V Elena has to be a rarity, and it could really have gone either way.

I personally think alot of players take a while to get into their groove, therefore the 1st set isn't really of much importance. If the women played longer, and earned their money in the latter stages of a Grand Slam tournament, we would at least be guaranteed to see an entertaining match. Even a ball basher, after being crushed in the first two sets, might decide to try new tactics in the 3rd and turn things around. As to whether women can cope for these match durations, I thought these players were professional athletes :confused: and this would only be four times a year :rolleyes:

Current system for Grand Slams on Women's side = Rare interesting matches, where they questionably deserve equal money to the men.

New system where 5 sets are played in 2nd week = Guaranteed satisfaction for the people who go and watch, and perhaps some excitement for spectators around the world, and an end to the debate of women's tennis being as deep as a puddle.

Perhaps ;)

:wavey:



not a bad idea. then steffi graf's opponents might have a chance to get a game on the scoreboard. remember the 32 minute French final with Steffi double bageling! We need five sets.

Lunaris
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:51 PM
Or maybe if they weren't so damn boring I'd like them more? :pOr that, but I fancy my theory a bit more. :p

Slutiana
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:59 PM
Some people keep mentioning this but I am yet to see any proof that it's not just a wishful thinking on their part. Personally I don't believe WTA was at any stage of its existence more popular than ATP. Some WTA matches could possibly generate higher TV ratings than their ATP counterparts, but overall I think ATP was always ahead.
It was though, look at virtually ALL the slam finals in that period (those are the only numbers we have access to), the women were higher time and time again. Were you a fan of tennis back then, because it was pretty obvious that the Women had the better product and more popularity then. :shrug:

Oswald56
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Agree, make everyone play best of three sets for the first week of a Major, then everyone play best of five

BournemouthBoy
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:44 AM
wouldn't work, to many retirements as it is in mens slams 2nd week, imagine how many WTA would retire or not play !

dwynn10
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:20 AM
Men already play best of 3 sets at every other tourney apart from the Grand Slams anyway, so I don;t really see what the big deal is. :shrug:

And for ME most mens 5 setters ARE really boring. They just go too long.

Oh, c'mon, are you really that clueless, or just willfully blind? The issue here is the GS, which are the most prestigious and visible tennis events in a calendar year. The other tournaments pale in comparison. Men play best of 5 at GS. Women play best of 3. Men's tennis gets higher ratings than women's. Therefore, inequality exists, and to get equal pay, the women should damn well play best of 5 too at GS. Simple logic to me, and it should be to you as well. I don't care if you think men's matches are boring to watch. Personal preferences have nothing to do with facts and numbers. Sheesh.

thongcarmen
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:34 AM
I think we should play 3 for both men/women. players will play more aggresive and give out the best tactics. audience enjoy more with long enough match.

Wannabeknowitall
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:41 AM
Oh, c'mon, are you really that clueless, or just intentionally blind? The issue here is the GS, which are the most prestigious and visible tennis events in a calendar year. The other tournaments pale in comparison. Men play best of 5 at GS. Women play best of 3. Men's tennis gets higher ratings than women's. Therefore, inequality exists, and to get equal pay, the women should damn well play best of 5 too at GS. Simple logic to me, and it should be to you as well. I don't care if you think men's matches are boring to watch. Personal preferences have nothing to do with facts and numbers. Sheesh.

Ahhh. So we're using logic.
So men's tennis gets higher rating than women's?
Is that the reason why the US Open final has never been in primetime for the men but it has for the women? :tape:

Sorry the logic is a bit flawed. :wavey:

darrinbaker00
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:46 AM
Ahhh. So we're using logic.
So men's tennis gets higher rating than women's?
Is that the reason why the US Open final has never been in primetime for the men but it has for the women? :tape:

Sorry the logic is a bit flawed. :wavey:
Actually, there are 60 reasons why the US Open men's singles final isn't shown in prime time. Tick, tick, tick, tick.....

dwynn10
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:54 AM
Ahhh. So we're using logic.
So men's tennis gets higher rating than women's?
Is that the reason why the US Open final has never been in primetime for the men but it has for the women? :tape:

Sorry the logic is a bit flawed. :wavey:

Yeah, we're using logic. 2009 Wimby men's final got a 4.2 rating compared to the women's final rating of 3.4 (23.5% less watched) in the same time slot. The reason why they moved the women's final at USO to prime time originally was because of the WS (most prominent American players - no brainer there, hello?!) and to boost ratings for women's tennis, which suggests that it needed boosting.