PDA

View Full Version : If this was women's tennis...


gentenaire
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Look at the men's quarter finals:

number 1 seed wins 6-4 6-3 6-4
number 2 seed wins 6-4 6-4 Ret;
number 3 seed wins 6-3 6-3 2-6 6-4
number 4 seed wins 6-2 6-2 6-3

If this was women's tennis, people would be complaining about the lack of depth.

mboyle
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:16 PM
The world is really sexist. We have established this fact already. The sporting establishment doesn't want women to participate.

alfajeffster
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:33 PM
The world is really sexist. We have established this fact already. The sporting establishment doesn't want women to participate.

Not unless they acquiesce and agree to jump up on the conveyor-belt runway that processesses endless barbi-doll bimbos for the express pleasure and entertainment of men. Women do have some recourse, however. It's called snickering at a tiny penis.

hablo
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:36 PM
Look at the men's quarter finals:

number 1 seed wins 6-4 6-3 6-4
number 2 seed wins 6-4 6-4 Ret;
number 3 seed wins 6-3 6-3 2-6 6-4
number 4 seed wins 6-2 6-2 6-3

If this was women's tennis, people would be complaining about the lack of depth.
Definitely.

Slumpsova
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:43 PM
where is Justin Gimelstob? :rolleyes:

TdF_DBLL
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Agree, but I think this is a exciting woman's GS. While the mens one is boring, cause everybody knew Nadal and Federer should reach semi's, and I would be surprise if they don't make it into final.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:47 PM
It's been noted elsewhere that this hasn't been the most rivetting mens' tournament so far. But if the finals are good, who cares.

Rasputin'sGhost
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:48 PM
Agree, but I think this is a exciting woman's GS. While the mens one is boring, cause everybody knew Nadal and Federer should reach semi's, and I would be surprise if they don't make it into final.

Yes, it is boring. I haven't been able to sit throuh a single match! And you should see the recent photo of Nadal on the ATP website caressing the wall like Marilyn Monroe! Very weird!

Rasputin'sGhost
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:50 PM
It's been noted elsewhere that this hasn't been the most rivetting mens' tournament so far. But if the finals are good, who cares.

Those people who have had to sit through the slug fests (at their own expense) leading up to the final!

deep bass
Jun 7th, 2006, 06:50 PM
I think I'd be able to sit through a men's match if it was only 3 sets, but 5 is too long, especially on clay.

anlavalle
Jun 8th, 2006, 03:08 AM
yes, where are those guys?, the Qf of men side were really boring

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 8th, 2006, 03:25 AM
Men's game is so predictable...

RG: Fedex vs Rafa (definately)
Wimby: Fedex vs "The Rocket" (if he is fit)
AO and US: Fedex vs Whoever is lucky to be in the final.

Makes you think women's tennis is much more exciting isn't it? :lol:

stevos
Jun 8th, 2006, 04:03 AM
God, everyone always complaining about no depth in womens game. Womens seeds 16, 8, 5, 2. They are sexist.

Zauber
Jun 8th, 2006, 04:27 AM
baloney there allways was and still is more debths in men's tennis.
right now there are two exceptional players at the top of men's tennis.
The rest is a dog-fight. lot of debths.
Women tennis has more debth right now than ever before.
Wonen's tennis is increasing greatly as we speak.
However at the very top of women's tennis we do not have an exceptional player at the moment. I am waiting and hoping.

Reuchlin
Jun 8th, 2006, 04:34 AM
The ATP has gotten really odd lately with Lleyton, Andy, and Safin not playing well.

stevos
Jun 8th, 2006, 04:44 AM
Why are you hoping for one exceptional player? I think its great there are so many different players eligible to win a slam. Makes it way more exciting.

switz
Jun 8th, 2006, 05:00 AM
the mens tournament has had quality matches from round 1, whereas the women's event hasn't even had one yet. Nalbandian and Ljubicic had to come from 2 sets, Nadal played a 5 hour plus match with Mathieu and was pushed by Hewitt, and Federer is just a class above.

pretty weak argument but i guess that's the WTA really has

Ferosh
Jun 8th, 2006, 05:20 AM
Yes, it is boring. I haven't been able to sit throuh a single match! And you should see the recent photo of Nadal on the ATP website caressing the wall like Marilyn Monroe! Very weird!

:haha: :haha:

http://www.atptennis.com/shared/photos/other/nadal_blog27.jpg

TF Chipmunk
Jun 8th, 2006, 05:36 AM
:tape:

SharapovaFan16
Jun 8th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Federer Nadal Final vs Anything on the women's side final... Feder, Nadal final much much much much much much one more time much better tennis...

SharapovaFan16
Jun 8th, 2006, 05:41 AM
Men's tournament has been much more exciting, more early upsets... I mean in the French Open when a seed upsets a seed who gives a flying fuck... but when guys like Bennetaeu and Djakovic go deep and you have little upsets here and there much better tennis... sorry men's side is best

gentenaire
Jun 8th, 2006, 06:14 AM
You don't think the Petrova upset was an early upset? What about Mauresmo and Venus being kicked out by the same player? Those were exciting matches. Safina coming back from 1-5 in the final set to win 7-5 against Sharapova, that was pretty exciting. Kuznetsova coming back to win the first set against Safina, Mashona putting up a great fight against Sharapova, etc.

And for those who feel the WTA needs a top player. Remember when the Williams sisters were dominating, how people were complaining that there was no depth because the same players were always winning?

I think women's tennis has gotten very exciting because it's a lot harder to tell who's going to win. Back when it was like that for the men's, people were whining that men's tennis was more exciting because it was less predictable. Now those same people still think men's tennis more exciting because it has top players.

Rexman
Jun 8th, 2006, 06:34 AM
Women have more depth at the top, men have more overall.

A match between the #54 man and the number 6 man is much more likely to be competitive than a match between the #40 woman and then #10 woman. Only seeded women made the round of 16, whereas what, 5 unseeded guys did.

bello
Jun 8th, 2006, 06:38 AM
Women's tennis used to be exactly like that...its only changed over the last say 6 years

Asif_Nawaz
Jun 8th, 2006, 06:51 AM
I Think your right!I mean as a guy I dont think The Womens Circuit lacks depth,I mean it would not be half as exciting if Unseeded or 32 seeded players contested the semis!!

Dunlop1
Jun 8th, 2006, 07:11 AM
Women have more depth at the top, men have more overall.

A match between the #54 man and the number 6 man is much more likely to be competitive than a match between the #40 woman and then #10 woman. Only seeded women made the round of 16, whereas what, 5 unseeded guys did.

Well said!

As an aside, I don't think the men's matches have been boring at all. I find it amazing to watch the INCREDIBLE shotmaking of these guys. The balls have so much spin and pace and the serves are Freaking unreal. I mean how do you serve a 140MPH serve??? :eek:

Brian Stewart
Jun 8th, 2006, 07:32 AM
Yet more proof, if we needed any, of the double standards in tennis reporting. No matter what happens in tennis, if it happens for the men it's spun as good, but if the exact same thing happens for the women, it's portrayed as bad.

2 players dominating and reaching final after final?
On the men's side, it's "exciting" and "a rivalry".
On the women's side, it's "boring" and "predictable"
On the men's side, it's "excellence" by the top players.
On the women's side, it's "lack of depth".

A variety of different players winning?
On the men's side, it's "depth"
On the women's side, it's "lack of top players".

Remember just a litle while ago, when the Federer/Roddick/Safin/Hewitt quartet reigned at the top, adn they were routinely winning early ound slam matches easily? And the media told us it was okay, because it was a sign that they were all playing well, and set up some mouth-watering confrontations later on. And besides, we were told, there were plenty of other competitive matches between non-contenders to entertain us in the early rounds.

Yet when the women were under that same scenario, it was depicted as a huge negative. It was presented as an indictment of the tour if the top players won easily in the early rounds, and the typical 30-40 first week matches that went the distance were ignored because they didn't invovle the top seeds. Somehow, exciting matches between people not expected to contend for the title weren't worthy of mention. (In contrast to, say, the US Open match between Sanguinetti and Srichiphan, two non-title-contenders.)

That's what the gist of this thread is about. It's not about the respective merits of the 2 tours, but how the tours are treated in the media. The hypocrisy. They can't just dismiss claims about double standards over the Federer/Nadal dominance just because they somehow "know" the men have more depth, especially when the Fed/Nadal dominance is the exact sort of "evidence" they used to decry the alleged lack of depth in the women's game. You can't have it both ways. Either it is proof, or it isn't. It can't be accepted to condemn one and not the other.

One last thought: remember a few years ago, pre-Fed when Agassi dominated the Australian Open, and the rest of the Spring, to claim the #1 ranking at the advanced tennis age of 33? Remember how Andre was hailed for his feat? Now imagine if a 33-year-old woman did that on the WTA Tour? Does anyone doubt how different the tennis media would portray it? And they can't excuse it by saying "well, the men have more depth". Sorry, but there was little to indicate it, other than tennis media repeating the same mantra. In fact, more objective observers felt at the time (early '03), that the men's top 10 was the weakest it had ever been. So any qualifier about the relative depths of the 2 tours is immaterial. Based purely on the act of a 33 year old dominating and reaching #1, does anybody doubt that the tennis media would make scathing comments on the women's tour?

But, in all fairness, I have to say that the tennis media is not unique in this regard. It tends to be present in all sports. Dominance by male athletes is portrayed as their individual greatness, whereas similar dominance by females is used to condemn the quality of their competition. The one sport where we haven't seen it as much is track and field, as there are objective marks (speeds, distances, etc.), so one can compare the quality of competition. A writer would look like an idiot if s/he tried to dismiss the dominance of, say, a sprinter due to "lack of depth" if the other runners are among the 10 fastest of all time.

Prizeidiot
Jun 8th, 2006, 08:02 AM
Women have more depth at the top, men have more overall.

A match between the #54 man and the number 6 man is much more likely to be competitive than a match between the #40 woman and then #10 woman. Only seeded women made the round of 16, whereas what, 5 unseeded guys did.
That's quite well put.

vertigo
Jun 8th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Yet more proof, if we needed any, of the double standards in tennis reporting. No matter what happens in tennis, if it happens for the men it's spun as good, but if the exact same thing happens for the women, it's portrayed as bad.

2 players dominating and reaching final after final?
On the men's side, it's "exciting" and "a rivalry".
On the women's side, it's "boring" and "predictable"
On the men's side, it's "excellence" by the top players.
On the women's side, it's "lack of depth".

A variety of different players winning?
On the men's side, it's "depth"
On the women's side, it's "lack of top players".

Remember just a litle while ago, when the Federer/Roddick/Safin/Hewitt quartet reigned at the top, adn they were routinely winning early ound slam matches easily? And the media told us it was okay, because it was a sign that they were all playing well, and set up some mouth-watering confrontations later on. And besides, we were told, there were plenty of other competitive matches between non-contenders to entertain us in the early rounds.

Yet when the women were under that same scenario, it was depicted as a huge negative. It was presented as an indictment of the tour if the top players won easily in the early rounds, and the typical 30-40 first week matches that went the distance were ignored because they didn't invovle the top seeds. Somehow, exciting matches between people not expected to contend for the title weren't worthy of mention. (In contrast to, say, the US Open match between Sanguinetti and Srichiphan, two non-title-contenders.)

That's what the gist of this thread is about. It's not about the respective merits of the 2 tours, but how the tours are treated in the media. The hypocrisy. They can't just dismiss claims about double standards over the Federer/Nadal dominance just because they somehow "know" the men have more depth, especially when the Fed/Nadal dominance is the exact sort of "evidence" they used to decry the alleged lack of depth in the women's game. You can't have it both ways. Either it is proof, or it isn't. It can't be accepted to condemn one and not the other.

One last thought: remember a few years ago, pre-Fed when Agassi dominated the Australian Open, and the rest of the Spring, to claim the #1 ranking at the advanced tennis age of 33? Remember how Andre was hailed for his feat? Now imagine if a 33-year-old woman did that on the WTA Tour? Does anyone doubt how different the tennis media would portray it? And they can't excuse it by saying "well, the men have more depth". Sorry, but there was little to indicate it, other than tennis media repeating the same mantra. In fact, more objective observers felt at the time (early '03), that the men's top 10 was the weakest it had ever been. So any qualifier about the relative depths of the 2 tours is immaterial. Based purely on the act of a 33 year old dominating and reaching #1, does anybody doubt that the tennis media would make scathing comments on the women's tour?

But, in all fairness, I have to say that the tennis media is not unique in this regard. It tends to be present in all sports. Dominance by male athletes is portrayed as their individual greatness, whereas similar dominance by females is used to condemn the quality of their competition. The one sport where we haven't seen it as much is track and field, as there are objective marks (speeds, distances, etc.), so one can compare the quality of competition. A writer would look like an idiot if s/he tried to dismiss the dominance of, say, a sprinter due to "lack of depth" if the other runners are among the 10 fastest of all time.


:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: I salute your eloquence, sir! This is the best post I think I've ever read on this site. I just wish female players would start to note these double standards in interviews.

Notable men at this FO: James Blake and Monfils kept me entertained but that's about all. I shall enjoy the final.

The women's side has been the most exciting slam I've seen for a while. Martina getting so far again, Vaidisova, Safina, Dementieva's wobbles and then eventual victories, Myskina's fights, the intrigue of Petrova out so early, the notion of a Kim - Justine semi (come on Kim!) and the idea that it could have a deserving but brand spanking new champion on Saturday, the list could continue....

The press need to recognise the women's game as fully equal to (or, IMO better than) the men's.

Cersei
Jun 8th, 2006, 09:56 AM
the mens tournament has had quality matches from round 1, whereas the women's event hasn't even had one yet.
There were some tough 3-set matches in the first round. Unfortunatly they weren't on tv.

well not where I live anyway

SvetaPleaseWin.
Jun 8th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Yet more proof, if we needed any, of the double standards in tennis reporting. No matter what happens in tennis, if it happens for the men it's spun as good, but if the exact same thing happens for the women, it's portrayed as bad.

2 players dominating and reaching final after final?
On the men's side, it's "exciting" and "a rivalry".
On the women's side, it's "boring" and "predictable"
On the men's side, it's "excellence" by the top players.
On the women's side, it's "lack of depth".

A variety of different players winning?
On the men's side, it's "depth"
On the women's side, it's "lack of top players".

Remember just a litle while ago, when the Federer/Roddick/Safin/Hewitt quartet reigned at the top, adn they were routinely winning early ound slam matches easily? And the media told us it was okay, because it was a sign that they were all playing well, and set up some mouth-watering confrontations later on. And besides, we were told, there were plenty of other competitive matches between non-contenders to entertain us in the early rounds.

Yet when the women were under that same scenario, it was depicted as a huge negative. It was presented as an indictment of the tour if the top players won easily in the early rounds, and the typical 30-40 first week matches that went the distance were ignored because they didn't invovle the top seeds. Somehow, exciting matches between people not expected to contend for the title weren't worthy of mention. (In contrast to, say, the US Open match between Sanguinetti and Srichiphan, two non-title-contenders.)

That's what the gist of this thread is about. It's not about the respective merits of the 2 tours, but how the tours are treated in the media. The hypocrisy. They can't just dismiss claims about double standards over the Federer/Nadal dominance just because they somehow "know" the men have more depth, especially when the Fed/Nadal dominance is the exact sort of "evidence" they used to decry the alleged lack of depth in the women's game. You can't have it both ways. Either it is proof, or it isn't. It can't be accepted to condemn one and not the other.

One last thought: remember a few years ago, pre-Fed when Agassi dominated the Australian Open, and the rest of the Spring, to claim the #1 ranking at the advanced tennis age of 33? Remember how Andre was hailed for his feat? Now imagine if a 33-year-old woman did that on the WTA Tour? Does anyone doubt how different the tennis media would portray it? And they can't excuse it by saying "well, the men have more depth". Sorry, but there was little to indicate it, other than tennis media repeating the same mantra. In fact, more objective observers felt at the time (early '03), that the men's top 10 was the weakest it had ever been. So any qualifier about the relative depths of the 2 tours is immaterial. Based purely on the act of a 33 year old dominating and reaching #1, does anybody doubt that the tennis media would make scathing comments on the women's tour?

But, in all fairness, I have to say that the tennis media is not unique in this regard. It tends to be present in all sports. Dominance by male athletes is portrayed as their individual greatness, whereas similar dominance by females is used to condemn the quality of their competition. The one sport where we haven't seen it as much is track and field, as there are objective marks (speeds, distances, etc.), so one can compare the quality of competition. A writer would look like an idiot if s/he tried to dismiss the dominance of, say, a sprinter due to "lack of depth" if the other runners are among the 10 fastest of all time.

spot on :worship:

clearly there is more depth in the mens game-but at the top it is becoming predictable unlike in the womens

i wish the media would insult the mens game once in a while rather than taking it out on the women-its the 1st time the top 4 seeds have made it to the semis at RG in the mens singles for 21 years, if thats not a sign that the top players are out on their own i dont know what is!

matthias
Jun 8th, 2006, 10:05 AM
yes, really boring QFs on the men side
i think they dont deserve equal prizemoney ;)

Joana
Jun 8th, 2006, 10:50 AM
QFs were awful on both sides, as had been the earlier rounds. It hasn't been an exciting tournament. There were upsets on women's side but I have not seen a really good and exciting match yet.

azdaja
Jun 8th, 2006, 11:05 AM
i actually thought men's tournament was slightly more interesting. and i don't mind seeing a couple of exceptional players dominating the tour on either men's or women's side. that's not as boring as some people suggest. if anyone can win a tournament that could also be a sign that at the moment there are no exceptional players around.

fifiricci
Jun 8th, 2006, 11:10 AM
if anyone can win a tournament that could also be a sign that at the moment there are no exceptional players around.

Isn't that better than one person dominating the whole tour? I think so!

mike/topgun
Jun 8th, 2006, 11:17 AM
2006 RG sucks!!!
All together there were only 4 matches actually worth watching - that's it...
The quality has always been alot higher on the mens side, so I don't really get what this thread is about... Even if 1,2,3,4 meets in the semis it is a thing that rarely happens at all, so it's kinda strange that on clay, where almost every year experiences some of the most shocking defeats it's still all up to the top4 - but isn't it a surprise after all?

azdaja
Jun 8th, 2006, 11:46 AM
Isn't that better than one person dominating the whole tour? I think so!
not necessarily. that one person does not play all the matches even if he/she wins all the tournaments. and beating that person actually means something when it happens. total randomness is not exciting.

of course, the best thing would be half a dozen exceptional players and a few dozen good ones, but you can't have it all, i suppose.

LostGlory
Jun 8th, 2006, 11:54 AM
Look at the men's quarter finals:

number 1 seed wins 6-4 6-3 6-4
number 2 seed wins 6-4 6-4 Ret;
number 3 seed wins 6-3 6-3 2-6 6-4
number 4 seed wins 6-2 6-2 6-3

If this was women's tennis, people would be complaining about the lack of depth.

I totally agree.....Roland Garros on the men's side is so boring these days, its like everyone is waiting for a Nadal vs Federer final and the rest of the players are just flyers or a decoration to complete the set up......and it will even be more boring if Federer manages to win this year, because there wont be anything to look forward to on the men's side......I haven't watched hardly any matches ....the Nadal / Matheau match was the most competitive this year so far.....unless I missed something.....

Sam L
Jun 8th, 2006, 11:55 AM
It's been noted elsewhere that this hasn't been the most rivetting mens' tournament so far. But if the finals are good, who cares.
Only if Rafa loses.

Direwolf
Jun 8th, 2006, 05:30 PM
as much as i want a Rogael final...I still think that Kuznetsova n that bald guy has a 50 percent chance of an upset..not less...