PDA

View Full Version : Nadal's surprising quote: "Women should play five sets to gain as much as men do"


Sonf@
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Don't know if it's been posted before but it's from today. Also it could seem that this thread should go on Mens Tennis Forums but since it's related to women's tennis i'll put it here. It's in Spanish but I'll translate the part where he says that:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2007/08/17/tenis/1187357297.html?a=517c30d7e0b26770bf7e792978a9296e&t=1187392029

RAFA NADAL, EN LA REVISTA 'TIME'
'Las mujeres deberían jugar cinco sets para ganar lo mismo que un hombre'

El balear asegura que 'el tenis es un deporte más limpio que el ciclismo'http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundodeporte/imagenes/2007/08/17/1187357297_0.jpg http://estaticos02.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundodeporte/iconos/v2.0/ampliarfoto.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:abre_ventana_foto_grande('http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/muestra_foto_grande.html?foto=/elmundodeporte/imagenes/2007/08/17/1187357297_g_0.jpg&alto=561&ancho=512&md5=c89f1dd6e8bcc09e69ee8b9ec425de05','width=522,h eight=601'))
Rafa Nadal devuelve una bola en el partido ante Mónaco, en el que se retiró por lesión. (Foto: EFE)




Actualizado viernes 17/08/2007 15:28 (CET (http://www.elmundo.es/imasd/explica/diferencias_horarias/#CET))
http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/voz.gif (http://www.elmundo.es/tts/rosa_noticia.html?r=%2Felmundodeporte%2F2007%2F08% 2F17%2Ftenis%2F1187357297.html)http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/imprimir.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:imprimir())http://estaticos02.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/enviar.gif (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/envia_noticia.html)http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/fuentemenos.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:disminuyeLetra())http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/fuentemas.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:aumentaLetra())

HUGO ALGUACIL PÉREZ
MADRID.- Rafa Nadal, en Estados Unidos en plena preparación para el US Open, se sometió a un particular test organizado por la revista 'Time' en el que respondió las preguntas de 10 aficionados. El número dos del mundo no rehuyó ningún tema, e incluso se atrevió a hablar de dopaje.
"Por ahora, el tenis es mucho más limpio que el ciclismo, ya que últimamente ha habido mucha gente implicada en ese deporte", afirmó el mallorquín, para luego reconocer que el dopaje es un problema que afecta a la imagen de todos los deportistas.
Preguntado por su relación con Roger Federer y la rivalidad entre ambos, Rafa manifestó que no existe tal rivalidad, sino que "él es el número uno del mundo y yo soy el número dos. Eso sí, cuando juego contra él, tengo una motivación especial".
Al realizarse el cuestionario en Estados Unidos, era casi obligada la pregunta sobre el estado del tenis en ese país. Nadal no cree que estén en crisis, ya que "Roddick es cuarto del mundo y Blake está entre los 10 primeros", aunque luego admitió que ya no es lo mismo que cuando Sampras y Agassi eran los dos mejores tenistas del planeta.
Rafa fue cuestionado sobre la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres a la hora de repartir las ganancias, y aunque en un principio aseguró no tener una opinión formada acerca de este tema, no se cortó a la hora de valorar negativamente que cobren todos lo mismo. "Creo que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales en todos los ámbitos de la vida, pero mi opinión es que si somos iguales, ellas también deberían jugar a cinco sets para ganar el mismo dinero".
Las denuncias de las principales jugadoras del circuito forzaron meses atrás a que el torneo de Wimbledon ofreciese el mismo premio para el campeón y la campeona, como ya hacen el resto de Grand Slams. El club de tenis británico incluía la tesis expuesta por Nadal como uno de los motivos por los que seguía diferenciando a ambos sexos en el reparto económico.
'Seguro que Borg me ganaría'

El número dos del mundo también justificó su 'manía' de morder cada trofeo que vence. "Lo hice la primera vez que gane una competición y me gusta más que besarlo. Es una de mis marcas registradas".
Por último, Rafa escogió un rival con el que le hubiera gustado enfrentarse. Ni Sampras ni McEnroe, el 'elegido' fue Borg. "Él tenía hielo en sus venas, si jugáramos, seguro que él ganaría". Eso nunca se sabrá, pero seguro que se irían a los cinco sets..

----------

Rafa fue cuestionado sobre la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres a la hora de repartir las ganancias, y aunque en un principio aseguró no tener una opinión formada acerca de este tema, no se cortó a la hora de valorar negativamente que cobren todos lo mismo. "Creo que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales en todos los ámbitos de la vida, pero mi opinión es que si somos iguales, ellas también deberían jugar a cinco sets para ganar el mismo dinero".

"Rafa was asked about the equality between men and women regarding prize money, and while at first he claimed not to have a very well formed opinion about the issue he didn't hesitate when he negatively supported the idea: "I think that men and women are equals when talking about every issue, but my opinion is that if we're all equal, they (women) should also play best-of-five-sets matches to gain as much money as we do".

I don't think this helps feminine tennis at all :tape:

but I also think that he has a point but while the only tournaments where men play five-set-matches are the grand slams, both genres play best-of-three everywhere else (but the Masters Cup final) and I do think it should be a great idea to match the facts and not to put women to play best-of-five sets but just cut men's matches to best-of-three even at the grand slams (and we could avoid waiting for those ugly five setters that last five hours to finish in order to watch our faves)

Anyway, I don't think he should have said those words

Kworb
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Tennis is not paid by the hour :rolleyes:

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:30 PM
I like best of five matches. Some of the best matches in recent memory have been five setters:

Federer vs. Safin AO 05
James Blake vs. Agassi USO 05
Federer vs. Nadal Wimbledon 07


And it's tradition. They are NEVER going to reduce GSs to glorified masters events.

Farina Elia Fan
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:33 PM
I agree with him

JeremySun
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:34 PM
Women's sets usually take longer than men's sets. A best 2-out-of-3 sets women's match takes about the same time as a best 3-out-of-5 sets men's match. Besides, unless they want to have 80 percent of WTA players off on injury list, I don't see how women can play 3 out of 5 sets. Just not possible. :o

supergrunt
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:34 PM
but Nadal was my favorite :tears:

Ferosh
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:35 PM
I agree. It should at least be done from the quarterfinals of the slams.

Ferosh
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:35 PM
but Nadal was my favorite :tears:

...and now you are going to dislike him because he has an opinion?

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:37 PM
Good material for Nadal haters

spiceboy
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:38 PM
Surprising? I bet you (at least) 99% of ATP players think the same way.

What it would be surprising is someone saying the opposite :tape:

propi
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:39 PM
Once upon a time, when YEC final was a 5 setter, we had amazing matches as Graf vs Huber or Hingis :)

Pureracket
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:41 PM
What I don't understand, though, is how people who seemingly love womens tennis on this board can agree that the women should not be paid equally. It's as if you're willingly admitting you're preferring a junior varsity team as opposed to the varsity one.

Nicolás89
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:41 PM
i can think of one or maybe two not boring five setters :yawn:

Sally Struthers
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:43 PM
My attention span for tennis is short as it is. 5 sets would bore me to tears. Get it over all ready ya know? Men should drop down to 3 sets in the GSs too like they do for most of the regular tour stops.

Vamos.
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:43 PM
I agree with him.

Mauresmo would probably dominate the tour. :drool:

Sonf@
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Surprising? I bet you (at least) 99% of ATP players think the same way.

What it would be surprising is someone saying the opposite :tape:

Emily, honey, I'm saying it's surprising because Nadal hasn't been known for getting into this kind of discussions (let's forget when he talked about Berdych :lol: ).

Anyway, I think he has a point when talking about that if he's only referring to the Grand Slams, but since he hasn't specified I don't have to do it either, so I assume that he talks in general, and that's where I think he's not right, I mean, I know it's not the players's fault, but women play as much as men do every tournament else and they get paid much lesser but no men ever has stated that.

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:46 PM
What I don't understand, though, is how people who seemingly love womens tennis on this board can agree that the women should not be paid equally. It's as if you're willingly admitting you're preferring a junior varsity team as opposed to the varsity one.

I enjoy women's tennis, almost as much as men's tennis. My favorite player, of both genders, is Serena. But I can't delude myself into thinking that best of five set and best of three set matches are equal activities that deserve equal pay.

I'm not even saying that they should be paid less. If you want to pay them whatever you pay the guys, then fine. I'm just saying that acting like choosing not to pay them is inherently sexist or biased is intellectually dishonest.

Vlover
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:46 PM
What anyone has to say on this issue is highly irrelevant at this point. Its now a done deal therefore all the chauvinists and their sympathizers will just have to accept and deal with it. Next!!

spiceboy
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Emily, honey, I'm saying it's surprising because Nadal hasn't been known for getting into this kind of discussions (let's forget when he talked about Berdych :lol: ).


He must be still sore about her early loss this week. So he might needed a bit of bitching :p

Nicolás89
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:52 PM
What anyone has to say on this issue is highly irrelevant at this point. Its now a done deal therefore all the chauvinists and their sympathizers will just have to accept and deal with it. Next!!

:rolleyes:

Vlover
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:53 PM
:rolleyes:

:wavey:

ezekiel
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:54 PM
the stupid thing about paying both sexes the same at the slams is when you compare it to other tournaments such as canadian "Rogers Cup". In slams men play 5 sets and are paid the same but in Canada they play the same sets but are paid more than twice as women :confused: :tape: Political correctness is always full of hypocrisy

alexia1huff
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:55 PM
It's not new and definitely not surprising (he talked openly about haweye, cancelling monte-carlo, soderling and many other things , which many considered pretty controvercial), cause as we see the organisers and wta don't know what to do, trying to make tennis modern (with the technology) and on the otherhand they try to keep it traditional (wimbledon), they tried 5 setters before, but it didn't work. Still, i think that if the new generations would be trained for playing best of 5 it wouldn't be a big deal. I totally think they should play best of 5, then we wouln't have all these surprise players coming up and winning 3-4 rounds at grand slams, because it would be so much more limited. Yes, i'm sure that there would be many boring matches, but we already have plenty of these, plus it's on for the grand slams and maybe finals of tier 1, so it's not such a great deal!

Seriously, give me reasons not to play best of 5!

mykarma
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Don't know if it's been posted before but it's from today. Also it could seem that this thread should go on Mens Tennis Forums but since it's related to women's tennis i'll put it here. It's in Spanish but I'll translate the part where he says that:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundodeporte/2007/08/17/tenis/1187357297.html?a=517c30d7e0b26770bf7e792978a9296e&t=1187392029

RAFA NADAL, EN LA REVISTA 'TIME'
'Las mujeres deberían jugar cinco sets para ganar lo mismo que un hombre'
El balear asegura que 'el tenis es un deporte más limpio que el ciclismo'http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundodeporte/imagenes/2007/08/17/1187357297_0.jpg http://estaticos02.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundodeporte/iconos/v2.0/ampliarfoto.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:abre_ventana_foto_grande%28%27http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/muestra_foto_grande.html?foto=/elmundodeporte/imagenes/2007/08/17/1187357297_g_0.jpg&alto=561&ancho=512&md5=c89f1dd6e8bcc09e69ee8b9ec425de05%27,%27width=5 22,height=601%27%29)
Rafa Nadal devuelve una bola en el partido ante Mónaco, en el que se retiró por lesión. (Foto: EFE)




Actualizado viernes 17/08/2007 15:28 (CET (http://www.elmundo.es/imasd/explica/diferencias_horarias/#CET))
http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/voz.gif (http://www.elmundo.es/tts/rosa_noticia.html?r=%2Felmundodeporte%2F2007%2F08% 2F17%2Ftenis%2F1187357297.html)http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/imprimir.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:imprimir%28%29)http://estaticos02.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/enviar.gif (http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/envia_noticia.html)http://estaticos03.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/fuentemenos.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:disminuyeLetra%28%29)http://estaticos01.cache.el-mundo.net/elmundo/iconos/v2.1/herramientas/fuentemas.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:aumentaLetra%28%29)

HUGO ALGUACIL PÉREZ
MADRID.- Rafa Nadal, en Estados Unidos en plena preparación para el US Open, se sometió a un particular test organizado por la revista 'Time' en el que respondió las preguntas de 10 aficionados. El número dos del mundo no rehuyó ningún tema, e incluso se atrevió a hablar de dopaje.
"Por ahora, el tenis es mucho más limpio que el ciclismo, ya que últimamente ha habido mucha gente implicada en ese deporte", afirmó el mallorquín, para luego reconocer que el dopaje es un problema que afecta a la imagen de todos los deportistas.
Preguntado por su relación con Roger Federer y la rivalidad entre ambos, Rafa manifestó que no existe tal rivalidad, sino que "él es el número uno del mundo y yo soy el número dos. Eso sí, cuando juego contra él, tengo una motivación especial".
Al realizarse el cuestionario en Estados Unidos, era casi obligada la pregunta sobre el estado del tenis en ese país. Nadal no cree que estén en crisis, ya que "Roddick es cuarto del mundo y Blake está entre los 10 primeros", aunque luego admitió que ya no es lo mismo que cuando Sampras y Agassi eran los dos mejores tenistas del planeta.
Rafa fue cuestionado sobre la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres a la hora de repartir las ganancias, y aunque en un principio aseguró no tener una opinión formada acerca de este tema, no se cortó a la hora de valorar negativamente que cobren todos lo mismo. "Creo que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales en todos los ámbitos de la vida, pero mi opinión es que si somos iguales, ellas también deberían jugar a cinco sets para ganar el mismo dinero".
Las denuncias de las principales jugadoras del circuito forzaron meses atrás a que el torneo de Wimbledon ofreciese el mismo premio para el campeón y la campeona, como ya hacen el resto de Grand Slams. El club de tenis británico incluía la tesis expuesta por Nadal como uno de los motivos por los que seguía diferenciando a ambos sexos en el reparto económico.
'Seguro que Borg me ganaría'

El número dos del mundo también justificó su 'manía' de morder cada trofeo que vence. "Lo hice la primera vez que gane una competición y me gusta más que besarlo. Es una de mis marcas registradas".
Por último, Rafa escogió un rival con el que le hubiera gustado enfrentarse. Ni Sampras ni McEnroe, el 'elegido' fue Borg. "Él tenía hielo en sus venas, si jugáramos, seguro que él ganaría". Eso nunca se sabrá, pero seguro que se irían a los cinco sets..

----------

Rafa fue cuestionado sobre la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres a la hora de repartir las ganancias, y aunque en un principio aseguró no tener una opinión formada acerca de este tema, no se cortó a la hora de valorar negativamente que cobren todos lo mismo. "Creo que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales en todos los ámbitos de la vida, pero mi opinión es que si somos iguales, ellas también deberían jugar a cinco sets para ganar el mismo dinero".

"Rafa was asked about the equality between men and women regarding prize money, and while at first he claimed not to have a very well formed opinion about the issue he didn't hesitate when he negatively supported the idea: "I think that men and women are equals when talking about every issue, but my opinion is that if we're all equal, they (women) should also play best-of-five-sets matches to gain as much money as we do".

I don't think this helps feminine tennis at all :tape:

but I also think that he has a point but while the only tournaments where men play five-set-matches are the grand slams, both genres play best-of-three everywhere else (but the Masters Cup final) and I do think it should be a great idea to match the facts and not to put women to play best-of-five sets but just cut men's matches to best-of-three even at the grand slams (and we could avoid waiting for those ugly five setters that last five hours to finish in order to watch our faves)

Anyway, I don't think he should have said those words
I agree with the men playing three sets. I can ignore Radal because he's still young and am not sure about his culture. He could be repeating what his dad and uncle said.

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:58 PM
I agree with the men playing three sets. I can ignore Radal because he's still young and am not sure about his culture. He could be repeating what his dad and uncle said.

That's never going to happen.

Volcana
Aug 17th, 2007, 11:58 PM
He's totally entitled to his opinion. He should do what Venus did and take it to the All England Club. They've shown they can be persuaded to change, if your arguement is good enough. Venus' arguement was good enough.

thetennisutopian
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:01 AM
That's a shame. I'm not making any excuses for women but women are just built differently and are obviously more fragile. The women's game is plagued with injuries and the fact that the sport is so demanding and that it takes a tole on the female body quite easily is more than enough reason to provide women with equal prize money.

However, there are some mens matches that aren't demanding at all physically even though they are five sets. A straight set win in mens can sometimes be an hour and a half. While some tough straight set victories in women's can last 2 hours. It's a shame that the men of the ATP really do think that women should play five sets... let's face it guys if Chakvetadze had arms like Nadal, I think the women's game would be in a heap of trouble.

CuteKoala
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:04 AM
I agree with Nadal. :yeah:
Men usually spend more time on the court than women. They have to be mentally stronger and physically fitter. As a result, they ought to receive more money than women. This is a totally logical thing in my opinion.

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:06 AM
That's a shame. I'm not making any excuses for women but women are just built differently and are obviously more fragile. The women's game is plagued with injuries and the fact that the sport is so demanding and that it takes a tole on the female body quite easily is more than enough reason to provide women with equal prize money.

However, there are some mens matches that aren't demanding at all physically even though they are five sets. A straight set win in mens can sometimes be an hour and a half. While some tough straight set victories in women's can last 2 hours. It's a shame that the men of the ATP really do think that women should play five sets... let's face it guys if Chakvetadze had arms like Nadal, I think the women's game would be in a heap of trouble.Not following the whole "women are fragile" argument. The human body adjusts to whatever it's called to do. If women had historically been playing 5 sets, their bodies would be adjusted to it.

thetennisutopian
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Not following the whole "women are fragile" argument. The human body adjusts to whatever it's called to do. If women had historically been playing 5 sets, their bodies would be adjusted to it.

OK so, the HUMAN body can be fragile. They're even cutting down on ATP 5 setters so of course someone thinks that playing 5 sets is too demanding on the human body... so why ask women to start making that adjustment now?

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:15 AM
OK so, the HUMAN body can be fragile. They're even cutting down on ATP 5 setters so of course someone thinks that playing 5 sets is too demanding on the human body... so why ask women to start making that adjustment now?Now THAT, I can agree with.

supergrunt
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:16 AM
...and now you are going to dislike him because he has an opinion?

Did I say dat :rolleyes: ?

Ferosh
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Did I say dat :rolleyes: ?

unless your previous message has some sort of "code", anyone with half a brain would have asked the same question.

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:25 AM
Did I say dat :rolleyes: ?

You used the past tense in your last post. Any reason why?

jdyshrky
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:29 AM
Why on earth should women have to change to suit the men, if anything men should change to best of three and save a lot of us the pain of having to watch such lengthy matches.

wta_zuperfann
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:38 AM
Surprising? I bet you (at least) 99% of ATP players think the same way.

What it would be surprising is someone saying the opposite :tape:


If 99 % feel that way, why hasn't any action been taken to insure that there be uniformity in the number of required sets?

With but few exceptions, 3 of 5 matches are boring as hell. 2 of 3 sets is preferable.

njnetswill
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:40 AM
I have always said that women's GS finals should be best of 5. If you are good enough to make it to a GS final you should be fit enough to play a best of 5 match.

supergrunt
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:54 AM
You used the past tense in your last post. Any reason why?

Umm...I am not really sure...

CJ07
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:02 AM
Women need to play best of 5 to get treated equally. Monica Seles played best of five sets, Graf did - the players would be fine. And if not? Then get in better shape and stop playing hit or miss tennis. Inherently speaking, there is no reason why they can't play longer.

If anything it would make quality better, because players would adapt their games so they wouldn't hit every other shot out

spencercarlos
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:04 AM
I agree with him
Me too women deserve less.

faboozadoo15
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Nadal is not an intelligent man or boy. We should thank our lucky stars he just hits tennis balls and has nothing to do with how the tours are run.

Anyway, there are several obvious reasons why women's matches should not be 5 setters in slams.

1. Haven't we found that it's hard enough to keep a major on course with delays without EACH women's match requiring 1 or 2 sets more average? So many more women's matches would be on side courts.
2. Men's matches are far more routine. Players hold serve with far more ease than women. A women's 3 set match can take longer than a 4 or 5 setter from the men.
3. Aren't the injuries bad enough as it is?
4. The bore factor. Can you even imagine what a third set would have looked like in the Wimbledon final?! Tell Bartoli after she'd been kicked around the court for 2 sets that she needs to play another, and I'm guessing you'd not find inspired tennis worth watching. We have the same issues in the early rounds for the men. Those poor sould who have to play a third set against Federer after losing the first two 6-2 are felt sorry for. The tennis sucks too as Federer is just on cruise control as his opponrnts make errors to hurry off the court.

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Nadal is not an intelligent man or boy. We should thank our lucky stars he just hits tennis balls and has nothing to do with how the tours are run.

Anyway, there are several obvious reasons why women's matches should not be 5 setters in slams.

1. Haven't we found that it's hard enough to keep a major on course with delays without EACH women's match requiring 1 or 2 sets more average? So many more women's matches would be on side courts.
2. Men's matches are far more routine. Players hold serve with far more ease than women. A women's 3 set match can take longer than a 4 or 5 setter from the men.
3. Aren't the injuries bad enough as it is?
4. The bore factor. Can you even imagine what a third set would have looked like in the Wimbledon final?! Tell Bartoli after she'd been kicked around the court for 2 sets that she needs to play another, and I'm guessing you'd not find inspired tennis worth watching. We have the same issues in the early rounds for the men. Those poor sould who have to play a third set against Federer after losing the first two 6-2 are felt sorry for. The tennis sucks too as Federer is just on cruise control as his opponrnts make errors to hurry off the court.

He wasn't arguing that women's matches should be best of five sets. He was commenting that it should be best of five if women expect equal prize money at slams.

faboozadoo15
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:09 AM
He wasn't arguing that women's matches should be best of five sets. He was commenting that it should be best of five if women expect equal prize money at slams.

Well the prize money is already equal. It isn't about expectations anymore.
He's basically arguing that this should be changed since the other has already happened.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:10 AM
Nadal is not an intelligent man or boy. W

Funny , cuz your fave Sharapova is not a future winner of Nobel Prize :rolleyes:

serenaforever
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:12 AM
I disagree

Jeff
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:13 AM
I do agree on what Nadal says. There is no doubt that men and women should be treated equally in sports, so then if it is required that they are paid the same, then it should also be required that they play the same. Either the men should be bumped down to best of three in the slams and the year-ending event, or the women should be bumped up to five sets.

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:13 AM
Well the prize money is already equal. It isn't about expectations anymore.
He's basically arguing that this should be changed since the other has already happened.

I think it's more of a principaled opinion than a pragmatic one.

Jeff
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:17 AM
By the way, I think that a big part of the support for women getting equal prize money, is that they hold their share of ticket sales and money to the sport...well at least, that used to be part of my agreement for the equal prize money. But, since top players are paid under the table to show up to non-slams, I think that should be a non issue. Obviously the real issue is the slams, and so i think if they are going to get paid equally they should have to work just as hard.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:23 AM
Nadal may like the idea of women playing five sets now, but I wonder if he would still have the same feelings on one of those rainy days at Wimbledon when he doesn't only have to wait until, say Hewitt has finished one of his five set marathons - but also until the end of a possible five set womens match before he gets on to play his own match. These guys seem to forget that best of five set matches take up a lot of time. If the women play best of five too the slams will need to adjust their schedule to three instead of two weeks. If they insist on doing it in two weeks we all know which sex will get to play on the show courts and which sex will be banned to the outside courts, don't we? :(

DomenicDemaria
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Why should he care if the women get paid the same as the men. Its doesn't mean he gets any less money.

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Nadal may like the idea of women playing five sets now, but I wonder if he would still have the same feelings on one of those rainy days at Wimbledon when he doesn't only have to wait until, say Hewitt has finished one of his five set marathons - but also until the end of a possible five set womens match before he gets on to play his own match. These guys seem to forget that best of five set matches take up a lot of time. If the women play best of five too the slams will need to adjust their schedule to three instead of two weeks. If they insist on doing it in two weeks we all know which sex will get to play on the show courts and which sex will be banned to the outside courts, don't we? :(

Nadal's number two seed and two time consecutive finalist. He'll never play a match off of center court. And considering that Wimbledon will be putting retractable roofs up, the top seeds won't really have to worry about rain delays. Especially if they were to get rid of that ridiculous middle Sunday tradition.

DutchieGirl
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:34 AM
I do agree on what Nadal says. There is no doubt that men and women should be treated equally in sports, so then if it is required that they are paid the same, then it should also be required that they play the same. Either the men should be bumped down to best of three in the slams and the year-ending event, or the women should be bumped up to five sets.

In that case, we should start charging by the hour, and the players who play more hours in a tournament get more money. What about sporting teams where not every player gets paid the same amount? Do you measure it by time on court, or points/goals/baskets scored per person? Most of the mens matches at GSs in the early rounds are freaking boring and over pretty damn quick anyway! It's only once you get to about the 4th round that you tend to get more interesting matches. I'd prefer making mens matches best of 3 anyway. Bets of 5 is too boring and long if you happen to get a 5 setter. And it's not like the men play best of 5 sets every tournament, yet at every other tournament they seem to get more money than the women. :shrug: There have been multiple discussions about this before. Tennis is about who people are paying to go see as much as it is about time spent on court during matches (and don't you think the girls train as much as the guys outside of match time, and shouldn't they also be rewarded in some way for that effort)? It's hard to judge that at Grand Slams because unless you poll every person on every match they have gone to see at a Slam, you won't know if they prefer to go watch the men or the women. Supply and demand is at work. ;)

DutchieGirl
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Why should he care if the women get paid the same as the men. Its doesn't mean he gets any less money.

Oh but it's unfair... he may have to spend another 2 hours on court during a tournament while the spectators are bored silly. ;) :angel:

supergrunt
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:45 AM
It is not about money..it's about being treated as equals :armed: !

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:57 AM
It is not about money..it's about being treated as equals :armed: !

Question: Do you think best of three set matches and best of five set matches are equal?

santhuruu
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:03 AM
You know what, even Wimbledon broke one of the traditions you know with paying equal prize money, which didn't seem to happen this quickly. So I would just say let the men play best of three sets,and okay maybe only in a Slam final best of five sets. But you know if the men play best of three sets, than also if there are rain delays the other matches don't have to be postponed for so long because a five set match is going on on a court.

faboozadoo15
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:20 AM
He'll never play a match off of center court.

Do you even watch Wimbledon? Federer doesn't even get all his matches on Centre Court.

And I just love how you've failed to address any of the points in my first post in this thread. :tape:

Barrie_Dude
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:28 AM
:lol: This has been an ongoing argument for years! I seem to recall that they used to both play 5!

Barrie_Dude
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:29 AM
It is not about money..it's about being treated as equals :armed: !
Actually, it is partly about the money!;)

Barrie_Dude
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:30 AM
In that case, we should start charging by the hour, and the players who play more hours in a tournament get more money. What about sporting teams where not every player gets paid the same amount? Do you measure it by time on court, or points/goals/baskets scored per person? Most of the mens matches at GSs in the early rounds are freaking boring and over pretty damn quick anyway! It's only once you get to about the 4th round that you tend to get more interesting matches. I'd prefer making mens matches best of 3 anyway. Bets of 5 is too boring and long if you happen to get a 5 setter. And it's not like the men play best of 5 sets every tournament, yet at every other tournament they seem to get more money than the women. :shrug: There have been multiple discussions about this before. Tennis is about who people are paying to go see as much as it is about time spent on court during matches (and don't you think the girls train as much as the guys outside of match time, and shouldn't they also be rewarded in some way for that effort)? It's hard to judge that at Grand Slams because unless you poll every person on every match they have gone to see at a Slam, you won't know if they prefer to go watch the men or the women. Supply and demand is at work. ;)
But the womens matches get better ratings on TV in Northa America!;)

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Do you even watch Wimbledon? Federer doesn't even get all his matches on Centre Court.

And I just love how you've failed to address any of the points in my first post in this thread. :tape:

Had it not been for rain delays, nadal probably would have played every match on centre court. The three matches that weren't- his 8 day long match with Soderling, his match with Youznhy, and his semis with Djokovic- were all backlogged due to rain. And again, with a retractable roof, matches played on center court won't suffer from rain delays.

And as for your first post, I agree with you. Women's five setters would probably be bad for the sport. But then, they shouldn't be given equal prize money either.

faboozadoo15
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:42 AM
But you're missing the point: Simply no one except the top Brit goes the entire fortnight with all their matches on Centre. Can't remember the last time this happened with someone who made it to the final...

And it won't be happening with Nadal.

Jeff
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:54 AM
In that case, we should start charging by the hour, and the players who play more hours in a tournament get more money. What about sporting teams where not every player gets paid the same amount? Do you measure it by time on court, or points/goals/baskets scored per person? Most of the mens matches at GSs in the early rounds are freaking boring and over pretty damn quick anyway! It's only once you get to about the 4th round that you tend to get more interesting matches. I'd prefer making mens matches best of 3 anyway. Bets of 5 is too boring and long if you happen to get a 5 setter. And it's not like the men play best of 5 sets every tournament, yet at every other tournament they seem to get more money than the women. :shrug: There have been multiple discussions about this before. Tennis is about who people are paying to go see as much as it is about time spent on court during matches (and don't you think the girls train as much as the guys outside of match time, and shouldn't they also be rewarded in some way for that effort)? It's hard to judge that at Grand Slams because unless you poll every person on every match they have gone to see at a Slam, you won't know if they prefer to go watch the men or the women. Supply and demand is at work. ;)

You're misunderstanding my point, because my point has nothing to do with who ticket holders want to see. Like I said, the particular females who attract those sellers get plenty of their share of money under the table at non slams for that. My point is that if women want to be truly equal like they fought for, then the way in which they play should be equal. Sure they train just as hard as the men, and some train harder than others for both sides, and some male and females attract the majority of ticket sales...but i'm not talking about individuals and this topic is not about individuality, it's about equality between genders. You can chose do disagree, and clearly you do disagree, but I believe that if the point is for women to be treated equally to the men then the same rules should be applied equally for both sides (with both required to play an equal amount of sets). Certainly the best way to solve that would be to have the men play best of three, as well, but of course there are several who disagree with that too.

winone23
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:57 AM
What anyone has to say on this issue is highly irrelevant at this point. Its now a done deal therefore all the chauvinists and their sympathizers will just have to accept and deal with it. Next!!

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

RJWCapriati
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:57 AM
All matches should be best of 3 for men & women in my belief

Miranda
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:14 AM
why nadal is not allowed to voice his own opinion? after all, his opinion does not mean he is looking down on women :angel:

ttaM
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:18 AM
There are many WTA match-ups that I would like to see 5 sets played, but the fact is we can barely get a quality three set match out of a lot of the top players. I can just imagine how error-filled a 5 setter would be for some of the top women players today. I say keep it at three and just hope for the best. At this point 5 set matches will do more harm than good in the long run.

Erika_Angel
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:20 AM
I honestly don't understand why Men's GS matches are 5 sets, while the majority of the rest of the events are best of 3. :confused: Does that not create a whole new dynamic in terms of fitness and stamina? If you have a tour, shouldn't the rules be moderated and consistent throughout all events?

Goai
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:21 AM
Agreed. But 5 sets of women tennis would kill tennis.

On the other hand, sports people get paid too much anyway so just reduce prizemoney.

DutchieGirl
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:49 AM
You're misunderstanding my point, because my point has nothing to do with who ticket holders want to see. Like I said, the particular females who attract those sellers get plenty of their share of money under the table at non slams for that. My point is that if women want to be truly equal like they fought for, then the way in which they play should be equal. Sure they train just as hard as the men, and some train harder than others for both sides, and some male and females attract the majority of ticket sales...but i'm not talking about individuals and this topic is not about individuality, it's about equality between genders. You can chose do disagree, and clearly you do disagree, but I believe that if the point is for women to be treated equally to the men then the same rules should be applied equally for both sides (with both required to play an equal amount of sets). Certainly the best way to solve that would be to have the men play best of three, as well, but of course there are several who disagree with that too.

No, I'm not missing the point. The fact that the TOP (ie maybe the top 20 women, what about the other poor buggers not in the top 20) get paid appearance money at other tourneys isn't what we are talking about. The men get paid appearance money at other tourneys too, so it doesn't make it equal, and the men get more money at other tourneys. If you were running a joint tourney, and you had 1 mens and 1 womens match on at the same time, and there were 5000 people at the womens match and 100 at the mens, then obviously the man isn't bringing in the spectators, therefore why would he deserve equal pay? As I said, it's hard to know who people come to watch at the GSs (or any joint tourney), but WHO the people come to watch has to be taken into a ccount as well, not just hours on court. Like I said before with team sports...why is it that some players get paid more than others then? Because people come to watch them, because they can play. In most team sports, all players in a team don't get paid equally, and their pay doesn't go on how long they spent on court/field!

DutchieGirl
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:50 AM
I honestly don't understand why Men's GS matches are 5 sets, while the majority of the rest of the events are best of 3. :confused: Does that not create a whole new dynamic in terms of fitness and stamina? If you have a tour, shouldn't the rules be moderated and consistent throughout all events?

Thing is, ATP don't run the GSs, ITF do - so it's two separate entities. ;)

DutchieGirl
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:50 AM
why nadal is not allowed to voice his own opinion? after all, his opinion does not mean he is looking down on women :angel:

:scratch: he is - doesn't mean we have to agree on it though. ;)

selyoink
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:05 AM
I am very much against women playing best of 5 set matches. The vast majority of them would be horrible blowouts. It would be rare for there to be classics in my opinion.

I am also totally against the men not playing best of 5 sets at slams.

gotthebend
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:12 AM
Whatever. Changes(equal prize money without women having to play 5 sets) are already made in grand slams. There's no turning back.;)
I respect Nadal's opinion though. He's such a fighter on court.
Male and Female players can both learn something from his fighting spirit.

No Name Face
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:33 AM
i agree with this...dementieva would be the de facto #1 or #2. :drool:

Sir Stefwhit
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:24 AM
My attention span for tennis is short as it is. 5 sets would bore me to tears. Get it over all ready ya know? Men should drop down to 3 sets in the GSs too like they do for most of the regular tour stops.
Agreed!

pcrtennis
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:28 AM
This is assuming women are as physically strong, fit as men which just isn't the case...so the basis for this argument is not really legitimate...

Erika_Angel
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:35 AM
Thing is, ATP don't run the GSs, ITF do - so it's two separate entities. ;)

Yes I'm aware of that, however you'd think they'd have made an agreement on either 5 set or 3 sets, it's ludicrous to play 5 sets in some tournaments and 3 in others. Some Masters are 5 sets aren't they, like the finals?

not a BLUE FLAG

Wannabeknowitall
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:35 AM
That's nice of him.

I believe that the men should get less money in joint tournaments unless like the women they become sex symbols.
So that would mean that Nadal would have to stop pulling his ass and his dick and use some medicine to get rid of that aggressive jock itch he seems to have.

sfselesfan
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:48 AM
I totally disagree with him but he's so f-king adorable that I immediately forgive him.

SF

Jeff
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:52 AM
No, I'm not missing the point. The fact that the TOP (ie maybe the top 20 women, what about the other poor buggers not in the top 20) get paid appearance money at other tourneys isn't what we are talking about. The men get paid appearance money at other tourneys too, so it doesn't make it equal, and the men get more money at other tourneys. If you were running a joint tourney, and you had 1 mens and 1 womens match on at the same time, and there were 5000 people at the womens match and 100 at the mens, then obviously the man isn't bringing in the spectators, therefore why would he deserve equal pay? As I said, it's hard to know who people come to watch at the GSs (or any joint tourney), but WHO the people come to watch has to be taken into a ccount as well, not just hours on court. Like I said before with team sports...why is it that some players get paid more than others then? Because people come to watch them, because they can play. In most team sports, all players in a team don't get paid equally, and their pay doesn't go on how long they spent on court/field!

Like I said, you clearly disagree with me and that's fine. Your logic is that women bring in more money/spectators, and my point is that this should have nothing to do when determining equality. From your perspective then, women shouldn't be equal to men, rather they should make even more than the men. You compare the celebrity of other sport athletes salary to tennis, and I'm saying this is already done under the table. Yes, men get the money under the table too, but do you think any of them receive more than Serena Williams? I think not. A negotiated salary, of say a football player, is not the same as prize money. I think money from sponsors and appearance fees are enough to satisfy the major ticket sellers, while "prize money" should be static with both sides playing an equal amount of sets. And if you really think that 5000 people would be watching a women's match over a men's match, then you must be referring to either a match including Venus, Serena, or Sharapova....or for the Men either Federer, Roddick or Nadal to have significantly more viewers. These players should not determine that their entire gender receive more prize money.

Mana
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Slam finals should aleast be 5 stetters.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:54 AM
Nadal's number two seed and two time consecutive finalist. He'll never play a match off of center court.
Sure, but my point is that if the womens matches take longer, there will be (overall) fewer matches on centre court and No.1 and you can bet that many of the womens matches that are now on the major courts would be moved to the outside courts, not the mens.

Martian Jeza
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:02 AM
One of the biggest macho of the tennis tour has spoken. May I remind Nadal, Men also play 3 setters match during the whole season except in GS. Should also non-GS tournaments go with 5 setters matches ? Come on, this guy isn't real.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:03 AM
I believe that if the point is for women to be treated equally to the men then the same rules should be applied equally for both sides (with both required to play an equal amount of sets). Certainly the best way to solve that would be to have the men play best of three, as well, but of course there are several who disagree with that too.
Well, I don't think that the men even WANT to play best of three set matches in the slams. And to be honest about it, personally I prefer best of five mens matches in the slams. Seems to me that both genders play under the formula that both of them prefer. No need for change in that regard IMO, things are fine as they are.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:23 AM
i agree with this...dementieva would be the de facto #1 or #2. :drool:

Good idea

We want 5 sets at GS :p

A Magicman
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:27 AM
He is just so right.

Having seen that crap which was brought to the audience by Igor and Golovin yesterday - excuse me. Anyone who saw that as his first women's tennis match will never ever return for more.

Loving womens tennis more than mens tennis, I am opposed to the same payment. For exactly the reason that Nadal is quoting.

Officinale
Aug 18th, 2007, 08:59 AM
he is right

Dexter
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:13 AM
Please Vamos shut up and start learning English.

chloe-l
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:15 AM
That's nice of him.

I believe that the men should get less money in joint tournaments unless like the women they become sex symbols.
So that would mean that Nadal would have to stop pulling his ass and his dick and use some medicine to get rid of that aggressive jock itch he seems to have.

LOL. :lol:

maja.amelie
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:31 AM
I can't agree with him.But he still my favourite :kiss:

maja.amelie
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Please Vamos shut up and start learning English.

Please Vamos shut up Nadal's haters :p

maryjane
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:42 AM
this will be always a hot topic.i don't agree with him even if i can understand men's perplexities:they always have hard matches and they happen more often than into women circuit.but they shoud start thinking about their own world.why to care about women?nobody took money from their pockets.

samn
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:48 AM
Once upon a time, when YEC final was a 5 setter, we had amazing matches as Graf vs Huber or Hingis :)

You thought Graf vs. Hingis was a good match? Wasn't the scoreline something like 6-3 4-6 6-0 4-6 6-0, with Graf severely hampered by a back injury and Hingis barely able to move in the final set because of cramps? The match may have lasted five sets, but I'm sorry, the match was exciting for only about a couple of games in the fourth set when Hingis gave it her all to close out the set only to completely fade out in the fifth. The Graf vs Huber and Seles vs Sabatini (1990 F) matches were of much higher quality, yes.

xan
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:59 AM
Five set matches are usually crashing bores with scores like 6-4 4-6 7-6 5-7 7-9, based on one break of serve or so per set.

The main reason five set matches are not going to come for women in the Slams because of scheduling. Schedules are tight enough as it is, so having courts blocked by enormous five set womens matches is not going to happen. It might be possible to reduce mens doubles matches to 3 sets to make room in the schedules. (Mens doubles matches seem the least popular with the public at the Slams anyway because they drag on so long.) But mens doubles matches are usually held later on in the two weeks, precisely because more courts are free in the later stages.

spencercarlos
Aug 18th, 2007, 10:13 AM
Once upon a time, when YEC final was a 5 setter, we had amazing matches as Graf vs Huber or Hingis :)
You forgot the best of them all Seles vs Sabatini.. the stats of that match are the best ones i have seen in a womens match.. ever.

Edward.
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:04 PM
I despise Nadal.

But he's completely right here.

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:15 PM
He is just so right.

Having seen that crap which was brought to the audience by Igor and Golovin yesterday - excuse me. Anyone who saw that as his first women's tennis match will never ever return for more.

Loving womens tennis more than mens tennis, I am opposed to the same payment. For exactly the reason that Nadal is quoting.

forgive me for mentioning the ATP but this is related (ty mods;) )

If anyone saw the match between the #1 player on the ATP (for the past 3 years) vs the #19 guy (aka Fed vs Baggy) then NO ONE would watch tennis in general having seen that GARBAGE come from top men's player who obviously always give better quality then women....and this is coming from a FED lover......the matches in cincy this week for the men have been piss poor!!!! and are 2/3 matches but yet they will be paid more for the crap they are putting on.....women do the same job as the men and thus must be paid equally....don't talk about quality because there are hardly any "quality" (apparently defined as long matches with both players playing well) on the ATP....did you happen to see the AO semi between Fed and Roddick? or how about the Masters Cup final last year between Fed and Blake? or maybe the entire AO this year when Fed didn't lose a single set en route to winning the title (spectacular though it was) but then compare that to the women's side where the eventual champion was sometimes on the brink of defeat or was in a really tough 2-setter...or at Wimbledon...do you think Fed was in any danger of losing his title until you saw the final? was there a guaranteed women's champ? maybe you people need to watch the ATP more closely and be aware that they do NOT produce quality tennis in either the regular, masters, or GS all the time...and none of them, with the exception of this year's wimby final, can come close to the final between Davenport and Venus or the semi between Venus and Masha...and if you want to counter with the #1 player (MoMo) being bagelled by two players and saying that would never happen to Fed again refer to the match vs Baggy or his loss to Volandri (I'm sorry who?) and to Canas (someone now coming back from suspension) and his brainfart against Nole last week in Montreal.....people need to get real if they think the ATP produces more quality then the WTA....need I mention JJ vs Ana in LA last week? men play just as much nonsense over a 3/5 sets in a GS as people claim women play in 2/3 sets....anyone who thinks differently needs to pay more attention to both....

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:22 PM
I despise Nadal.

But he's completely right here.

Ditto.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:24 PM
"Creo que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales en todos los ámbitos de la vida, pero mi opinión es que si somos iguales, ellas también deberían jugar a cinco sets para ganar el mismo dinero".

Of course they aren't :tape: Plus women are not fit enough to play 5 sets.
It would kill women's tennis. And it would kill my interest in tennis, I hardly ever watch those boring men's 5setters, they just last for too long.
Nadal should just stick to playing tennis, if only he had seen Golovin-Kuznetsova :tape:

Lunatiq
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:41 PM
I agree with him...

frenchie
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:43 PM
He should stick with tennis and close his mouth!

Lunaris
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Womens 5-setters would be of similar quality like yesterdays Kuznetova - Golovin match. Borefest and crap. Besides women are injured enough without playing 5-setters I think.
Men should stick with 5-setters at Slams though. There are many classic matches to be seen and I really don't want to lose that.
Idea of equal prize money at Slams is simply wrong and I will never agree with it. On the other hand women should get the same prize-money as men at other tournaments of same "tier" where they play best-of-three sets as well. All this stuff is the biggest paradox in modern tennis.

mykarma
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:47 PM
That's nice of him.

I believe that the men should get less money in joint tournaments unless like the women they become sex symbols.
So that would mean that Nadal would have to stop pulling his ass and his dick and use some medicine to get rid of that aggressive jock itch he seems to have.
:lol::lol::lol:

Naranoc
Aug 18th, 2007, 12:50 PM
My attention span for tennis is short as it is. 5 sets would bore me to tears. Get it over all ready ya know? Men should drop down to 3 sets in the GSs too like they do for most of the regular tour stops.

How on earth does that logically follow? :confused: Just because you have a poor attention span, it doesn't mean that most men's tennis fans should be deprived of watching the excellent five-set matches that have taken place over the years, both in Grand Slams and elsewhere.

thrust
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:03 PM
They should keep the format as it is, but just give the women a little less money.

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:16 PM
How on earth does that logically follow? :confused: Just because you have a poor attention span, it doesn't mean that most men's tennis fans should be deprived of watching the excellent five-set matches that have taken place over the years, both in Grand Slams and elsewhere.

how many classic men's 5-setters have you seen?? :confused: and what i don't understand is why people think you can't have a classic 3 set match :confused: :confused: this isn't a per hour sport and since women aren't playing any better or worse than the men (people seem to forget on the men's side you get 5 set atrocities) they should be payed equally

Gerri
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:49 PM
That's nice of him.

I believe that the men should get less money in joint tournaments unless like the women they become sex symbols.
So that would mean that Nadal would have to stop pulling his ass and his dick and use some medicine to get rid of that aggressive jock itch he seems to have.

:yeah: :lol: And stop grunting as though he's having a difficult bowel movement.

The five vs three sets argument is so tired. Some matces are great, some are crap and a lot are somewhere in between. I want to see good stuff whether it last one hour or three hours. I don't want to see arse picking and sweat-soaked furry armpits.

Hashim.
Aug 18th, 2007, 01:54 PM
agreed :p

Apoleb
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:00 PM
I'm not a big fan of the whole equal pay thing, but I think the men should just put up and shut up. The whole difference in the first place was a few thousand dollars, and it's not like both are fighting to make a living.

Naranoc
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:05 PM
how many classic men's 5-setters have you seen?? :confused: and what i don't understand is why people think you can't have a classic 3 set match :confused: :confused: this isn't a per hour sport and since women aren't playing any better or worse than the men (people seem to forget on the men's side you get 5 set atrocities) they should be payed equally

:shrug:

- 2001 Wimbledon; Goran Ivanisevic bt. Pat Rafter 6-3 3-6 6-3 2-6 9-7
- 2000 US Open; Todd Martin bt. Carlos Moya 6-7 (3/7) 6-7 (7/9) 6-1 7-6 (8/6) 6-2
- 2003 Australian Open; Andy Roddick bt. Younes El Aynaoui 4-6 7-6 (7/5) 4-6 6-4 21-19
- 2003 Davis Cup; Lleyton Hewitt bt. Roger Federer 5-7 2-6 7-6 (7/4) 7-5 6-1
- 2004 Australian Open; Canas bt. Henman 6-7(5) 5-7 7-6(3) 7-5 9-7
- 2003 Roland Garros; Coria bt. Zabaleta 6-4 7-6(4) 5-7 6-7(4) 6-3
- 2005 Australian Open; Safin bt. Federer 5-7 6-4 5-7 7-6(6) 9-7
- 2006 ATP Masters Series Rome; Nadal bt Federer 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5)
- 2004 Roland Garros; Gaudio bt. Coria 0-6 3-6 6-4 6-1 8-6
- 2001 Wimbledon; Federer bt. Sampras 7-6(7) 5-7 6-4 6-7(2) 7-5

I could also include many 4 set matches :), and of course, a match doesn't have to be a "classic" for it to add weight to the 5 set matches argument. There are many five-setters I have enjoyed, but wouldn't classify them as classics :shrug:

I'm not even disputing whether women should be paid the same number of prize money or not. I only posted to respond to the idea that men should play 3 setters. They're not complaining about it and the fans aren't (go on MTF and make this suggestion to see how it's received), so why should it be changed according to the whims of a few, just to "settle" the equal pay debate? :confused: Besides, and regardless of some of the "atrocities" that take place, men's tennis still has much more variation than women's, so I certainly wouldn't agree with the argument that they're not playing any better or worse than the men.

Geisha
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:05 PM
5 setters take too long & only reduce quality of play.

I understand Nadal's point of view, but Venus said it best. She said that she worked just as hard as every other male tennis player to get where she is, & if female tennis was a 5-set tour, she'd still be playing.

Neptune
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:07 PM
Womens 5-setters would be of similar quality like yesterdays Kuznetova - Golovin match. Borefest and crap. Besides women are injured enough without playing 5-setters I think.
Men should stick with 5-setters at Slams though. There are many classic matches to be seen and I really don't want to lose that.
Idea of equal prize money at Slams is simply wrong and I will never agree with it. On the other hand women should get the same prize-money as men at other tournaments of same "tier" where they play best-of-three sets as well. All this stuff is the biggest paradox in modern tennis.

Agreed, nothing more to add.

federer
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:40 PM
He is completely right here,

égalité
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:43 PM
I don't agree with him, because it's not like the women walk out on the court and say, "I don't feel like playing five sets today, sorry!" Other people make the rules for them. But with an ass like that, he's entitled to any opinion he wants :hearts:

Stamp Paid
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Who the hell wants to see women play 5 sets? It will be a mess.
GS tennis matches are fine the way they are. If the men have a problem with it, they can be consoled in knowing that in non-GS tournaments, they make FAR more than women for playing the same 3 set matches in comparable level tournaments. So they're still getting one over on the women and getting adequately compensated for their inherent superiority and greater work ethic than the female players in the long run! :yeah:

As if Nadal wasn't irritating enough already....:weirdo:

mckyle.
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:46 PM
I'll agree with anything Rafa says :hearts:

mckyle.
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:50 PM
The only people that have a problem with it is men because their pride is way too much. They've always had more in the money-making world and they can't stand it when the world changes and standards change. They'll get over it eventually.

Bijoux0021
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:59 PM
5 setters take too long & only reduce quality of play.

I understand Nadal's point of view, but Venus said it best. She said that she worked just as hard as every other male tennis player to get where she is, & if female tennis was a 5-set tour, she'd still be playing.
Agreed. The men should play best of 3 sets in all tournaments and Grand Slams. It's impossible to get good quality of play playing back to back to back 5 setters. And how many viewers have the time and interest to sit in front of a TV for 5+ hours watching a tennis match?

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:32 PM
Okay at the olympics because women don't run the same speed in the 100m as the men let's start their prize as silver medal instead of gold....

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:36 PM
the stupid thing about paying both sexes the same at the slams is when you compare it to other tournaments such as canadian "Rogers Cup". In slams men play 5 sets and are paid the same but in Canada they play the same sets but are paid more than twice as women :confused: :tape:
Erm, have you *seen* the crowds this week in Toronto compared with last week in Montreal? :tape:

M2k
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:39 PM
I do think it's a bit unfair to have equal pay at the Grand Slam level. Rafael is totally right on this one. Make the women play 5 sets for god's sake! Maybe that would get us a good final for a change! :help:


But with an ass like that, he's entitled to any opinion he wants :hearts:


---> :lol:

Mikey B
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:43 PM
i agree, let them play 5 sets!!! or at least when it gets to the quarters, semi's and finals of slams, they should play the full 5 sets...

women's rights aside, it is ridiculous to pay someone the same amount of money for doing only half the amount of work as someone else...

imagine how many more classic matches we'd have if the women played 5 sets!! no more 61 62 dramas! lol!

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:48 PM
and some 6-0 7-6 6-0 wins for Fed in the final as well....yup really a classic...

harloo
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:52 PM
I'm perplexed as to how this has become such an issue considering the men earn twice as much outside of non-slam events for the same amount of work. Women playing five sets during slams would be a disaster. The quality of matches would dramatically decrease from it's current level which is already hit and miss.

Male players should be fighting for 3 set matches in the first four rounds of slam events. This would prevent injuries and assure that players have enough energy to compete as the tournament progresses. The men's game is becoming more physically demanding especially since lower ranked players can challenge top players consistently. While purists don't believe in changing tradition the ATP must take action to prevent it's star players from burnout.

Lulu.
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:54 PM
No they shouldn't

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:55 PM
I'm perplexed as to how this has become such an issue considering the men earn twice as much outside of non-slam events for the same amount of work.
Whilst drawing twice as many fans to the non-slam events... :tape:

njnetswill
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:56 PM
I'm really disappointed that many WTA fans are just as irrational and immature about men's tennis vs women's tennis as the MTF tards.

Bottom line is simple: 5 sets at GSs means my beloved Elena Dementieva might actually win one in her career.

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 18th, 2007, 03:58 PM
Whilst drawing twice as many fans to the non-slam events... :tape:

while women draw many non tennis fans....not even fed and nadal are as much of a draw to non tennis people as masha and serena and they aren't even paid on the same level outside

M2k
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:03 PM
i agree, let them play 5 sets!!! or at least when it gets to the quarters, semi's and finals of slams, they should play the full 5 sets...



imagine how many more classic matches we'd have if the women played 5 sets!! no more 61 62 dramas! lol!


...from the quaters on? Either they play 5 set matches from the first round on, or just leave it alone. We would probably see more early round thrillers :drool: IMO all the top tournaments AO,US, FO, Wimb, Olympics, and EYC should be mandatory 5 set tournaments :hearts: :hearts:

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:05 PM
while women draw many non tennis fans....not even fed and nadal are as much of a draw to non tennis people as masha and serena and they aren't even paid on the same level outside
Let me put it this way :

Wimbledon 07 Final UK TV ratings

Mens : peak 7.4 million viewers on the same day as the British Grand Prix.
Womens : peak 3.9 million viewers.

Then think how many people actually pay to go and watch them play tennis. The men are much more of a draw than the women worldwide, there's no British interest in either matchup, no bias to spike the viewings, if anything Fed/Nadal should have suffered overlapping an event with major british interest. Masters Series are WAY better attended than WTA Tier Is, it's no WONDER the men get paid more - they create more revenue.

njnetswill
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Women get their "glamour attraction" money through endoresment deals, it shouldn't be an argument for them getting more prize money. :lol:

vrp1
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:09 PM
I agree with Raffa!

Their are many :hearts: female players i like to watch in 5 sets (or hours) :lick: much more than a boring mens game!

No question.....:D

harloo
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Whilst drawing twice as many fans to the non-slam events... :tape:

It's a given the men have the support of more hardcore tennis fans at non-slam events. Whether fans attend a smaller non-slam women's event depends on who's playing more than anything. When Venus and Serena join ANY tournament ticket sales go through the roof. ;) However, the men are still playing the same three set matches and let's not kid ourselves the level of play isn't always stellar on the ATP. Of course it's better than WTA matches 80% of the time, but the men play atrocious matches at times also.:tape:

I think the point you're missing is the fact that Grand Slams attract casual fans and the ATP has failed miserably in attracting that base. The women have earned equal pay at slam events because they have consistently beaten the mens in tv ratings and exposure. The Slams couldn't refuse them, remember Venus and Serena had the highest rated match in prime time beating out FOOTBALL. Do you think Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal could produce such a feat? :tape::lol:

spencercarlos
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:18 PM
and some 6-0 7-6 6-0 wins for Fed in the final as well....yup really a classic...
THat final was not a classic but a clinical performance from Federer. Period.

njnetswill
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Maria/Williams attracting more "casual" fans is only true in the USA. Men's masters events in Europe have always gained big crowds without the help of glamour girls.

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:19 PM
women have earned equal pay at slam events because they have consistently beaten the mens in tv ratings and exposure. The Slams couldn't refuse them, remember Venus and Serena had the highest rated match in prime time beating out FOOTBALL. Do you think Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal could produce such a feat? :tape::lol:
Because they're not American, of course not. Serena and Venus get good ratings *in America* because they're American *and expected to win*, not because they're women.

Leo_DFP
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:25 PM
i can think of one or maybe two not boring five setters :yawn:

Then you're an idiot.

If you don't like dramatic 5-setters on the men's side, then I'm sorry you're not a true fan of tennis. You're just a fan of some silly girls running around for an hour or two hitting unforced errors.

Nadal is right; women should play the same amount to get the same amount of money. Equality, baby! Right now there is not equality at the Slams because the women are overpaid.

Leo_DFP
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:27 PM
My attention span for tennis is short as it is. 5 sets would bore me to tears. Get it over all ready ya know? Men should drop down to 3 sets in the GSs too like they do for most of the regular tour stops.

No.

Leo_DFP
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:31 PM
One of the biggest macho of the tennis tour has spoken. May I remind Nadal, Men also play 3 setters match during the whole season except in GS. Should also non-GS tournaments go with 5 setters matches ? Come on, this guy isn't real.

Grand Slams are special and should stay best of 5, no question. This has nothing to do with the other tournaments on tour.

kaetchen
Aug 18th, 2007, 04:59 PM
I don't like him at all, but I think he's right here.

harloo
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:03 PM
Because they're not American, of course not. Serena and Venus get good ratings *in America* because they're American *and expected to win*, not because they're women.

Andy Roddick is "American" and expected to win and even when he reaches the final in "America" the ratings are still down. I think you and others fail to realize that regardless of the shoddy play at times, women's tennis has attracted attention to the Slams. If that wasn't the case I don't think Wimbledon would of budged on equal pay because they were firmly against the idea.:)

Sleepwalker64
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:07 PM
I agree
If u want equality ....do the same

harloo
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Then you're an idiot.

If you don't like dramatic 5-setters on the men's side, then I'm sorry you're not a true fan of tennis. You're just a fan of some silly girls running around for an hour or two hitting unforced errors.

Nadal is right; women should play the same amount to get the same amount of money. Equality, baby! Right now there is not equality at the Slams because the women are overpaid.

So now you're determining who's a "real fan of tennis" based on if they like watching two no-name low ranked mens players engaging in a long five set battle? At times five setters are interesting and vibrant but sometimes they fall flat just like WTA matches. So maybe you should get over it and realize that not every tennis fan enjoys the same thing.:)

M2k
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeAmWiLlIaMs http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/red/viewpost.gif (http://wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=11442155#post11442155)
and some 6-0 7-6 6-0 wins for Fed in the final as well....yup really a classic...


THat final was not a classic but a clinical performance from Federer. Period.


..to his credit Federer is kinda dull to watch :shrug:

CORIA01
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:39 PM
i really do agree with him

Shepster
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:41 PM
Andy Roddick is "American" and expected to win and even when he reaches the final in "America" the ratings are still down.
Who on earth expects Roddick to win? :confused:

Take last year's Wimbledon ratings in America. No Americans in the final, the men (Roger & Rafa) get better ratings than the women (Amelie and Justine) the latter down 45% from an all-american final the year before. The men's final was actually up because a/ the match went longer and b/ it was obviously going to be more of a contest because everyone knew Fed would whip Roddick's ass the year before.

Cashif
Aug 18th, 2007, 08:23 PM
I agree. The thing is even if they play three/five sets(both men and women), the quality of tennis of male players are too high while the Womens' results are predictable and not upto the mark. I totally agree with him and I am sure most of the ATP players are of that opinion and are afraid to voice their views.

Matt01
Aug 18th, 2007, 08:41 PM
I totally disagree with Rafy, but I also think that the men should only play beast of 3 in GS tournaments. One poster said the GS are "something special", so they should be played best of 5, but I think they should be played under the same conditions as the warm-up tournaments for the slams! And the 5-set-matches are often boring to watch anyway :p

But even with the men playing best of 5, I don't think that it is wrong that the women gain as much as the men, since it is not only about the time you spend on the court. It's also practicing, traveling, etc. And the women's body is not as strong as the men's body, so I see no prob why the payment should not be equal, since both the women and the men are offering the best what they are capable to perform!

I agree. The thing is even if they play three/five sets(both men and women), the quality of tennis of male players are too high while the Womens' results are predictable and not upto the mark. I totally agree with him and I am sure most of the ATP players are of that opinion and are afraid to voice their views.

Why would be the ATP players be afraid to voice their view? :confused:

Morrissey
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:09 PM
I disagree fans go to see BOTH sexes. And at the US OPEN in America the WOMEN are a bigger draw then the MEN. The ticket prices are for BOTH sexes. The women deserve EQUAL PAY. Its not about the amount of time on the court its entertainment. Now if the WTA wants the women to play best of five they can. I mean the WTA championships from the early 1980s up to the mid 1990s the finals was best of five sets. So the women in the past have proven they CAN play best of five. Sabatini and Seles had an incredible best of 5 set match back in 1990 and Graf and Huber also had an amazing best of five set match in 1995 I think. So it can be done.

sapir1434
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:12 PM
I don't know if he's right, I just don't think women can do it.

Donny
Aug 18th, 2007, 09:14 PM
It's a given the men have the support of more hardcore tennis fans at non-slam events. Whether fans attend a smaller non-slam women's event depends on who's playing more than anything. When Venus and Serena join ANY tournament ticket sales go through the roof. ;) However, the men are still playing the same three set matches and let's not kid ourselves the level of play isn't always stellar on the ATP. Of course it's better than WTA matches 80% of the time, but the men play atrocious matches at times also.:tape:

I think the point you're missing is the fact that Grand Slams attract casual fans and the ATP has failed miserably in attracting that base. The women have earned equal pay at slam events because they have consistently beaten the mens in tv ratings and exposure. The Slams couldn't refuse them, remember Venus and Serena had the highest rated match in prime time beating out FOOTBALL. Do you think Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal could produce such a feat? :tape::lol:

They don't consistently beat the ATP in ratings.

Andrew Laeddis
Aug 18th, 2007, 10:13 PM
no women play such ugly matches. i dont wanna see a 5set error fest or dementieva double faulting for 5 sets.

tennisbuddy12
Aug 18th, 2007, 10:17 PM
I just read it a second ago in TIME magazine...he shouldnt have said that but he did say women should be equal.

JPA
Aug 19th, 2007, 12:00 AM
i find the majority of the 5 set men's matches boring already and 3 set matches is one thing i defintiely prefer about the womens side over the mens.

DutchieGirl
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Like I said, you clearly disagree with me and that's fine. Your logic is that women bring in more money/spectators, and my point is that this should have nothing to do when determining equality. From your perspective then, women shouldn't be equal to men, rather they should make even more than the men. You compare the celebrity of other sport athletes salary to tennis, and I'm saying this is already done under the table. Yes, men get the money under the table too, but do you think any of them receive more than Serena Williams? I think not. A negotiated salary, of say a football player, is not the same as prize money. I think money from sponsors and appearance fees are enough to satisfy the major ticket sellers, while "prize money" should be static with both sides playing an equal amount of sets. And if you really think that 5000 people would be watching a women's match over a men's match, then you must be referring to either a match including Venus, Serena, or Sharapova....or for the Men either Federer, Roddick or Nadal to have significantly more viewers. These players should not determine that their entire gender receive more prize money.

Now it you you who miss my point. I did NOT say that women bring in MORE spectators than men - I said it's hard to judge who comes to see whom at GSs because you can see many matches in a day, and I said that tennis is not ONLY about hours on court, but also on entertainemtn value! Please don't put words into my mouth. Yes it is obvious we disagree, I can understand that too, but don't try to make out that I'm saying stuff that I never actually said! You say that I shouldn't base my example of 5000 people going to a women's match on just a few people - then why should you base your example of under the table money on only Serena getting more - as I said, what about the other poor souls who aren't in the top 20 - are they not entitled to make a living from normal prizemoney? Coz they wouldn't be getting appearance money. No, a negotiated salary isn't the same as prize money, but given that as I just said, probably only players ion the top 20 can negotiate appearance money, then you need to be able to give the other players something worthwhile!

yohaneuano4
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:09 AM
He's totally entitled to his opinion. He should do what Venus did and take it to the All England Club. They've shown they can be persuaded to change, if your arguement is good enough. Venus' arguement was good enough.

Nadal only has brute strength, there is always a chance that one of the Williams is packin' :tape:

DutchieGirl
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Then you're an idiot.

If you don't like dramatic 5-setters on the men's side, then I'm sorry you're not a true fan of tennis. You're just a fan of some silly girls running around for an hour or two hitting unforced errors.

Nadal is right; women should play the same amount to get the same amount of money. Equality, baby! Right now there is not equality at the Slams because the women are overpaid.

I guess that makes me an idiot for not wanting to sit around in the early stages of GSs watching BORING 5 set matches while waiting for my fave female players to play then. :tape: :rolleyes:

jellybelly
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:22 AM
sorry, equal pay for equal work. Women can play 5 sets, they did not have problems when YEC had 5 set finals and there were many good matches. They only don't want to play longer because most are lazy and want to make more money without doing more work.

jellybelly
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:28 AM
And the popularity excuse is silly. Some pornstar website probably get more visitors than a fine art gallery, does that mean the pornstars should get more money than legitimate artists?

DutchieGirl
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:32 AM
And the popularity excuse is silly. Some pornstar website probably get more visitors than a fine art gallery, does that mean the pornstars should get more money than legitimate artists?

No, because it's different forms of art...just like tennis players as a whole get different amoutns of money from other sports people. ;) So the popularity "excuse" (it's not an excuse, it's a valid point) is not silly.

DutchieGirl
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:34 AM
sorry, equal pay for equal work. Women can play 5 sets, they did not have problems when YEC had 5 set finals and there were many good matches. They only don't want to play longer because most are lazy and want to make more money without doing more work.

:bs: :bs: :bs: Women are told what to play by the rules - the rules say women play best of 3. :shrug: That doesn't make them lazy. WHo said they don't want to play best of 5 now anyway? And seeing as a MALE is heading the WTA Tour, then if it was such a big issue for MEN, he should push the ITF to make GSs best of 5 for women. COme back when you can stop talking shit!

Donny
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:38 AM
:bs: :bs: :bs: Women are told what to play by the rules - the rules say women play best of 3. :shrug: That doesn't make them lazy. WHo said they don't want to play best of 5 now anyway? And seeing as a MALE is heading the WTA Tour, then if it was such a big issue for MEN, he should push the ITF to make GSs best of 5 for women. COme back when you can stop talking shit!

The ITF doesn't run the Grand Slams- they are private organizations.

40-0
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:46 AM
I have to agree because sometimes when it is two sets u have to bring up ur game right away from the start. with five sets u can loose the first two and come back. Thats why tennis in wta is not good. They dont get time to show up on court when "its" not working that day.

metamorpha
Aug 19th, 2007, 01:56 AM
I agree with Nadal. But somehow women deserve equal pay in finals though...

Popularity is not a reason. It's "off the court" matter, IMO. And top WTA players aren't more popular than ATP players a great deal.

winone23
Aug 19th, 2007, 02:05 AM
I love Nadal, but I think he is simply bitter because he could have beaten Fed at Wimbledon if it were three sets instead of five.

Donny
Aug 19th, 2007, 02:10 AM
I love Nadal, but I think he is simply bitter because he could have beaten Fed at Wimbledon if it were three sets instead of five.

Federer won the first and third set in the final.

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:11 AM
rafa you're my dude and all but c'mon now. it's not like those 5 setters that you guys play are high quality. :lol: :p most of the times the guy that took the first 2 sets chokes and then in the 5th it usually goes to 11-9 OR somebody retires. :yawn:

Serena-rules-no1
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:19 AM
wow, I dislike Nadal but for the first time i agree with him

jonny84
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Maybe its best if it was played to 3 sets all round.

That way rain delayed tournaments will be made easier to reschedule if they knew the matches would be shorter. More matches could be played in one day, giving fans more tennis and making it more value for money.

Maybe just play best of five sets in the finals for both men and women?

Bijoux0021
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:01 PM
rafa you're my dude and all but c'mon now. it's not like those 5 setters that you guys play are high quality. :lol: :p most of the times the guy that took the first 2 sets chokes and then in the 5th it usually goes to 11-9 OR somebody retires. :yawn:
That's another thing I hate about men's tennis. It's bad enough they have to play those long 5 setters. But it really is absurd that in some Grand Slams there's no tiebreak in the 5th set. So they have to keep on playing with no end in sight or, as you stated, until somebody retires. Talk about adding salt to a wound. :banghead: :confused:

Wannabeknowitall
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:10 PM
Let's recall what happened yesterday.

8/19/07 4:02-4:19 EDT Jankovic/Henin played one game.
8/19/07 4:02-4:19 EDT Federer/Blake played 4.5 games.

Lachrymarum
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:32 PM
My attention span for tennis is short as it is. 5 sets would bore me to tears. Get it over all ready ya know? Men should drop down to 3 sets in the GSs too like they do for most of the regular tour stops.
This is exactly my thought as well - and why I'm not much of a fan of men's tennis....well....not during the slams. I could see a 5 set match for women taking place during a grand slam final.....but that's it.

Nico_E
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:46 PM
dont agree with Nadal here...
it would take too much time to get mens and womans 5 setters through a schedule.
one thing i like is when im waiting for a mens match but there is a womans match before it, im glad its only best of 3... you know probably wont be waiting that long.

plus considering most top woman always win 6-1 6-0 in the first four rounds of a slam, why need an extra set.

azinna
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:10 PM
I really like Nadal, but it's always funny to discover how ignorant some players are about the corporate end of their game....tennis players aren't paid by the hour; that wasn't the prevailing slam logic for the difference in pay. There was a valid "market share" argument for the difference (as in: which tour does the public come to watch?), but it got seriously weakened in that late-90s-2003 stretch where the women ruled the headlines, ticket sales and television ratings.

But that's all said and done. What Nadal should be advocating for are 3-setters in slam tournies up to the quarterfinals. Tennis has become so athletic, physical and joint-damaging that even the men's bodies are breaking down come the 2nd week of Wimbledon, where the accumulative effect of the previous 6 months, as well as the transition from clay, from doing the same thing in Paris just the other week, shows most clearly in a second or third 4th even 5th set. And it's beginning to affect post-Wimbledon play.... Someone with a game like Rafa's should be utilising the recent women's victory much more intelligently.....

SV_Fan
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:14 PM
I agree with him to, but you know I was thinking the the YEAR END CHAMPS need to go back to five sets not all tounrneys. Because at every other tournement the men play the best of 3 sets and they are still getting paid more.

terjw
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:59 PM
You thought Graf vs. Hingis was a good match? Wasn't the scoreline something like 6-3 4-6 6-0 4-6 6-0, with Graf severely hampered by a back injury and Hingis barely able to move in the final set because of cramps? The match may have lasted five sets, but I'm sorry, the match was exciting for only about a couple of games in the fourth set when Hingis gave it her all to close out the set only to completely fade out in the fifth. The Graf vs Huber and Seles vs Sabatini (1990 F) matches were of much higher quality, yes.

I don't remember the score - I remember Graf won and I remember following that match and how dreadful it got as a battle of which player would be able to survive at the end. I very much doubt that the poster saw that match and is just "saying" it was a good match to bolster his/her flawed argument.

Going to 5 sets on even the few high profile matches would be a disaster. It would:

Prolong the agony if the match was one-sided. No way would Ana, for example, have turned it around at the FO against Justine.
Turn a lot of the really exciting and good finals into that sort of match between Graf and Hingis.
Make the injury situation - which is already the biggest problem in women's tennis - even worse. :rolleyes:As for equal pay - whether or not you agree with it - you don't impose what would be a crackpot scheme harmful to women's tennis and the women players to try to justify what you believe.

Having said that - I've no problem with Nadal expressing his view. Just it happens to be wrong.

silverwhite
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:06 PM
wow, I dislike Nadal but for the first time i agree with him

Same here.

silverwhite
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:07 PM
That's another thing I hate about men's tennis. It's bad enough they have to play those long 5 setters. But it really is absurd that in some Grand Slams there's no tiebreak in the 5th set. So they have to keep on playing with no end in sight or, as you stated, until somebody retires. Talk about adding salt to a wound. :banghead: :confused:

Yeah. Roddick vs El Aynaoui at the AO in 2003 should have been concluded with a fifth-set TB. :yeah:

silverwhite
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:09 PM
About the adjustment and logistic issues, they could slowly implement it, starting with the final and then adding the semis and quarters subsequently. :shrug:

And regarding the women playing longer games than the men, the difference will probably be decreased if they play best-of-five. :)

hablo
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:06 PM
So Nadal didn't have the guts to say this to the anglophone media? :lol::tape:

Personnally, I think the men should play best of three as well. Best of five is :yawn: and there is way too much tanking to save energy during some sets in those types of matches.

pigam
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:19 PM
wow, and it would be the same people encouraging this idea who non-stop criticise:
- a player like JJ who plays a lot
- the fact that there is such a heavy schedule and therefore so much injuries.


where's the logic? complaining about playing too much, complaining about the injuries, and than expecting the players to play 5 sets.
that's ridiculous. quality of play certainly wouldn't increase with 5 setters. au contraire!

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 06:00 PM
That's another thing I hate about men's tennis. It's bad enough they have to play those long 5 setters. But it really is absurd that in some Grand Slams there's no tiebreak in the 5th set. So they have to keep on playing with no end in sight or, as you stated, until somebody retires. Talk about adding salt to a wound. :banghead: :confused:

totally!! :yeah:

and on tv they make it like those 5 setters are so exciting but many of us having seen these matches in person know they are just tiring to watch and there are tons of ue's. total waste of time and boring and a lot of times the guy who wins doesn't even deserve it.

:rolleyes:@rafa

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 20th, 2007, 06:46 PM
i think people mix drama with high quality...most men's 5 set match like the 04 FO final was horrid!!!!! especially how Coria tanked the 4th and end of the 3rd apparently due to cramps but came out firing in the 5th....that match was error filled but was high drama due to Gaudio winning the 3rd and 4th...that doesn't make it a high quality match....similarly...Coria vs Mathieu in either Rome or Monte Carlo was so0o0o poooor....with Coria df way more than Lena D ever did in one match and still won but that was drama cause PHM should have obviously won in straights but couldn't but far from high quality.....

Serena-rules-no1
Aug 20th, 2007, 06:56 PM
i think people mix drama with high quality...most men's 5 set match like the 04 FO final was horrid!!!!! especially how Coria tanked the 4th and end of the 3rd apparently due to cramps but came out firing in the 5th....that match was error filled but was high drama due to Gaudio winning the 3rd and 4th...that doesn't make it a high quality match....similarly...Coria vs Mathieu in either Rome or Monte Carlo was so0o0o poooor....with Coria df way more than Lena D ever did in one match and still won but that was drama cause PHM should have obviously won in straights but couldn't but far from high quality.....

you are mentioning chokes

that's what happenes in 90% of women's matches nowadays :wavey:
terrible displays and players losing matches when being 2 breaks up

Monaco 84
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:02 PM
100% agree with Nadal and Scarecrows :)

:tape:

Bette_Midler
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:18 PM
what a pathetic comment by Rafa :rolleyes:

btw: I totally agree with this blogger, he wrote a very interesting article in spanish about Nadal s comment called


Nadal y las mujeres

Sostiene Rafael Nadal que, si las mujeres tenistas quieren ganar lo mismo que los hombres, deberían jugar partidos a cinco sets, como ellos.

Lo cual demuestra que Nadal está muy preparado para ser el segundo del tenis mundial –una reedición de lo que fue en el ciclismo el bueno de Poulidor–, pero no para el ejercicio de pensar, que no es necesariamente más meritorio que el suyo, pero sí diferente.

Lo primero que debería haber pensado antes de hacer esas declaraciones es que no se le ha perdido nada en ese asunto, salvo sus reflejos de macho. En el tenis, como en cualquier otra labor sometida a las leyes del mercado, cada cual gana lo que consigue que le paguen. Y si algunas tenistas se ponen reivindicativas y consiguen que les paguen más, ¿qué carajo le importa a él? ¿O es que los dineros del tenis profesional funcionan por vasos comunicantes y, si ellas cobran más, él va a cobrar menos? ¿A cuento de qué se erige en defensor corporativo de los intereses de los hombres tenistas o, mejor dicho, en detractor de las aspiraciones de las mujeres tenistas?

Pero es que, además, utiliza un argumento bobo, en el que confunde la cantidad con la calidad. Un trabajo voluminoso o prolongado en el tiempo no tiene por qué ser más valioso que otro más reducido o realizado con mayor facilidad aparente. Supongo que no hará falta que me remita a la historia del arte para ilustrar esa evidencia. La sabiduría popular ha hecho mofa desde siempre de lo de «ande o no ande, caballo grande».

Por ceñirnos al tenis: es cosa de gustos. Alguna gente aficionada considera –consideramos– que en el tenis masculino predomina con demasiada frecuencia la exhibición de fuerza física, lo que va en detrimento de las facetas de habilidad y astucia del juego. Puede aportarse en favor de esta opinión el alto porcentaje de tantos de saque que se producen en los partidos de tenis de alta competición jugados entre hombres, muy superior a los que se contabilizan en los encuentros entre mujeres. Por decirlo rápido: cuando se enfrentan dos grandes sacadores, los partidos pueden ser un auténtico peñazo.

Lo que trato de argumentar es que no hay en esto una sola vara de medir, y que el asunto no es si se juega a tres o a cinco sets (podría ser también a muchos más, y así veríamos quiénes son hombres de verdad), sino qué representa un mayor y qué un menor espectáculo, lo cual lleva asociado un mayor o menor nivel de ingresos.

Es en atención a esas consideraciones como los y las profesionales del oficio y las empresas que se encargan de explotarlo acaban fijando sus relaciones contractuales.

¿Que las tenistas consideran que pueden elevar el listón de sus exigencias? Pues que lo hagan, y a ver qué pasa. Lo que es a mí, me da igual. ¿Por qué a Nadal no?

Algunos hombres no saben hasta qué punto se retratan –y autodenuncian– soltando lo que a ellos les parece de sentido común. Les pierden las ganas de poner a las mujeres «en su sitio».


:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

http://www.javierortiz.net/jor/apuntes/nadal-y-las-mujeres

google transt (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.javierortiz.net/jor/apuntes/nadal-y-las-mujeres&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnadal%2By%2Blas%2Bmujeres%26hl%3Den%2 6sa%3DG)

Nadal and the women

It maintains Rafael Nadal who, if the women tennis players want to gain just like the men, would have to play five parties sets, like them.

Which demonstrates that Nadal very is prepared to be the second of world-wide tennis - a reedición of which was in the cycling the good one of Poulidor-, but does not stop the exercise to think, that he is not necessarily more commendable than his, but different.

The first which it must have thought before doing those declarations are that lost nothing in that subject is had to him, except for their reflections of male. In tennis, like in any other work submissive the laws of the market, everyone desire which obtains that they pay to him. And if some tennis players put reivindicativas and obtain that pay to them more, what carajo concerns him to him? Or is that the money of professional tennis work by comunicantes glasses and, if they receive more, he is going to receive less? To story of what he is elevated in corporative defender of the interests of the men tennis players or, rather, in detractor of the aspirations of the women tennis players?

But he is that, in addition, he uses a stupid argument, in which confuses the amount with the quality. A voluminous or prolonged work in the time does not have so that to be more valuable that reduced or made other more with greater apparent facility. I suppose that it will not be necessary that sends me to the history of the art to illustrate that evidence. The popular wisdom has done mofa from always of the one of “walks or it does not walk, great horse”.

To fit us to tennis: it is thing of pleasures. Some become fond of people consider - we considered that in masculine tennis the exhibition of physical force predominates with too much frequency, which goes in damage of the facets of ability and cleverness of the game. The high percentage of so many of serve can be contributed please in this opinion that take place in the tennises match of high competition played between men, far beyond those that are entered in the encounter between women. To say it fast: when two great sacadores face, the parties can be authentic peñazo.

What treatment to argue is that not this has in single twig to measure, and that three or five subject not is if it gambles sets (it could also be to many more, and thus we would see who are men really), but that represents the greater one and what a smaller spectacle, which takes to associate a greater or smaller level of income.

He is in attention to those considerations like and the professionals of the office and the companies that are in charge to operate end up it fixing their relations contractual.

That the tennis players consider that they can elevate the strip of his exigencies? Since they do it, and to see what happens. What is to me, gives me equal. So that to Nadal no?

Some men do not know to what extent they are photographed - and autodenuncian- loosen what to them it seems to them of common sense. They lose the desire to them to put to the women “in his site”.
------------------------------


btw: ¿Iguales? “equal” no! thanks of God, Sharpie is by far much better :devil:

http://www.tennis-masters-madrid.com/imagenes/ad/MMMM06_Nadal_Shara.jpg

http://www.tennis-masters-madrid.com/imagenes/ad/MMMM06_HalfNadalSharapova.jpg

:lol:

azinna
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:58 PM
The blogger has some very strong points. The translation is among the worst I've seen, so non-Spanish readers will have a tough time...I may be able to translate the better points, but doubt I'll have the opportunity....

Bette_Midler
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:07 PM
The blogger has some very string points. The translation is among the worst I've seen, so non-Spanish readers will have a tough time...I may be able to translate the better points, but doubt I'll have the opportunity....

haha yes sorry , maybe Sonfito can do a proper transt later.

Bijoux0021
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:17 PM
totally!! :yeah:

and on tv they make it like those 5 setters are so exciting but many of us having seen these matches in person know they are just tiring to watch and there are tons of ue's. total waste of time and boring and a lot of times the guy who wins doesn't even deserve it.:rolleyes:@rafa
EXACTLY!

Not only that, unless it's the final (and your name is Federer or Nadal) the guy who wins a grueling 5 setter usually doesn't have enough energy left to win the next match. As a result, the fans miss out on seeing good quality matches in a row.

Hakeem
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:20 PM
"I would probably have said the same thing when I was playing, but that isn't the point. I went to see the movie, King Kong, it was too long, being long didn't make it better."

John McEnroe

:)

Corswandt
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:35 PM
'Las mujeres deberían jugar cinco sets para ganar lo mismo que un hombre'

Rafa fue cuestionado sobre la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres a la hora de repartir las ganancias, y aunque en un principio aseguró no tener una opinión formada acerca de este tema, no se cortó a la hora de valorar negativamente que cobren todos lo mismo. "Creo que las mujeres y los hombres son iguales en todos los ámbitos de la vida, pero mi opinión es que si somos iguales, ellas también deberían jugar a cinco sets para ganar el mismo dinero".

Does Nadal realise that this would mean that the prize money of ATP TMS and WTA TIs would have to be the same since they're all best of three?

The sound of Nole's aces whizzing past him at the Montréal SF must have messed up Nadal's head.

Bijoux0021
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:35 PM
Yeah. Roddick vs El Aynaoui at the AO in 2003 should have been concluded with a fifth-set TB. :yeah:
Agreed.

guyinsf
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:03 PM
I'm a guy so maybe this is a sexist view but purely on a physical level, I don't think ALL women can last through 5 sets. I'm not trying to put women down at all but it's just how women are built and that doesn't make women worse or better than men to me. Men and woman have different physical stamina levels and strength, it's simply a biological thing, no more and no less. I do not agree with Nadal because women should be allowed to play at the level that they are comfortable at playing and the majority of men's tournaments are best of 3, not 5, so I don't know what's he's talking about. Ultimately, this decision should be left to the women players and all the female figures of the tennis world to decide and I don't think any guy should have any say in this matter whatsoever because we're not women and it issue pertains directly to women. Does anyone agree with me?

alexia1huff
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Personnally, I think the men should play best of three as well. Best of five is :boring: and there is way too much tanking to save energy during some sets in those types of matches.
I don't know how many best of 5 matches have you seen then... if you're referring to coria vs gaudio final that one was just strange, well women play best of 3, but i saw several matches when if the opponent was winning e.g. 4-1 they just let the set go. Plus there are so many mood swings in women's matches and that could be interesting. Playing best of 5 would be intriguing between the top players with goood fitness (basicly 50% of top 20 would have to go) because matches like in eastbourne would have even greater tension. It would bring new tactics . And i have to say this again, but if you do this only for GS, then it's not a very big deal!!! but it would make women stronger in the whole, because then they would have to make a greater effort to win a GS. E.g. i don't think sharapova would win wimbledon or serena aussie open, if they would have to play these long matches.
But i'm guessing that the organizers wouldn't be too happy, esp. at wimbledon with all the delays, cause you can often put a women's hour match between some showers.

Mr_Molik
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:40 PM
he speaks the truth

friendsita
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:43 PM
A 5 sets match of 4 hours is boring!

Simplicity.
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:52 PM
A 5 sets match of 4 hours is boring!

And yet youd rather watch 50 errors for each player in a three set match? (ie womens tennis). Im not saying womens tennis isnt worth watching but I dont see how mens tennis can be classified as boring

master40
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:57 PM
That just proves us once again how of an idiot he is.

Jean-Pierre.
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:35 AM
Well said, equal prize money is a joke.

jellybelly
Aug 21st, 2007, 02:06 AM
why not just pay the prettiest girls the most prizemoney? After all they attract the most fans :P

Miranda
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:58 AM
isn't him allowed to voice his own opinion? :rolleyes: he is not insulting anyone :rolleyes: , i am sure that if its the reverse, women play 5 setters and got more paid, and men play 3 setters and got less paid, some women players may say the same thing as nadal if they are questioned about the equal paid stuff :rolleyes:


That just proves us once again how of an idiot he is.

Princeza
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:01 PM
Henin winning 6-0 6-0 6-0 in French open final :drool:
Fantastic tennis

Corswandt
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:28 PM
you are mentioning chokes

that's what happenes in 90% of women's matches nowadays :wavey:
terrible displays and players losing matches when being 2 breaks up

90% you say? You must have quite thorough and accurate stats to quote such a precise figure, because you can't possibly be shooting your mouth off just to stir shit.

And of course we all know choking *never* happens on the flawless ATP circuit, as the recent Karlovic d. Blake match in San Jose or Koubek d. Calleri match in Poland, and the whole career of Paul-Henri Mathieu by that matter, amply attest.

marycarillosucks
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:35 PM
90% you say? You must have quite thorough and accurate stats to quote such a precise figure, because you can't possibly be shooting your mouth off just to stir shit.

And of course we all know choking *never* happens on the flawless ATP circuit, as the recent Karlovic d. Blake match in San Jose or Koubek d. Calleri match in Poland, and the whole career of Paul-Henri Mathieu by that matter, amply attest.


:lol:

Nadal is right but the problem is that the Grand Slams are not designed for women to play best of 5 singles, there is not enough court space. It would require all the Slams to add 6-7 courts available for match play during the 1st week.

Pureracket
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:42 PM
Henin winning 6-0 6-0 6-0 in French open final :drool:
Fantastic tennisKinda like how Federer beat Hewitt's ass in the USO final in '04, eh? 6-0,7-6(3), 6-0.

Tennis @ its best.

Princeza
Aug 21st, 2007, 02:02 PM
Kinda like how Federer beat Hewitt's ass in the USO final in '04, eh? 6-0,7-6(3), 6-0.

Tennis @ its best.

Some Federer finals were just plain boring, just to point out that it's an endless story,
---women want more cash
--- yes but eh you don't play five sets
---Wait but women make the crowd come
---Eh but men do the same so why no 5 sets?
---But women can't play 5sets, it's physically too hard...

And blablabla, i'm fed up of explanations, we know this problem won't be solve, because not everybody agrees; so that's it...

Corswandt
Aug 22nd, 2007, 01:22 PM
---Wait but women make the crowd come

Honni soit qui mal y pense, but still.