PDA

View Full Version : Equal Prize money and Sets


Maria rocks
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:54 PM
This seems to be a debate that goes on and on and on. Do you believe Women should play 5 sets in Grand slams so no one can say they don't deserve the same prize money as the men? Or do you believe its fair the way it is??

goldenlox
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:00 PM
I would compare it to NBA &WNBA.
If the women are playing the same sport as men, then who or what determines the pay scale?

Excelscior
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:03 PM
Personally I don't, or never thought it was fair. The only reason why I didn't care/think about it much, cause there were times over the years when women's tennis was more popular than men. Women's tennis also had the biggest stars and intrigue, as well. From an American perspective, they really felt that way, cause Venus and Serena were winning most the titles the past 10 yrs, and American male players sucked. It's cyclical.

It's been said, that women's tennis looks very sloppy when played in 5 sets? Who knows? But I guess now, when the men's game has more sizzle and the biggest stars playing top notch tennis regularly, this will come up until more women play at a higher standard (or become dominant champions). We'll See?

PS: The intrigue/interest could be ratcheted up substantially (as well) if you had a healthy Clijsters, Serena and Venus, playing regularly against the likes of Petra, Masha, Woza, Li Na and Azarenka in the majors and big events.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:05 PM
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Well WTA might be a little defective at the moment, but making them play longer, tire themselves out further, and get injured more is not the remedy.

Chris 84
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:07 PM
and should actors in longer movies get paid more than actors in short movies?

imo the length of the match has nothing to do with anything, really.

Steven.
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:08 PM
I don't want to see women playing 5 setters. Take a look at Kuznetsova vs. Schiavone at this year's Aussie Open(6–4, 1–6, 16–14 - breaking it down, the sets would've been like 6-4, 6-1, 7-6, 7-6, 2-2), they were both dying out there before the 3rd set was even 3/4 towards the finish line. Neither could chase anything down and also sprayed horrible (but excusable) errors as a result of fatigue. Schiavone then heavily struggled in the next round, and crumbled after taking the first set against Wozniacki.

So if making women play 5 setters will result in this sort of thing, then I wouldn't want it, and I doubt anybody else would either.

Kworb
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:12 PM
The funny thing is prize money is equal in Slams where men play longer matches. Prize money is less for the women in almost every other tournament and there the match length is the same.

I don't think match length matters. It should just be an economical argument. At combined events, if the men bring in more money (attract more spectators, sponsors, and broadcasting contracts) then they should get more of it. If you can't prove that they do, then equal prize money is the only way.

young_gunner913
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:13 PM
Personally, I'm not always that thrilled when watching a men's 5 setter. I don't think they're all as great as people would like to have you think. The longer the score doesn't make the match any greater. The women really proved themselves at Wimbledon this year, they had handfuls of great 3 set dramas that we usually once see a once or twice in slams these days.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:19 PM
The funny thing is prize money is equal in Slams where men play longer matches. Prize money is less for the women in almost every other tournament and there the match length is the same.

Exactly.

Vee Williams
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:20 PM
Imagine a match that lasts for more than 3 sets between someone like Sharapova or Bartoli and Cibulkova or Wozniacki. It is not going to be pretty.

Mightymirza
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:21 PM
5 set matches are :zzz: anyways.. Lets just have best of 3 :shrug: if at all.

Maria rocks
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:35 PM
Personally, I'm not always that thrilled when watching a men's 5 setter. I don't think they're all as great as people would like to have you think. The longer the score doesn't make the match any greater. The women really proved themselves at Wimbledon this year, they had handfuls of great 3 set dramas that we usually once see a once or twice in slams these days.

I totally agree with you. In the early rounds as well which was fantastic to see from the ladies.

kman
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:39 PM
Yes.

I think Wozniacki would wear most other players down over the course of 5 sets.

Maria rocks
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:41 PM
Yes.

I think Wozniacki would wear most other players down over the course of 5 sets.

Thats interesting. So you think if it was 5 sets the Woz would stand more chance of winning a slam?

Apoleb
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:45 PM
Yes. Men should play best of 3. The best of 3 format is more exciting and entertaining.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:53 PM
Personally, I'm not always that thrilled when watching a men's 5 setter. I don't think they're all as great as people would like to have you think. The longer the score doesn't make the match any greater. The women really proved themselves at Wimbledon this year, they had handfuls of great 3 set dramas that we usually once see a once or twice in slams these days.
I like men's best of five set matches at slams, but if they did them for the women as well they would be banned to the outside courts even more than is already the case today. They already find it a nuisance to give each of the top women at least one best of three set match on CC at Wimbledon - god only knows what they would do with the women if they played best of five.

Mistress of Evil
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Imagine a match that lasts for more than 3 sets between someone like Sharapova or Bartoli and Cibulkova or Wozniacki. It is not going to be pretty.

troll response to a troll :kiss:
imagine a match between Pironkova and Venus Williams last just two abysmal sets, ooops but that truly happened :oh: even twice http://i864.photobucket.com/albums/ab210/_svetlio_/tennis/2ajw8xd.gif
http://i864.photobucket.com/albums/ab210/_svetlio_/tennis/venusgif1.gif

Vee Williams
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:10 PM
troll response to a troll :kiss:
imagine a match between Pironkova and Venus Williams last just two abysmal sets, ooops but that truly happened :oh: even twice http://i864.photobucket.com/albums/ab210/_svetlio_/tennis/2ajw8xd.gif
http://i864.photobucket.com/albums/ab210/_svetlio_/tennis/venusgif1.gif

There is no logic in what you wrote. How does a hypothetical 5-setter between Sharapova/Bartoli and Cibulkova/Wozniacki compare to a 2-setter between one of the greatest women of tennis and Pironkova?

And no names are necessary. You make a fool of yourself... again.

TheHangover
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:12 PM
i think only finals should be five set for the girls. people can't pay money hoping to see a good match in a slam final and then have a 6-2 6-3 in one hour and 15 minutes!!!!

Then for the prize money i think girls should get less money than the guys because we don't have to lie to ourselves, people goes to the tournaments to see MEN we are the minority of the tennis fans that likes both or more the girls, look at how big crowds there are at combined events compared to the events that have only girls, it's sad but the men are the ones that bring big money to the tours (atp, itf and even wta), so they should get more money, in the grand slams also they should get more money in the grand slams, more work more pay, no discrimination!!!!

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:19 PM
troll response to a troll :kiss:
Nah, Vee Williams is as far as I know ok and not a Caro basher.

moemoe
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:20 PM
I would like to see this for like just one grand slam. I just want to see more womens tennis. The matches always in so quickly sometimes like 68 minutes or something!

Mistress of Evil
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:29 PM
There is no logic in what you wrote. How does a hypothetical 5-setter between Sharapova/Bartoli and Cibulkova/Wozniacki compare to a 2-setter between one of the greatest women of tennis and Pironkova?

And no names are necessary. You make a fool of yourself... again.


yeap, an absolute fool, I am :awww: and I shall beg to be forgiven :tears:
excuse moi, that I used certain names, I was just looking up to your gracious self :kiss:

darrinbaker00
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:32 PM
Yes. Men should play best of 3. The best of 3 format is more exciting and entertaining.

1. That will never happen.
2. You're wrong, and I offer up the USA-Spain Davis Cup tie as proof.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:34 PM
I would like to see this for like just one grand slam. I just want to see more womens tennis. The matches always in so quickly sometimes like 68 minutes or something!
True. But the problem would be that a very close five set womens match would last even longer - and potentially much longer than a match with a similar scoreline on the mens side because there are fewer "free points" from the serve and since the serve is a less dominant stroke also more deuce games.

18majors
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:34 PM
Yes, men play best of 3 in all tournaments.

moemoe
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:40 PM
True. But the problem would be that a very close five set womens match would last even longer - and potentially much longer than a match with a similar scoreline on the mens side because there are fewer "free points" from the serve and since the serve is a less dominant stroke also more deuce games.

OK I see your point those matches would be super long. Maybe just the final then. Women need time to get into the match mentally sometimes. And its good for the sport if the finals are entertaining.

Corswandt
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:48 PM
Personally, I'm not always that thrilled when watching a men's 5 setter. I don't think they're all as great as people would like to have you think.

The dynamics of 5 setters are odd and usually don't make for a consistently high quality of play - the players rarely seem to play well at the same time, since once a player goes down a break he's very likely to tank the remainder of the set to save energy for the next one.

Beat
Jul 11th, 2011, 02:57 PM
This seems to be a debate that goes on and on and on. Do you believe Women should play 5 sets in Grand slams so no one can say they don't deserve the same prize money as the men? Or do you believe its fair the way it is??

i never understood this argument, because NO tennis player gets paid for the amount of time he spends on court.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 03:43 PM
OK I see your point those matches would be super long. Maybe just the final then. Women need time to get into the match mentally sometimes. And its good for the sport if the finals are entertaining.
They could play best of five in each round if they would get rid of the advantage points (player that wins the point after deuce wins the game). I'm not sure if that's such a good idea though.

bobito
Jul 11th, 2011, 04:01 PM
Women's matches typically have longer rallies and more deuce games than men's. How often do you see a woman belt down three aces and an unreturned serve to win a game to love? Yet this is not uncommon in the men's game.

Let's take two of the more hard fought matches of the past few years. The 2008 Wimbledon final between Nadal and Federer had an average game length of 3.87 minutes (although a time violation warning was issued for slow play). In the 2007 WTA final between Henin and Sharapova the games averaged 5.42 minutes. You would struggle to find a men's match with a longer average game length yet the games in the Henin Sharapova match were almost 50% longer than in Nadal Federer, even with Nadal's ridiculous time wasting.

You often get more twists and turns, break points and pressure moments in 3 sets of women's tennis than you do in a men's 5 setter.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 11th, 2011, 04:03 PM
Personally, I'm not always that thrilled when watching a men's 5 setter. I don't think they're all as great as people would like to have you think. The longer the score doesn't make the match any greater. The women really proved themselves at Wimbledon this year, they had handfuls of great 3 set dramas that we usually once see a once or twice in slams these days.

Yes. Men should play best of 3. The best of 3 format is more exciting and entertaining.

These.

Doully
Jul 11th, 2011, 04:19 PM
Could you imagine all the double faults in a WTA 5 setter? :hysteric:.

Ryusuke Tenma
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:09 PM
There shouldn't be equal prize money. Women play best of three sets, the men play best of five. If the women want equal pay, they have to play equal sets.

I can't believe some of the fools saying the men should play best of three. Are you crazy? The slams on the men's tour have extra difficulty and prestige because they are best of five sets. To get rid of that format is pathetically foolish.

Either women have less pay or they play equal sets.

C. Drone
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:26 PM
:yawn:
Demand will decide what they want. Think about equal prize money as a selling expense. "free advertising" :spit:

dinamo
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:28 PM
Whats great about 5 set matches is the momentum switches that can happened if someone loses concentration. 5 setters aren't always the best in quality but can bring drama. I don't see anything wrong in the women maybe having to play a 5 set final. But if both men and women played 5 sets it would cause havok with the timing of matches having to legislate for the longer time the women will spend on court. I suppose you could get around that by having men and women playing 3 sets until they reach the quarters and then play 5 sets from the quarters on for both sexes.

I'm not sure how it could be done but I think when the women play regular tournaments over 3 sets like the men then the prize money should be the same, but in slams where the men are doing more than the women they are entitled to a bit more than the women.

But I would be very interested in at the very least 5 set womens slam finals I remember watching some great 5 setters with women back in the day at the end of the year that I thought were great. I still remember Hingis cramping like mad against Steffi years ago. 5 sets in a final would challenge the women in every way possible, which would be no bad thing, and if they aren't fit enough they'd have to get fit enough if they wanted to win slams.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:29 PM
There shouldn't be equal prize money. Women play best of three sets, the men play best of five. If the women want equal pay, they have to play equal sets.

I can't believe some of the fools saying the men should play best of three. Are you crazy? The slams on the men's tour have extra difficulty and prestige because they are best of five sets. To get rid of that format is pathetically foolish.

Either women have less pay or they play equal sets.
Yes, but the women have less pay in the regular tour events than the men. I don't hear the men argue "equal pay for equal work" there, even though both play best of three. The descision to give the women the same pay at the slams didn't cost the men a dime. They took nothing away from the men to give it to the women.

Apoleb
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:50 PM
3 sets are usually more intense because every point and every game is worth more. The first set in a men's match is worth very little that it's practically meaningless/snoozefest. Even the second set doesn't have the intensity a 2/3 set has. Table tennis has also become more exciting when the set was shortened from 21 points to 11 points.

Of course it will never happen in the men, but then again I couldn't care less because their game will still be boring. Although admittedly, less so.

Maria rocks
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:54 PM
What i think is this... Keep it exactly how it is. Like someone else said players are not paid for the length of time they are on court. For the record i think 3 set ladies matches can be just as high quality and full of drama as any men's match. 5 sets or 3.
First week of Wimbledon this year for example much more high quality and exciting ladies matches than men's i thought.
It annoys me when people slag of ladies tennis. When i was watching Wozniacki this year on number one court at Wimbledon there were a couple of blokes behind me saying it was boring and they didn't like ladies tennis. I thought how ignorant can you get. Ok it was fairly one sided but not all ladies matches are and there are plenty of men's matches that are one sided too.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 06:09 PM
What i think is this... Keep it exactly how it is. Like someone else said players are not paid for the length of time they are on court. For the record i think 3 set ladies matches can be just as high quality and full of drama as any men's match. 5 sets or 3.
First week of Wimbledon this year for example much more high quality and exciting ladies matches than men's i thought.
It annoys me when people slag of ladies tennis. When i was watching Wozniacki this year on number one court at Wimbledon there were a couple of blokes behind me saying it was boring and they didn't like ladies tennis. I thought how ignorant can you get. Ok it was fairly one sided but not all ladies matches are and there are plenty of men's matches that are one sided too.
There's nothing I like more than a one sided Wozniacki match. If it's close I get too nervous. :lol: Ok, watching Woz on repeat I enjoy it more if it was a close match (if she ended up winning), but not when it's live. I was/am the same with all of my other faves - Chris, Jenny, Hingis, Connors, Federer.....just win. I'll worry about how good a match it was later. ;)

darrinbaker00
Jul 11th, 2011, 06:11 PM
3 sets are usually more intense because every point and every game is worth more. The first set in a men's match is worth very little that it's practically meaningless/snoozefest. Even the second set doesn't have the intensity a 2/3 set has. Table tennis has also become more exciting when the set was shortened from 21 points to 11 points.

Of course it will never happen in the men, but then again I couldn't care less because their game will still be boring. Although admittedly, less so.

In other words, you don't like men's tennis. Why didn't you just write that in the first place?

Serenita
Jul 11th, 2011, 06:26 PM
The funny thing is prize money is equal in Slams where men play longer matches. Prize money is less for the women in almost every other tournament and there the match length is the same.


This.

Celeborn
Jul 11th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Table tennis has also become more exciting when the set was shortened from 21 points to 11 points.

This! That was a great change of rules, before it was best of 3 with 21 points, now best of 5 with 11 points in league matches, international tournaments are best of 7.

I always liked the idea of shortening a set in tennis, let's say tiebreak at 4:4 and best of 5, slams best of 7. If you do some calculations, the number of games would remain almost the same and this would lead to more excitement. But of course it will never happen.

bobito
Jul 11th, 2011, 06:48 PM
I always liked the idea of shortening a set in tennis, let's say tiebreak at 4:4 and best of 5, slams best of 7. If you do some calculations, the number of games would remain almost the same and this would lead to more excitement. But of course it will never happen.

Might be fun to try this out at an exhibition event to see how it goes. My suspicion is that it would take away the best thing about the women's game, that fortunes can go to and fro during a set. In the men's game, once a serve is broken that is as good as the set. No so in the women's game. I can't remember who it was said of Henin, "you don't win a set against her with only one break of serve".

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:08 PM
Personally, I'm not always that thrilled when watching a men's 5 setter. I don't think they're all as great as people would like to have you think. The longer the score doesn't make the match any greater. The women really proved themselves at Wimbledon this year, they had handfuls of great 3 set dramas that we usually once see a once or twice in slams these days.

Yes. Men should play best of 3. The best of 3 format is more exciting and entertaining.

All this.


I don't buy the 5 vs 3 set argument in relation to prize money anyway because they're totally different formats that require different amounts of intensity for different lengths of time.

1. That will never happen.
2. You're wrong, and I offer up the USA-Spain Davis Cup tie as proof.

Yes but for how many matches that are only ever going to be won by 1 player but still take 2 and a half hours to complete, or 5 setters where the points only matter after 2 hours in. No '5 set epic' is worth all that.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:20 PM
I don't think we should tinker TOO much with the format just because the current generation has a shorter attention span. I like best of five mens matches just fine.

Just my opinion folks. ;)

wally1
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:35 PM
1. That will never happen.I agree, it's not going to happen anytime soon that men go to best of 3 in GS's but it could happen eventually, if only for the early rounds. The main driver would be that the speed at which tennis matches are played has dropped drastically, due to all the towel wiping, getting the correct balls, ball bouncing, psyching themselves up for the next point etc.. This has been quite noticeable even within my memory, which goes back to the early 80's. And it's quite staggering if you go back earlier than that - even post WW2 you still had 5 set mens finals at Wimby that took less than 2 hours.

Mike_T
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:41 PM
For a clue on how much the mens game subsidises the womens, just check out the slam ticket price: http://www.officialwimbledondebentures.com/wimbledon_debenture_seats/?m=All%20Days
That difference would also be reflected in TV rights and sponsorship monies.

As already argued, sets isn’t he answer.

This IS the answer:

* Ban excessive ‘grunting’, like what Vika Vuvuzela does.

* Ban those confounded boxer pants, and bring back the old style
wedgie pants (http://oopsgallery.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Panties-in-the-ass-wind-blowing-the-skirt-hingis-sexy-teen-wedgies-butt-crack.jpg)! :D

Guaranteed to double viewing figures. Simples. :cool:

darrinbaker00
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:55 PM
I agree, it's not going to happen anytime soon that men go to best of 3 in GS's but it could happen eventually, if only for the early rounds. The main driver would be that the speed at which tennis matches are played has dropped drastically, due to all the towel wiping, getting the correct balls, ball bouncing, psyching themselves up for the next point etc.. This has been quite noticeable even within my memory, which goes back to the early 80's. And it's quite staggering if you go back earlier than that - even post WW2 you still had 5 set mens finals at Wimby that took less than 2 hours.

Most of it has to with television. They didn't even have chairs for players at Wimbledon until 1975, let alone 90-second changeovers. If a set ended on an even-numbered game (6-0, 6-2, 6-4, 7-5), they went straight into the next set; no automatic two-minute break in between. The proliferation of TV has slowed all sports down, save football.

Apoleb
Jul 11th, 2011, 08:06 PM
For a clue on how much the mens game subsidises the womens, just check out the slam ticket price: http://www.officialwimbledondebentures.com/wimbledon_debenture_seats/?m=All%20Days
That difference would also be reflected in TV rights and sponsorship monies.

As already argued, sets isn’t he answer.

This IS the answer:

* Ban excessive ‘grunting’, like what Vika Vuvuzela does.

* Ban those confounded boxer pants, and bring back the old style
wedgie pants (http://oopsgallery.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Panties-in-the-ass-wind-blowing-the-skirt-hingis-sexy-teen-wedgies-butt-crack.jpg)! :D

Guaranteed to double viewing figures. Simples. :cool:

Staggering. That's more than 3 times the price. It's no question that men's tennis is more popular and I think that's always been the case.

Marlene
Jul 11th, 2011, 09:44 PM
To me, the "value" of a tennis match is not measured in sets - therefore the number of sets is a non-factor with respect to prize money. It's all about the number of matches and the prestige of the tournament.

There are physical differences between men and women - in tennis these differences ultimately result in a different match dynamics for men and women; short points vs long points, short games vs long games, few breaks of serve per set vs many breaks of serve per set... all that. I'm sure some women are able to play best-of-5 without tiring significantly... but the majority is not. At least not for an entire tournament. Basically, I'd much rather see the women play amazing lights-out tennis for 2-3 sets than boring energy-saving tennis for 3-5 sets. (Conversely, if one player obviously superior to the other (or they're both awful), I'd rather have it over and done with in 2).

I'm sure a whatever-ranked ATP-player could easily beat a WTA-player with the same ranking... so what!? It's not about life and death, it's entertainment...

I don't have any "problems" with men and women playing different "types" of matches - they're both entertaining in different ways, and I think the best-of-3 and best-of-5 are the best formats for women and men, respectively. Therefore, if both men and women are playing in the same tournament, they should get equal prize money. Alternatively, if the tournament direction feels women's tennis inferior to men's tennis they should just make their tournament an ATP-only thing.

paul_masterton
Jul 11th, 2011, 10:08 PM
The ITF tried short sets back in 00/01 as 10k's were used as guinea pigs for the tour. Best of 5, first to four games, tie break at 4-4.

Didn't go anywhere.

They could try bringing it back using WTT style first to 5, no-ad, playing let serves. But I kinda like games that go on and on and on with a gazillion deuces :lol:

No-ad favours those with huge serves even if they have nothing to back it up.

Solitaire
Jul 11th, 2011, 10:34 PM
As others have said the number of sets have nothing to do with a match being entertaining. It's not like the women have a long tradition of playing 5 sets in GS. They've been playing best 2 out of 3 for ages. These women work just as hard as the men do on and off the court.

Yoncé
Jul 12th, 2011, 03:30 AM
Women did play fives sets in the YEC's in like the 90's or something...the tennis was soooooo shit! And it was players like Graf, Navratilova, Seles etc. Women should *not* play 5 sets, the WTA is already lacking interest from people making the slam matches 5 sets would make it worse, the 5th sets would be no rallies, just service breaks on double faults!

If, big IF, the WTA decides to extend women's matches playing best of 3 sets with no tie break would be a much better idea than having best of 5 sets...

Empressive
Jul 12th, 2011, 03:40 AM
I rarely watch men's matches at the slams. Best of five is way too difficult to keep your attention to.

Maria rocks
Jul 12th, 2011, 07:38 AM
There's nothing I like more than a one sided Wozniacki match. If it's close I get too nervous. :lol: Ok, watching Woz on repeat I enjoy it more if it was a close match (if she ended up winning), but not when it's live. I was/am the same with all of my other faves - Chris, Jenny, Hingis, Connors, Federer.....just win. I'll worry about how good a match it was later. ;)

Ha ha thats exactly what im like with Maria, so it doesn't help that she has to go 3 games down usually before she starts playing. Andy Murray too just want them to do well and win as much as they can. Quality well worry about that after hehe:)

Steven.
Jul 12th, 2011, 07:46 AM
Ha ha thats exactly what im like with Maria, so it doesn't help that she has to go 3 games down usually before she starts playing. Andy Murray too just want them to do well and win as much as they can. Quality well worry about that after hehe:)

Too true. FML when Maria breaks only to get broken back right after. :facepalm: Or when she is taken to tb.

Tipp
Jul 12th, 2011, 07:50 AM
What about making the women play best of 5 for the semi-finals and finals of the majors, as a trial? (Or possibly from QF onwards). This getst rid of a lot of the issues people have brought up with women playing best of 5: "The schedule is too crowded already at majors", these matches would only be taking place when the schedule is cleared up. "The women would be dead by the end of the tournament", this is likely only an extra 3-4 sets. "Nobody wants to see two WTA nobodies flailing about for 5 sets", the women who make it to these matches have to be in some kind of decent form.

KBlade
Jul 12th, 2011, 08:03 AM
When women start playing 5 sets, the quality of play decreases, and we start getting bizaare scorelines. I remember watching a Hingis match in the 90's at YEC where the players began trading 6-0 and 6-1 sets by the time the third and fourth sets came around.

I think people still forget that although women may only play best of three sets, majority of the time, they are still out on the court for a significantly longer period of time than other sports with time restrictions.

KBlade
Jul 12th, 2011, 08:06 AM
What about making the women play best of 5 for the semi-finals and finals of the majors, as a trial? (Or possibly from QF onwards). This getst rid of a lot of the issues people have brought up with women playing best of 5: "The schedule is too crowded already at majors", these matches would only be taking place when the schedule is cleared up. "The women would be dead by the end of the tournament", this is likely only an extra 3-4 sets. "Nobody wants to see two WTA nobodies flailing about for 5 sets", the women who make it to these matches have to be in some kind of decent form.

OHMAGOD. THIS :lol: :haha: :happy:

rumple
Jul 12th, 2011, 10:31 AM
A bad feminine odor could develop if you have women playing a long 5 setter. Nobody wants to deal with that.

Maria rocks
Jul 13th, 2011, 07:27 AM
A bad feminine odor could develop if you have women playing a long 5 setter. Nobody wants to deal with that.

Not if they use Sure. It won't let them down:lol:

Olórin
Jul 13th, 2011, 12:49 PM
For a clue on how much the mens game subsidises the womens, just check out the slam ticket price: http://www.officialwimbledondebentures.com/wimbledon_debenture_seats/?m=All%20Days
That difference would also be reflected in TV rights and sponsorship monies.

As already argued, sets isn’t he answer.

This IS the answer:

* Ban excessive ‘grunting’, like what Vika Vuvuzela does.

* Ban those confounded boxer pants, and bring back the old style
wedgie pants (http://oopsgallery.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Panties-in-the-ass-wind-blowing-the-skirt-hingis-sexy-teen-wedgies-butt-crack.jpg)! :D

Guaranteed to double viewing figures. Simples. :cool:

Staggering. That's more than 3 times the price. It's no question that men's tennis is more popular and I think that's always been the case.

I hightly doubt that ticket differential is reflective. Debenture tickets are essentially for the rich and price really is more reflective of tradition and "what they can get away with" than demand. As well as British Murray, Hen-mania which if course gives the men a massive profile boost over the women in the past 20 years+.

Of course men's has always been that bit more popular, no doubt. But the on the door and ballot ticket prices are a bit more indicative of the economics I think, than debenture tickets.

And the TV rights are generally for Wimbledon as a whole, so I don't think there's a way to break down which is worth more.