Tennis

[Moo]

Womens tennis is far more enjoyable to watch than the mens. I don't care what they earn. Serena is easily the greatest women tennis player ever. She has a claim to being the greatest female sportswoman ever. After Alex Morgan.

 

Easily? It's still debatable whether Williams can be called the best never mind easily!!

[Bjornebye]

Easily? It's still debatable whether Williams can be called the best never mind easily!!

 

 

Mook fingered her

[mouse1989]

1-1 so far but Fed has a break in the 3rd

[mouse1989]

2-1 Fed

 

Great match this

[mouse1989]

2-2

[Original202]

Outstanding match.

 

Cements his status as the all time greatest.

[stringvest]

Wow.

[KMD7]

What a match.  What a man.  Greatest ever now without any doubt..  Feel for Nadal but Fed is incredible

[mouse1989]

18 slams!

 

To turn it around from a break down in the 5th. Champion!

[Original202]

Here comes the shitness of modern tennis: "Thanks to Kia Motors" etc

[Naz17]

Not really, some of the women's matches are a lot more entertaining than the boring shite a lot of the men serve up. The mixed doubles must piss you off. 

 

Clearly you're not someone who knows much about tennis. 

[Naz17]

Play 5 sets and nobody could argue.

 

Yeah, compare the standards in the men's final to the women's final yesterday. Daylight robbery that they get paid the same. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Clearly you're not someone who knows much about tennis. 

 

That's rather patronising, I know enough.

 

Sport to myself is all about entertainment, why shouldn't the women get paid the same amount if they are at the level some of these women are? It isn't your money paying for it, or mine, I don't see the problem with it, opinions eh. 

[Hades]

People pay more to watch Usain Bolt than they do marathon runners.

[Naz17]

That's rather patronising, I know enough.

 

Sport to myself is all about entertainment, why shouldn't the women get paid the same amount if they are at the level some of these women are? It isn't your money paying for it, or mine, I don't see the problem with it, opinions eh. 

 

I just care about fairness. Quality, quantity and value should all be taken into account when determining pay. At the moment, the men's game wins on all these factors. But if ever the women's game does, I'm happy for them to get paid more. Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka are players well above any calibre in the women's game at the moment. 

 

But anyway, as you say, opinions. I feel so honoured to watch matches like Federer Nadal whilst they occur. Federer the greatest ever.

[Naz17]

People pay more to watch Usain Bolt than they do marathon runners.

 

Stupid analogy. Those are different sports. Compare Bolt and the men's 100m to women's.

[Lario]

Playing first to 3 is at least 50% more work than playing first to 2. It could be up to 150% more!

Take the Australian Open. Conceivably, the men's winner could've played 21 more sets than the women's winner (35 V 14).

So how women are entitled to the same pay is beyond me.

 

Quality/Entertainment/Skill level shouldn't come into it. If they want to play up to 35 sets in an Open, they're welcome to the same pay.

Play a percentage of that, you should be paid that percentage.

 

Equality needn't be hard. It's the pandering is the problem.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I just care about fairness. Quality, quantity and value should all be taken into account when determining pay. At the moment, the men's game wins on all these factors. But if ever the women's game does, I'm happy for them to get paid more. Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka are players well above any calibre in the women's game at the moment. 

 

But anyway, as you say, opinions. I feel so honoured to watch matches like Federer Nadal whilst they occur. Federer the greatest ever.

 

I have watched Tennis on and off since the 70's, I've enjoyed players from both sexes and the quality and entertainment they have given. It's also prize money and not pay, some male players go through to the latter rounds having won 3-0 every match, others have had to play more sets due to playing Opponents who are better on the given surface, ranks are misleading due to this and some get easier/harder draws than others. Should a player who has played more sets/games be given more than the winner of the tournament who played less? Of course they shouldn't. The prize money is set out before the tournament, just enjoy the Tennis man. 

[Naz17]

I have watched Tennis on and off since the 70's, I've enjoyed players from both sexes and the quality and entertainment they have given. It's also prize money and not pay, some male players go through to the latter rounds having won 3-0 every match, others have had to play more sets due to playing Opponents who are better on the given surface, ranks are misleading due to this and some get easier/harder draws than others. Should a player who has played more sets/games be given more than the winner of the tournament who played less? Of course they shouldn't. The prize money is set out before the tournament, just enjoy the Tennis man. 

 

"It's prize money and not pay"...lol ok.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Well it is. 

[moof]

Does anyone actually think the top male players get short changed? They earn a packet in prize money and sponsorship. So they play more sets, who cares? Men are physically stronger and fitter than women anyway. As someone mentioned above, it still costs the same to hire coaches, plane tickets, hotels etc.

 

Never understood why anyone would be remotely arsed about women making the same money as men in tennis tournaments.

[Trumo]

I posted a suggestion on one of the Wimbledon threads a while back:

 

http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/topic/108258-wimbledon-2015/?p=4215983

 

I wouldn't say it was a walkover, certainly unlike last year's final which was over in less than an hour, but Williams' mental strength saw her overcome a tricky opponent. She's only playing by the rules as they are, and the issues with the women's game are not her fault. That's what the organisers of the women's game need to look at. It probably takes around 30-35 minutes to complete a set, meaning you can have a winner in little over an hour. In an elite final in many cases. That is short-changing everybody. How often do one or both of the Wimbledon ladies finalists then play a doubles match later that same afternoon?

 

In the men's game, when a player goes 2-0 up in sets, there is still a dynamic at play in the 3rd set. Will the player who is ahead drive home their advantage and see it out? Will he lose a bit of edge and focus and allow his opponent back in? Will his opponent find another gear or two and claw back the deficit? You don't get that in the women's game because it becomes make-or-break immediately after the first set.

 

I know the women can't play best-of-5 based on how the sets are currently scored (they'd be running on empty after 3 sets), but modifying it so they still need to win 3 sets to claim the match should be looked at. For example, play each set as first to 5 games. If the players are tied at 4 games apiece, one of them needs to try and claim the set 6-4 (currently you need to claim the set 7-5 when it's 5 games apiece). If it goes to 5-5 in the set, then there is a tie-break except for the deciding 5th set. The winner of the match will need to win at least 15 games instead of the current 12 games. Each set might last less than half an hour but you have at least 3 sets therefore a much longer and hopefully more competitive contest, with the same dynamics at play as per the men's game.

 

Fuck the doubles matches off if you are serious about being a singles competitor.

 

I'm almost sure that the female tennis players who have been most vocal about pay parity won't want to change the nature of the scoring system though.

 

[Remmie]

I don't get the argument that female Tennis players won't or can't have the fitness for 5 sets. Women run marathons and Triathlons so why not play five sets?

 

I think the real reason they don't play 5 sets is down to the logistical headaches in the organisation of the tournament, trying to find the extra time in the schedule for longer matches. I think it is more realistic that men will player fewer sets rather than women pay more due to this (though still unlikely).

 

The other misnomer is prize money. Ultimately it is only part of a Tennis players earnings, they make more from sponsorship, which is even less fair. I read somewhere that Li Na makes more than Andy Murray & Serena Williams.

[Champ]

Do you think Serena Williams would have won the number of titles she has if she had been required to play 5 sets?

[Jose Jones]

Champ, on 01 Feb 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

 

Do you think Serena Williams would have won the number of titles she has if she had been required to play 5 sets?

Probably more in the early part of her career when she was miles faster and fitter than anyone else. Maybe a few less in the later part of her career where she relies more on smacking the ball hard and doesn't move around so well.

So evens out I reckon.