Yesterday's final is exactly why men play 5 sets. It lends itself to a fantastic spectacle which 3 sets would not have achieved.
Difficult to say with women's tennis. Apparently they experimented with playing 5 sets but the standard deteriorated after 3 sets to such a degree that they chose to only play 3. Would be interesting if that is still the case with more modern fitness regimes.
It would certainly make for a stronger case for equal prize money.
Thé standard didn’t deteriorate, that’s nonsense. If you google it you can see the whole history of 3 v 5 tennis for women, it’s a long but interesting read and I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable (or bored enough) to summarise.
No, hotnow. This isn't a "schtick". I was just musing on the varying lengths and thinking how daft the inequality of length is. I am sure you feel sad about the inequality of length on a regular basis.
More hatred of the small-appendaged community from the feminazis on ROF. I’m no longer surprised. I would urge you to drop the hate and come on a march with us against male body-shaming. We, I mean, they, set off from Hyde Park Corner at noon next Saturday. It’d be great if you and Linda could come as ‘allies’ to show support for the ‘alternatively endowed’ community. #Lovenothate.
It does seem as a general probability daft to have people championing equality of pay in tennis without equality of endurance. but on reflection it seems daft to call for equality of pay in football between women and men when the viewing numbers are so shyt for women's footy*
if the women's tennis gets roughly equal viewing figures worldwide, I can see a 3 set equal pay argument
*i am not talking international footy cos I understand both sides only get a match fee for that rather than cricket style central contracts.
the question does seem to be linked to the age old "women can't do this, they are so delicate" thing. On absolute on Sunday morning Jason Mansford was talking about the stat (can't recall where from) that 12% of blokes reckon they could take a point off of SW in a 3 set game. which initially sounds like 12% of blokes are mysogynist bastards* but on reflection could indicate 88% are realists.
*i am not saying they are not, I just dont know how often she double faults**
**I wouldnt take the odds tbh i am shyt at tennis***
***would be quite embarassing if jason manford beat one at a sport so I wouldnt play him****
****dont reckon i could beat that south african lass in an 800m race.*****
if the women's tennis gets roughly equal viewing figures worldwide, I can see a 3 set equal pay argument
They are absolutely nowhere near. See Eastbourne vs Queens for the most clear cut example as they are pretty much equivalent tournaments. See also the TV viewing figures for male vs female majors finals; usually the men's final gets more than double. See the crowd sizes for Bouchard vs. Sharapova as opposed Kvitova vs Halep for another unfortunate example, and their respective sponsorship agreements.
I think the argument should be about correlation/causation. How many people watch the men's final and not the women's because it gets more publicity because more people traditionally watch it because of the historically patriarchal nature of the game? Can you help address the imbalance by having strict equal coverage rules etc so that the commercial justification for paying them the same catches up with reality?
0
0
I read somewhere that the courts couldn't handle that much extra tennis, that they're at the end of their usefulness after the two weeks as it is!
0
0
Men should play three sets. Less injuries, more recovery time, higher intensity as you don’t have so much time to stay in the match.
And equality, win win.
0
0
How many sets is the women's final then? I really don't know anything about tennis (in case you you hadn't already divined).
0
0
Yesterday's final is exactly why men play 5 sets. It lends itself to a fantastic spectacle which 3 sets would not have achieved.
Difficult to say with women's tennis. Apparently they experimented with playing 5 sets but the standard deteriorated after 3 sets to such a degree that they chose to only play 3. Would be interesting if that is still the case with more modern fitness regimes.
It would certainly make for a stronger case for equal prize money.
0
0
Thé standard didn’t deteriorate, that’s nonsense. If you google it you can see the whole history of 3 v 5 tennis for women, it’s a long but interesting read and I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable (or bored enough) to summarise.
0
0
Hey are u trying to take my schtick?
0
0
No, hotnow. This isn't a "schtick". I was just musing on the varying lengths and thinking how daft the inequality of length is. I am sure you feel sad about the inequality of length on a regular basis.
0
0
LOL
0
0
I may have been misinformed. In any event I don't see a huge number of people clamouring for longer matches. Maybe they should play 5.
0
0
More hatred of the small-appendaged community from the feminazis on ROF. I’m no longer surprised. I would urge you to drop the hate and come on a march with us against male body-shaming. We, I mean, they, set off from Hyde Park Corner at noon next Saturday. It’d be great if you and Linda could come as ‘allies’ to show support for the ‘alternatively endowed’ community. #Lovenothate.
0
0
I just almost spat out my tea at the phrase "alternatively endowed". :)
0
0
It does seem as a general probability daft to have people championing equality of pay in tennis without equality of endurance. but on reflection it seems daft to call for equality of pay in football between women and men when the viewing numbers are so shyt for women's footy*
if the women's tennis gets roughly equal viewing figures worldwide, I can see a 3 set equal pay argument
*i am not talking international footy cos I understand both sides only get a match fee for that rather than cricket style central contracts.
the question does seem to be linked to the age old "women can't do this, they are so delicate" thing. On absolute on Sunday morning Jason Mansford was talking about the stat (can't recall where from) that 12% of blokes reckon they could take a point off of SW in a 3 set game. which initially sounds like 12% of blokes are mysogynist bastards* but on reflection could indicate 88% are realists.
*i am not saying they are not, I just dont know how often she double faults**
**I wouldnt take the odds tbh i am shyt at tennis***
***would be quite embarassing if jason manford beat one at a sport so I wouldnt play him****
****dont reckon i could beat that south african lass in an 800m race.*****
*****or in any race tbh
footnotes out
0
0
No I think 3 is fine.
0
0
if the women's tennis gets roughly equal viewing figures worldwide, I can see a 3 set equal pay argument
They are absolutely nowhere near. See Eastbourne vs Queens for the most clear cut example as they are pretty much equivalent tournaments. See also the TV viewing figures for male vs female majors finals; usually the men's final gets more than double. See the crowd sizes for Bouchard vs. Sharapova as opposed Kvitova vs Halep for another unfortunate example, and their respective sponsorship agreements.
I think the argument should be about correlation/causation. How many people watch the men's final and not the women's because it gets more publicity because more people traditionally watch it because of the historically patriarchal nature of the game? Can you help address the imbalance by having strict equal coverage rules etc so that the commercial justification for paying them the same catches up with reality?
Join the discussion