georgefren
Member
was that it ...
Hey, it's not Serena's fault she was too good.Never in doubt. I'm all for gender equality and everything...but this equal prizemoney business is a farce
I still think equal prizemoney is bullshit unless women play 5 setsMen's Doubles Final was disappointing. I really wanted Mark Knowles and Bhupati to win that, they had so much momentum and they should have closed out that second set.
No doubt the Mixed Doubles won't last long [stupid rules, even for normal Doubles play, in the third set, they go to a tie-breaker at 6-all] But I'm just watching to see Sania and Bhupati win.
Hey, it's not Serena's fault she was too good.
And like her sister said, "women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments...." Interestingly, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's.
Equal prizemoney isn't about the longevity of matches.
Good one buddyHey, it's not Serena's fault she was too good.
And like her sister said, "women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments...." Interestingly, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's.
Equal prizemoney isn't about the longevity of matches.
No doubt the Mixed Doubles won't last long [stupid rules, even for normal Doubles play, in the third set, they go to a tie-breaker at 6-all] But I'm just watching to see Sania and Bhupati win.
Funny how you used longevity to 'prove' your point, even though you claim it is not a factor in granting equal prizemoney. Interestingly, you use one essentially freak occurence 4 years ago in isolation, so clearly the prizemoney should be equal because of this one match. Who the hell talks about the 'quality' ladies singles final at Wimbledon last year? In terms of wta matches, i watched it and it was right up there, but it was completely eclipsed by the mens final.I need to vent. I'm so frustrated at the rules for Doubles Matches!!
Why are the doubles matches so quick?!! WHY!!
Who was silly enough to change the rule, in MIXED DOUBLES to No Advantage Point on Deuce. That's ridiculous. I mean, spectators want to see a LONG, exciting contest. What's the harm in having Advantages at Deuce?!
I really love watching doubles action but they always go by so fast. I think a doubles match only lasts 1 hour.
Don't you think they're allowed to have a life outside of tennis? It's like going to work. Obviously you're not going to have that dominating your life. A lot of tennis players do things outside the sport. Some study and get degrees, others are like the Williams sisters and have their own interests and past-times. I believe, that at the end of the day, it's just going out onto the court and giving it your all.dum_di_dum said:Williams sisters relatively fit, Justine out of the game, you might as well toss a coin between them at the start of the tournament. Hell both of them aren't even fully dedicated to the sport (Serena and her clothing line, lack of motivation, acting aspirations, etc). What does that tell you?
The way you constructed your post made it seemed as though you were suggesting the match was too short, thus, poor quality.Good one buddy
Where did I say that? Prizemoney should always be about the quality of matches, duh. Were you even watching? The gulf between no.2 and no.3 in the world is that large? Ridiculously farcical. Yeah it's not Serena's fault she can take home an odd mil for 59 minutes of utter crap, playing her normal game while Safina hands her breaks with DFs and nerves despite playing professionally for many years and already being in a GS and Olympics final. That's down to this equal rights hoohah (in the game) and the tennis governing bodies. Oh, and Venus campaigning for equal prizemoney.
Yes, I enjoy long matches, and I don't like the format of doubles play. However, that's why I think the singles event does deserve equal prizemoney, because singles matches DO last longer.Funny how you used longevity to 'prove' your point, even though you claim it is not a factor in granting equal prizemoney.
Absolutely, and to win the final, men need to win 21 sets, whereas women need only win 14I think that the prizemoney shouldn't come down to the FINAL. I think both the men & women winners deserve their reward because of ALL the matches they've played in the tournament, so whoever comes out the victor should walk away with it, irrespective of the final match. The prizemoney should be measured as a WHOLE.
Tennis is not the most important thing in the world, far from it. You should read my post more carefully - it is ridiculous to suggest that tennis be the sole focus of players if they didn't want it to be. But to also state that tennis does not dominate most top players lives, always practising, on the move to the next tournament, maintaining physical conditioning even during the offseason etc. is wishful thinking. It is a 24/7 job, for much of the year. The very fact that the Williams sisters do not have to do this says a lot about the lack of depth in the women's game - Serena has taken breaks from tennis in the past and yet shows up at a GS unfit and still able demolish everyone in the field.Don't you think they're allowed to have a life outside of tennis? It's like going to work. Obviously you're not going to have that dominating your life. A lot of tennis players do things outside the sport. Some study and get degrees, others are like the Williams sisters and have their own interests and past-times. I believe, that at the end of the day, it's just going out onto the court and giving it your all.
What in my post made you think I was talking about match time? Or that a short match equals poor quality? Even though it was both short and low quality. That's Serena's normal game as I said, she only had to step up in comparison to earlier matches, she has not been playing well in this tournament. Kuznetsova should have beaten her too, simply choked, despite tournament organisers during everything they could to assist Serena by disrupting the match and closing the roof between sets. Similarly, Azarenka was in an advantageous position.The way you constructed your post made it seemed as though you were suggesting the match was too short, thus, poor quality.
I think Serena did play well. She hits heavy and her game play was aggressive, which was a big improvement from her first few matches. Safina was shaky this tournament and she was fortunate to get out of her R4 & Quarterfinal match against Jelena Dokic, who really I think should have been the one in the Final.
The only way the match could have been better, was for Serena to play worse and let Dinara back into the match, then go a third set. I don't think players PLAN how a final is going down. When you play, you're in control of your own game, not the opposition. If the other player isn't playing their game well enough or how the crowd or audience expects them to play, the winner shouldn't be penalized for that.
Ok...singles matches DO last longer. Also, singles players get paid more than doubles players. Mens singles matches DO last longer than ladies singles. Some doubles matches can last longer than singles matches, like last night's 'less than an hour' final. What's your point? I thought 'longevity' had nothing to do with equal prizemoney.Yes, I enjoy long matches, and I don't like the format of doubles play. However, that's why I think the singles event does deserve equal prizemoney, because singles matches DO last longer.
I think that the prizemoney shouldn't come down to the FINAL. I think both the men & women winners deserve their reward because of ALL the matches they've played in the tournament, so whoever comes out the victor should walk away with it, irrespective of the final match. The prizemoney should be measured as a WHOLE.