News1 min ago
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
I think she's realised in recent times that she wasted a few years and slams when she fell out of love with the game. She now sees that she can get close to Graf's record and I reckon she's set herself a 20 slam goal.
09:20 Sat 07th Sep 2013
I would not trouble myself by getting up to turn the telly on to watch women's tennis. It is second rate rubbish, holds virtually no excitement and the notion that the women's winner at Wimbledon gets the same as the chaps is one of the greatest injustices in any sport.
Yes, Serena Williams is a good player. The best of a poor bunch. But by being so good she often makes the matches in which she takes part even more tedious. (Witness this particular semi-final: 87 minutes for just fifteen games. A game involving the last four in a Grand Slam. If I'd paid to get in I'd want my money back).
My own view of women's tennis is that the tornaments should be held as seperate events to the men's. The prize money could then be determined by the number of bums on seats they achieve and the amount the TV companies are prepared to shell out.
Yes, Serena Williams is a good player. The best of a poor bunch. But by being so good she often makes the matches in which she takes part even more tedious. (Witness this particular semi-final: 87 minutes for just fifteen games. A game involving the last four in a Grand Slam. If I'd paid to get in I'd want my money back).
My own view of women's tennis is that the tornaments should be held as seperate events to the men's. The prize money could then be determined by the number of bums on seats they achieve and the amount the TV companies are prepared to shell out.
The only difference between women's tennis in the 1970s and that played now is the pay parity that has been achieved by the sustained and unjustified lobbying which was begun by Mrs L W King.
The difference in standards between men and women remains the same, the difference in length of matches remains the same, the difference in entertainment value remains the same. Consider this: how many people attend senior women's football matches? In 2012 the women’s FA Cup final saw Arsenal beat Bristol Academy before 4,988 spectators. If the match had been played alongside the men’s final (provided it was played first) no doubt the attendance would have been closer to the usual 100,000 or so (with probably five times that number wanting tickets). But as it was, it saw only about 5% of that number. At least the ladies spend the same amount of time on the pitch as he men (instead of about 60% in tennis) but still they cannot attract the crowds.
So it is with women’s tennis. It has nothing to do with being stuck in the 1970s. It simply that women’s sport, with one or two very exceptional examples, is nowhere near as entertaining as the men’s game and when played as separate events attract virtually no audience. And tennis is certainly not one of those exceptions.
The difference in standards between men and women remains the same, the difference in length of matches remains the same, the difference in entertainment value remains the same. Consider this: how many people attend senior women's football matches? In 2012 the women’s FA Cup final saw Arsenal beat Bristol Academy before 4,988 spectators. If the match had been played alongside the men’s final (provided it was played first) no doubt the attendance would have been closer to the usual 100,000 or so (with probably five times that number wanting tickets). But as it was, it saw only about 5% of that number. At least the ladies spend the same amount of time on the pitch as he men (instead of about 60% in tennis) but still they cannot attract the crowds.
So it is with women’s tennis. It has nothing to do with being stuck in the 1970s. It simply that women’s sport, with one or two very exceptional examples, is nowhere near as entertaining as the men’s game and when played as separate events attract virtually no audience. And tennis is certainly not one of those exceptions.
Have to disagree with New Judge. Women's tennis has improved greatly and yes, thanks to Billie Jean King, are now getting a decent share of the profits. Did Billie Jean not beat that MCP Bobby Riggs in a challenge? Serena's matches always command a huge crowd at the events she's appearing at. She is worth her purse.
I have to agree with New Judge, I've found women's tennis really boring for a long time. At least back in the 70s/80s there were still some serve and volleyers but the baseline play now favoured by both sexes is far more tedious. Serena and her sister have dominated the scene mainly through their power. It would be have been interesting to match them with Navratilova, Graf or Hingis in their prime - far more skilled and varied players - in my opinion.
We all have our different take on this subject, but I still think they are deserving of the prize money. Air tickets costs the same, hotel bills cost the same, coaching fees, agents, I could go on. There are also many more elite players from years past and in the present time too. Some of these women players are also the main bread winner in the family.
"My own view of women's tennis is that the tornaments should be held as seperate events to the men's."
By and large they are, the largest tournaments being the exception rather than the rule. And at most tournaments outside the Slams, attendance is relatively poor for both men's and women's matches.
There is actually a great deal of quality in the women's game, and some of the new players coming through are of a high standard including the "young pretender" Sloane Stephens, and our own Laura Robson, as well as Simona Halep and a few others too numerous to mention. What the women's players seem to lack is consistency, but it's not clear if that's any more true of most women than it is of men. Probably as most women lack the same power as the top men it is harder for them to dominate points, so that often it does become a case of "first mistake loses" rather than winners.
Given that you've previously expressed a disdain for tennis in general, it seems odd to attack women's tennis in particular. Except for that god-awful grunting of course... but a fair number of the new players don't do that either.
No, there is plenty of quality in women's tennis, although the top men are usually more entertaining.
By and large they are, the largest tournaments being the exception rather than the rule. And at most tournaments outside the Slams, attendance is relatively poor for both men's and women's matches.
There is actually a great deal of quality in the women's game, and some of the new players coming through are of a high standard including the "young pretender" Sloane Stephens, and our own Laura Robson, as well as Simona Halep and a few others too numerous to mention. What the women's players seem to lack is consistency, but it's not clear if that's any more true of most women than it is of men. Probably as most women lack the same power as the top men it is harder for them to dominate points, so that often it does become a case of "first mistake loses" rather than winners.
Given that you've previously expressed a disdain for tennis in general, it seems odd to attack women's tennis in particular. Except for that god-awful grunting of course... but a fair number of the new players don't do that either.
No, there is plenty of quality in women's tennis, although the top men are usually more entertaining.
I don’t recall expressing disdain for tennis, jim. I love the men’s game.
Butterbun, women are not getting a decent share of the profits, they are getting an extremely indecent and unjustifiably high share. Leaving aside the subjective issue of the quality of the play, they provide entertainment for less than 35% of the total time in most Grand Slam tournaments. Yet they get 50% of the prize money. The fact that their expenses are the same as the men is immaterial.. The very least they could do for half the prize money is to play five sets.
The Riggs/Billy Jean match was a farce and I quite agree that Riggs was a MCP. I am not. I believe absolutely that women should receive equal pay for equal work - and so should men. Personally I’d like to see Serena Williams take on Novak Djokovic - over five sets.
Butterbun, women are not getting a decent share of the profits, they are getting an extremely indecent and unjustifiably high share. Leaving aside the subjective issue of the quality of the play, they provide entertainment for less than 35% of the total time in most Grand Slam tournaments. Yet they get 50% of the prize money. The fact that their expenses are the same as the men is immaterial.. The very least they could do for half the prize money is to play five sets.
The Riggs/Billy Jean match was a farce and I quite agree that Riggs was a MCP. I am not. I believe absolutely that women should receive equal pay for equal work - and so should men. Personally I’d like to see Serena Williams take on Novak Djokovic - over five sets.
Perhaps you are thinking, jim, of when Idescribed it as a game of "second chances". It surely is with the scoring system meaning you can miss your first serve but still win the point, lose a few points but still win the game, lose a few games but still win the set and lose a set or two but still win the match. In fact it is the scoring system that makes the game so attractive to me. It's not about how many points you win, but which points you win. Some points are far more valuable than others and matches can be won by a player scoring considerably fewer points.
1 to 14 of 14
