The official Wimbledon Thread....

[Baron Greenback]

BenM77 said:

MiniMan64 said:

Another year and another mockery made of women's tennis by the men's final.

They need to extend women's tennis to the same amount of sets. It would make a big difference IMO.

So you think wen should be playing 4hr matches?

[BenM77]

Baron Greenback said:

BenM77 said:

MiniMan64 said:

Another year and another mockery made of women's tennis by the men's final.

They need to extend women's tennis to the same amount of sets. It would make a big difference IMO.

So you think wen should be playing 4hr matches?

Do you have any good reason why they shouldn't?

[bexVN]

As I said earlier they could do 4 sets in the final 5th a first to 10 with the 2 point gap like they do in the seniors. (bit still do 3 sets during the tournament. This way a min of 3 sets would be played in the women's game.

That or reduce the prize money. Equality should not be about picking out their favourite bits (ie the money!!)

[BlackLabel]

Amazing final. Both men played superbly - shame that there had to be a loser.

[BenM77]

BlackLabel said:

Amazing final. Both men played superbly - shame that there had to be a loser.

Agreed, although I was surprised with the final set as I thought Federer would have the momentum.


A great final though. Tennis at it's very best

[Baron Greenback]

Very good interview by them all! Two top player at the top of they game played so well, great game!

[bexVN]

Brilliant. Give him his due he could've collapsed his game after losing the 4th set.

[Baron Greenback]

BenM77 said:

Baron Greenback said:

BenM77 said:

MiniMan64 said:

Another year and another mockery made of women's tennis by the men's final.

They need to extend women's tennis to the same amount of sets. It would make a big difference IMO.

So you think wen should be playing 4hr matches?

Do you have any good reason why they shouldn't?

The men just can handle a long 5 set match! Even if this year's women final it still would of been finished 20mins later. It was a one sided match as she couldn't get a handle on her amazing serves and ground strokes and didn't play as she could of compare to her earlier matches.

I understand you feel robbed of a long final and that women shouldn't get paid due to the length of game! Forcing them to play 5 set isn't an excuse to level the payout of the wining Wimbledon. I have yet to hear a good reason why they shouldn't be paid equal, both mens and women's can finish way to early, strength isn't part of the game. Recoup for investors into the game is just as good mens and women's.

[BenM77]

I have no issues about the prize money being the same but I would argue that the men's tennis is better value for the viewers.

I just can't see why women's tennis is only 3 sets.

[Baron Greenback]

BenM77 said:

I have no issues about the prize money being the same but I would argue that the men's tennis is better value for the viewers.

I just can't see why women's tennis is only 3 sets.

Aye better mins/£ sure just remembered 5 sets is only for grandslams otherwise tis 3 set match. Men's struggle for long term set match I doubt women could handle full competition of 5 set, how about just the final?

[Baron Greenback]

Good mixed doubles! The men's doubles yesterday was one of the best double seen for ages! This is also a good match, very good reactions.

[bexVN]

Baron Greenback said:

BenM77 said:

I have no issues about the prize money being the same but I would argue that the men's tennis is better value for the viewers.

I just can't see why women's tennis is only 3 sets.

Aye better mins/£ sure just remembered 5 sets is only for grandslams otherwise tis 3 set match. Men's struggle for long term set match I doubt women could handle full competition of 5 set, how about just the final?

^^ and do final set as a 10 point tie break.

[jimbop1]

Baron Greenback said:

I have yet to hear a good reason why they shouldn't be paid equal

If you worked 5 days a week and a colleague worked 3.. Do you think they should get paid the same as you?

[amare32]

jimbop1 said:

Baron Greenback said:

I have yet to hear a good reason why they shouldn't be paid equal

If you worked 5 days a week and a colleague worked 3.. Do you think they should get paid the same as you?

Bingo.

I can't why anyone can't see this and yesterday's final was an insult to Fed and Djokovic today slugging it out
for the same prize money.

[Miocene]

jimbop1 said:

Baron Greenback said:

I have yet to hear a good reason why they shouldn't be paid equal

If you worked 5 days a week and a colleague worked 3.. Do you think they should get paid the same as you?

They still incur the same travel / physio / training costs...

This is not suggesting I actually disagree, but their cost base will be broadly similar.

[BlackLabel]

It's not just about the time on court imo - more so it's what they add to the whole product. The men have much higher viewing figures (I remember reading that the men's final attracts almost twice as many viewers) and this obviously makes it more appealing to the sponsors.

Some of the ladies get a phenomenal amount of personal sponsorship but is this primarily because of their tennis? I mean Sharapova has earned more than Venus Williams in endorsements over the years yet the latter is the more successful player.

Also, the article below from Forbes suggests that Bouchard will get much more off court money than Kvitova over the next few years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/miguelmorales/2014/07/...

Personally I think the only real argument (From a financial pov) for equal prize money is that the female players look a lot better than the men . Some equality that is - ironically it's actually a step backwards in my book.

Edited by BlackLabel on Wednesday 9th July 17:13

[jbudgie]

amare32 said:

jimbop1 said:

Baron Greenback said:

I have yet to hear a good reason why they shouldn't be paid equal

If you worked 5 days a week and a colleague worked 3.. Do you think they should get paid the same as you?

Bingo.

I can't why anyone can't see this and yesterday's final was an insult to Fed and Djokovic today slugging it out
for the same prize money.

Agreed---women want equality,--but only in money, not effort.

[JNW1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

+1

There's been some very effective lobbying done to get women equal prize money going right back to the days of Billie Jean King. However, on the whole their matches just aren't as interesting or entertaining to watch which is in turn reflected in what they bring to the party in terms of commercial contribution; on that basis equal prize money has always been a bit of a joke IMO.

[bad company]

JNW1 said:

There's been some very effective lobbying done to get women equal prize money going right back to the days of Billie Jean King. However, on the whole their matches just aren't as interesting or entertaining to watch which is in turn reflected in what they bring to the party in terms of commercial contribution; on that basis equal prize money has always been a bit of a joke IMO.

Whether women's tennis is as entertaining as men's is an opinion. The number of sets they play is a fact and it needs dealing with IMO.

[JNW1]

bad company said:

Whether women's tennis is as entertaining as men's is an opinion. The number of sets they play is a fact and it needs dealing with IMO.

All depends on how you look at it but personally I think 3 sets is more than enough to endure where women's tennis is concerned; the idea of the likes of Sharapova and Azarenka screeching for up to 5 sets purely to justify equal prize money fills me with horror! Far better to reduce their prize money to reflect not just the reduced number of sets but also the lesser commercial appeal of the women's game; however, the equal prize money genie is out of the bottle and I fear it may be impossible to put it back!