*Official* Tennis Thread

[vic_orthdox]

And your point is ? Does that prove my post wrong in any wat ? Yeah women tennis is not as powerful as men's but that doesn't mean it is not quality Tennis. and that's why they should be paid equal amount. Infact Men's tennis tournaments should be stopped until they find someone who can consistently challenge Federer. It has become boring to watch one sided matches.

I don't think he was trying to prove you wrong or anything. He was just making a comment on the topic at hand.

 

[Sanz]

im not sure about that, theres about 8-10 who could win a grand slam, and on a given day id say most people in the top 50 of the mens could...
look at some of the names low in the rankings, Moya 28, Ferrero 31, Haas 23, Massu 30, Ancic 32, Grosjean 35 etc... these guys could all win grand slams...
in the womens if u get outside the top 15 most struggle to make the semis of slams with the exception of players coming back from injuries...

Wimbledon isnt the ideal place to show the strength of mens tennis cause most players just dont play on grass...

When was the last time anyone of Ferro,Moya, Haas, Massu, Ancic, Grosjean won a Grand Slam title ? At present none of these guys could challenge Federer. In Men's tennis there is a huge different between No.1 and rest of the tennis players, which is not the case in Women's tennis.
Besides who has got time to watch first/second round matches, I start watching Grandslam titles Quarters onwards and there I would like best in the world to play and compete and I dont think Men's tennis today provides me that, it fact even when Pete was playing, he would win majority of the titles and some spanish speaking guy would win French open. Really it was as predictable as that.

 

[Sanz]

did they stop womens tennis when the williams sisters won everything for a while?

They would have, if it were in their control. The moment Williams sisters started winning slam titles, it became boring, it wasn't boring when Navratilova, Graff and Christ Evert were winning all the titles among themselves for 20 years. Besides williams sisters are two players, aren't they ?

and did u not see Safin beat federer in australia or see nadal beat federer in paris??

That just proves that Federer was having an off day. Anyways, doesn't Safin Rank below 15 ? French open I already said is reserved for spanish speaking guys who dissappear after winning it, How many matches Nadal won at Wimbledon ?

 

[marc71178]

not many people know the story of when richard williams was going on about how Venus and Serena could beat any male tennis player, this was in about 2000. And a German guy nearing the end of his career, he was about 34-35 challenged each of them to a set. He beat Serena 6-0 and Venus 6-1, this guy was ranked 500 in the world and he still wallaped them...

That Richard Williams was always in a bit of a fantasy world.

Didn't he also say his girls should be seeded directly to the final?

 

[marc71178]

And lastly Richard Williams was only responding to a Jealous Mcneroe's remark about Female Tennis player's shouldn't be paid same money as men.

But they shouldn't.

 

[Jono]

That Richard Williams was always in a bit of a fantasy world.

I bet that's what people were saying about him when he said his daughters would be playing each other in the Australian Open final when they were in their early teens.

In 2003, that happened.

Although I agree with what some of Sanz says, I still find men's tennis more competitive, except for Federer. But that doesn't make me not want to watch tennis, it makes me want to watch it more. Federer is such a genius, an artist, it attracts even more people to the sport. Plus he's not having an Australian like dominance just yet, only on grass. Safin beat him in a ripper at the Aus Open, and has challenged him on many occasions.

 

[Sanz]

But they shouldn't.

Why not ?

 

[Sanz]

That Richard Williams was always in a bit of a fantasy world.

Didn't he also say his girls should be seeded directly to the final?

If you had daughters like these two, you would be asking for every Grandslam trophy without actually participating in those.

 

[Sanz]

I still find men's tennis more competitive, except for Federer. But that doesn't make me not want to watch tennis, it makes me want to watch it more. Federer is such a genius, an artist, it attracts even more people to the sport. Plus he's not having an Australian like dominance just yet, only on grass. Safin beat him in a ripper at the Aus Open, and has challenged him on many occasions.

Federer is good, but not a genius. It's just that the players around him are just not good enough. It was not the case couple of years ago when pete Sampras was playing. Pete would face good competition from like Richard Krajicek, Goran(on Grass) Rafter, Agassi etc. The fact that he still ended up winning so many slams makes him great. For Federer there is no such competition.

Did you get to watch Davenport/Venus Final ?? It was classic and compare that to Roddick/Federer.

 

[Jono]

Yes Davenport/Venus was a great battle. Personally I found Serena/Sharapova semi-final at the Australian Open a little better. Serena fighting back facing match points to get her Wimbledon revenge was just great watching. And seeing Sharapova, so young, handle the pressure so well just made the match brilliant.

Sanz I agree with almost everything you say regarding the women's game, but I still find men's tennis just as good, and though Federer may be brilliant on grass, on hard courts he can be beaten. Yes we don't have the Sampras/Agassi rivalry yet, but Nadal still has a lot of potential and I don't think he'll be one of those "Spanish guys that only win the French". I'll be surprised if he does, because he showed a lot in the Australian Open against Hewitt, a hell of a lot.

You're entitled to your opinion, and if you don't like men's tennis currently, that's fine. Just like Scaly doesn't like women's tennis. Personally I love both.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Can't be bothered to replying to each of the posts by Sanz, but there's no way Venus should get any near as much money as Federer. For a start Federer plays 5 sets, Venus 3. Venus is inferior in every department to Federer. It's like giving a go-karting champion the same amount of money as a formula 1 champion.

 

[Pratters]

Can't be bothered to replying to each of the posts by Sanz, but there's no way Venus should get any near as much money as Federer. For a start Federer plays 5 sets, Venus 3. Venus is inferior in every department to Federer. It's like giving a go-karting champion the same amount of money as a formula 1 champion.

Money is based on markets. Simple economics really. You cant complain about the money.

 

[Mister Wright]

Money is based on markets. Simple economics really. You cant complain about the money.

Economics is never simple.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Money is based on markets. Simple economics really. You cant complain about the money.

Again, men's games are 5 sets, they last longer - they get more money, simple.

 

[Pratters]

Again, men's games are 5 sets, they last longer - they get more money, simple.

No markets are driven by what the people want to see. Now you dont like the womens game. A lot of people like to watch the womens game. A lot of people like to watch the mens game. If more people like to watch the womens game, it will get more money eventually.

I really dont understand the war on prize money. Women want equal prize money. Some people want much less for women. If the markets want, women may as well have more prize money.

Money in a sport is not related to skills involved in a sport. Its how much people want to see that sport.

 

[Mister Wright]

Again, men's games are 5 sets, they last longer - they get more money, simple.

Men's games are not 5 sets they are 4 points minimum...

Men play more sets because they are fitter and stronger than women. That doesn't mean women work any less harder than men to be at the top of their game - they deserve equal prize money.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'll repeat myself yet again

Men's games last longer, they cover more airtime, they therefore should get more money (I assume there are adverts on some channels around the world - so in that case more advertising revenue is gathered as well as the companies getting more tennis). I'm not arguing which game gets more viewers (I'd assume it would be men's tennis unless there's a non-blokette still playing in the women's competition)

The players that are rubbish perhaps don't work any less harder than the men at the top of their game - do they deserve equal prize money when they get KOed in the first round?

 

[marc71178]

Why not ?

For a start they play a hell of a lot less Tennis.

 

[marc71178]

I really dont understand the war on prize money. Women want equal prize money. Some people want much less for women. If the markets want, women may as well have more prize money.

Money in a sport is not related to skills involved in a sport. Its how much people want to see that sport.

No, prize money is set by the organisers - there's no real market forces involved.

 

[Pratters]

No, prize money is set by the organisers - there's no real market forces involved.

Ture prize money is set by organisers. False that market forces arent involved. Would you really get as much money as you get to win etc if no one watched Wimbledon?