2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

Status
Not open for further replies.

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reactions
14,997
Points
113
increase quantity when quality is already lower, it would put off most people even more.....all it does is so feminists can wank themselves better.
This argument always draws you like a moth to a flame. Decide what you want. Women get equal pay and folks complain, for various reasons, but often on Bo3 v Bo5, as @GameSetAndMath implied above. I don't agree that it matters how many sets you play, because tennis players don't get paid by the hour; not by the length or quality of an individual match. However, I think women are deprived of "epic" matches by not playing Bo5. My favorite idea is for Bo3 for all at Majors, until the QFs, then Bo5 for all, including women. Could cause more upset of top men's players, too, for those who want more of a shake-up.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
This argument always draws you like a moth to a flame. Decide what you want. Women get equal pay and folks complain, for various reasons, but often on Bo3 v Bo5, as @GameSetAndMath implied above. I don't agree that it matters how many sets you play, because tennis players don't get paid by the hour; not by the length or quality of an individual match. However, I think women are deprived of "epic" matches by not playing Bo5. My favorite idea is for Bo3 for all at Majors, until the QFs, then Bo5 for all, including women. Could cause more upset of top men's players, too, for those who want more of a shake-up.
cause and effect. quality is why more people show up for mens matches, compared to seniors, juniors, womens, and so on. people want to watch the best level they can get, except the idiots.
Equal pay is a lie for communists, ever wondered why it doesn't work in so many countries? tournaments should've stuck to their guns, when a group of good players used to get more than a group of crappy players.
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reactions
14,997
Points
113
I've been on the record saying grass is actually still a significantly different surface, but then why not make special rankings clay too?
Someone else suggested that they do it for all the Majors. Not sure that is necessary. However, there are players that do specialize, so if you privilege grass, why not clay?
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reactions
14,997
Points
113
cause and effect. quality is why more people show up for mens matches, compared to seniors, juniors, womens, and so on. people want to watch the best level they can get, except the idiots.
So everyone who doesn't feel the way that you do about men's tennis v. women's is an "idiot." Well-argued. #not. You put women on the level of seniors and juniors. That says a lot about you. I'm sorry for you that you're so enraged and threatened by women's tennis. Obviously, you don't have to watch it, but don't denigrate those that do enjoy it and follow it.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
So everyone who doesn't feel the way that you do about men's tennis v. women's is an "idiot." Well-argued. #not. You put women on the level of seniors and juniors. That says a lot about you. I'm sorry for you that you're so enraged and threatened by women's tennis. Obviously, you don't have to watch it, but don't denigrate those that do enjoy it and follow it.
Actually the seniors and juniors would beat your precious wta players, don't try and be funny but this is what all comes down to....who can win, and that's how it should be. Winners should be paid more, not losers.

that does say about me, all for fair and square, unlike your kind who are so deep into the PC pooh that has culturally degraded the society these days.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
So everyone who doesn't feel the way that you do about men's tennis v. women's is an "idiot." Well-argued. #not. You put women on the level of seniors and juniors. That says a lot about you. I'm sorry for you that you're so enraged and threatened by women's tennis. Obviously, you don't have to watch it, but don't denigrate those that do enjoy it and follow it.

also don't misquote what I said, 'people want to watch the best level they can get, except the idiots.' I don't know any sane tennis fan who would watch worse players when given a viable choice. why do you think fans would choose players several levels below when they can watch top level players? lol
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reactions
14,997
Points
113
Actually the seniors and juniors would beat your precious wta players, don't try and be funny but this is what all comes down to....who can win, and that's how it should be. Winners should be paid more, not losers.

that does say about me, all for fair and square, unlike your kind who are so deep into the PC pooh that has culturally degraded the society these days.
In what world is anyone arguing that the losers should be paid more than winners? You're not for "fair and square." You're terrified that women get their share, and it seems to shrivel your "position." (Ahem.) It's not a zero-sum game. Men don't get less because women get theirs. Get over it. If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it. It's not your money, and you're not a professional tennis player. It basically affects you not.at.all. It says more about you than anything else, how much it bothers you.
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reactions
14,997
Points
113
Those matches are only good when Novak is playing full throttle and destroys Nadal. Any true Rafa hater is not rooting for him to make the final here or anywhere. This fortnight is about Roger stepping up and protecting his career before catastrophe strikes.
If you think of it, those 3 sentences aren't at all related. Certainly not for @Bonaca, whom I don't take for a Rafa-hater. Nadal-Djokovic matches may be in the eye of the beholder, and I don't expect a Djokovic fan, much less a Nadal one, to think that this fortnight is all about Roger. B-)
 

tenisplayrla08

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
2,319
Reactions
503
Points
113
also don't misquote what I said, 'people want to watch the best level they can get, except the idiots.' I don't know any sane tennis fan who would watch worse players when given a viable choice. why do you think fans would choose players several levels below when they can watch top level players? lol

So. A couple things. Everyone has a viable choice these days. There are several women's players who draw more eyes and money than the vast majority of the men. Because in their respective fields those women are better than those men. Serena and Venus and Sharapova and Vika and now Kerber and Muguruza and Stephens and Halep and Osaka and other top 10 players draw more eyes and attention than ... lets conservatively say 80% of the men on the tour. And if I've got a choice between Anderson/Roanic and Kerber/Halep. I'm taking Kerber/Halep all day. That's me. I have always cared about women's tennis. But for the most part, I think the vast majority of people today would rather see two ladies battle than two serve bots.

But what's most important is, they put men and women on these courts. These are joint events. The seats are charged for the DAY. Whether more people watch mens or womens matches at that point is irrelevant. Naturally, more people wanna watch Rafa/Fed or Fed/Djokovic or Djokovic/Rafa more than they wanna watch any womens match or any other mens match. But they wanna watch Serena verse any top 10 competition more than they wanna watch Thiem/Zverev. But again. It's rather irrelevant. Because there are usually an equal amount of womens and mens matches on the show courts and people pay for them based on the day. You may see a womens match start out more empty. But it'll usually fill up. But at RG this year it looked to me like all matches, mens and womens were down compared to every year I've watched it before.

Tennis is based on its best players, on both tours. It is a sport of personalities, just like every other sport. People go to Wimbledon to see the top players on both tours. Therefore it stands to reason that men and women get equal prize money because the top men and top women are the main draws.

As to your discussion of quality. I could be wrong. But it basically seems like you're defining quality based on men's play. The women play different and that is ok. Women, smaller in stature, are going to be more breakable. No matter what. But they therefore build their games around different facets of the game. But it's the fact that so many of the women have gotten so good at breaking their opponents that has made the women's tour look like no one can hold. But that's ok. Because again. The top players become top players because they come out on top more often than not. They are the most solidly consistent. Or they are the ones who can take over a match more than the others. The quality on the women's tour, with the depth they have today, is arguably better than it has ever been.

And there are so many players on the womens tour, as there are on the mens tour, who have a single shot that is so good it can change the dynamic of any point. Case in point. Kerber. Kerber LOVES to pull that move where she crouches to the point where her knees are almost on the ground and she digs out a forehand and sends it wherever she wants to, usually up the line. As a lefty, it is incredibly effective and it's incredible how often it works. She has put in hours and hours and hours to perfect a shot like that. It is one of the reasons she's got 3 slams, 2 of them being wins over Serena. And you will NEVER, in your life see a man pull it off. Men aren't that flexible. You'll see Djokovic come close to something like it. But it's not the same. But what it does it makes great returns from her opponent, that land close to the baseline, less effective. Because she can stay in the point because of that shot. And that is good tennis. Yes. Her serve is more prone to attack. Than any of the men and a lot of the women. But she's 5'8". David Ferrer was still 5'9". Schwartzman is 5'7". She's a taller woman. But on the tour she's about mid height. Not tall enough to have one of the great serves like Serena or Venus or even as great of a first serve as Sharapova or Vika. All of who are 6' plus, except for Serena.
Sloane Stephens inside out forehand, that she sets up for so well and seems to come out of nowhere quite often is one of the best shots in tennis. Men or women.
Halep's dtl backhand. Serena's serve. Venus serve. Both of their backhands. Henin's one handed backhand. I mean. That thing was possibly the most beautiful thing any of us have ever seen and it dominated women's tennis for a couple years.
Yes. We've seen much fewer dominant players on the women's side over the course of the Big 3 men's careers. But we've also seen Serena, plagued by injury her ENTIRE career, fight to come back over and over and over and win with little to no preparation quite often. She absolutely has some physical advantages most of the women on tour simply do not have. But the fact that she's been beatable says that her height and strength are not enough for her to win every match she plays. And yet she's been so dominant. So even though players like Stephens and Kuznetsova and Vika and Wozniacki have all had ups and downs and haven't dominated like some thought they might and have been down right bad at times, you cannot fault them for being imperfect when we've seen all of the men not in the big 3 or big 4 have ups and downs and not even get slams. The best they could muster were slam finals or semis. The depth on the women's tour is quite frankly astonishing and impressive.

I am far from a far left liberal who cares about being PC. I tend to be PC because I find that most of the people who are not PC tend to be thick skulled, stubborn people (men and women) who refuse to take the time to think outside of their own perspective or worldview. Who think their thoughts and beliefs are more important than other peoples LIVES or livelihoods. Who don't take the time to find the nuance that is part of life. But, specifically, I am SICK of men acting like just because sports were the male domain first and because men are naturally bigger and stronger and because more men watch sports and therefore men care to watch men more, that women do not deserve equal pay. It's lunacy. It is in fact sexist and quite frankly pathetic. ESPECIALLY in tennis where men and women have been playing the sport, alongside each other, for over 50 years now. And the women weren't given equal prize money until 2007. That's LUDICROUS. The women's tennis tour is the best female sport league on the planet, and it's not close. If we in tennis at our 4 biggest tournaments at the very least, that ARE joint events, can't give equal prize money to men and women, that's just sad and pathetic and not an example to set for anyone. This sport would be A LOT less rich, culturally and monetarily, if Graf and Seles and Evert and Navratilova and BJK and Court and Hingis and Tracy Austin and Sabbatini and Novotna and Henin and Capriati and Davenport and Goolagong and Sanchez Vicario and Pam Shriver and ... I mean. I could go on and on. They are all so important to this sport now and we wouldn't have had the pleasure of watching them if they hadn't gone out and set up their own tour and put in the work to draw the crowds. Because lord knows the men told them they couldn't join them. And BJK laughed and said, I'll make it happen. And she did. Those ladies then and the ladies playing today have put in every bit as much work to get to the top of their field as the men have to get to the top of their fields. Equal prize money at the 4 biggest events that sell tickets and tv rights based upon the fact that the men and women will both be playing is just common sense. It shouldn't even be a question.
 

tenisplayrla08

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
2,319
Reactions
503
Points
113
@tenisplayrla08 couple of things????
You just wrote a novel! :)

I know. It ALWAYS happens. I got going and couldn't stop and then didn't have the presence of mind to edit and delete parts. But. For this discussion in particular, I think it's important. So I'm fine with having written a lot.

But I could also argue that my "couple of things" was a rhetorical device as in, "Listen up, cause I'm bout to school ya." Because I have NO patience for people who aren't down with equal prize money. Like it even effects them.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reactions
14,997
Points
113
I know. It ALWAYS happens. I got going and couldn't stop and then didn't have the presence of mind to edit and delete parts. But. For this discussion in particular, I think it's important. So I'm fine with having written a lot.

But I could also argue that my "couple of things" was a rhetorical device as in, "Listen up, cause I'm bout to school ya." Because I have NO patience for people who aren't down with equal prize money. Like it even effects them.
What you wrote was briliant! :clap::clap:
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
The WTA do lots of pathetic stuff such as allow on court coaching which is laughable. Personally I'm all for tournaments doing their own thing. For example, the WTF does things differently and it makes it interesting.

Why is on court coaching laughable?

I understand if you're against it, but laughable? Why is it laughable? It exists in soooooooo many sports that I really roll my eyes reading something like that.

So again, what's "laughable" about a coach...coaching?

Please find something less boring than "because it's supposed to be about the players figuring things out" as if a coach is swinging the racket for you or holding your nerves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tenisplayrla08

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,639
Reactions
5,729
Points
113
Well, I think that @Federberg nailed when he posted that this is Wimbledon being Wimbledon, but... even if surfaces are not that different now, let's not pretend they are exactly the same. Most player's winning percentage across surfaces are different enough. The greatest problem is that grass "season" is extremely short, so they compensate with a two years ranking. Wimbledon is just standing their ground (literally). That is their way of saying "grass is different". The discrepancy once was more prominent, yes, but it is still there.

But isn't a marvelous and beautiful coincidence that Federer fans think that the Wimbledon system is fair, and Nadal fans otherwise? Oh, what a terrible and torturing thing it would be if some poor Federer (Nadal) fan reckoned that this system is wrong (right).
I think this is a misrepresentation of Fedfans on this forum. I'm not sure any of us have really answered the question about whether this is fair or not. We commented on this issue more because of what we perceived Rafa's reaction was than on the validity of the system. For my part... in this day of surface homogeneity it's a pointless exercise. I have no issue with it being done away with
 

don_fabio

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
4,449
Reactions
4,920
Points
113
Thanks man. People need to have some respect. For the women. Not me.

That was a well written post, I mean the long one. Just to add that to me women's tennis on slams is really interesting and some of those matches they play are certainly better than some men's matches and women have such a long history too, it's not like they started to play 10 years ago on slams like many other sports. How many soccer players or basketball women's players ordinary people know? I don't know a single name and I know more than 100 women's tennis players. It does tell a lot. It is probably because of the upredictability that most people discard their tennis as boring, but to me that's part of the joy that so many players have a shot at a good result. I would be more than happy to see some more surprises in the men's draw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tenisplayrla08

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,326
Reactions
6,092
Points
113
@tenisplayrla08, I agree with the majority of your post - at least as far as tennis is concerned. But I think we need to look at it on a sport by sport basis. The WTA is roughly equal to the ATP in terms of popularity, heritage, and depth of talent, but pro basketball would be a very different affair...it would be ludicrous to suggest that WNBA players deserve equal play to NBA.

In other words, while I'm far from a diehard capitalist, professional sports is a business, a market, and the salaries should be based on what the players actually earn. In most sports salaries are simply based upon what teams will pay, which is based on revenue and what the market will bear. The NBA/WNBA is a lot easier to figure out, and the WNBA market is comparatively miniscule. But tennis is a bit different, and for the very top players most of their "salary" comes from endorsements. But as far as tournament earnings, I do think that we can say that female tennis players deserve at the very least comparable play to the male players; unless there is a way to figure out who draws more, I'd just say they should be paid the same - or possibly adjusted to Bo3 vs Bo5 (never heard that idea, but it kind of makes sense).

I don't follow WTA nearly as closely as ATP, for a variety of reasons. But I do enjoy the average WTA match about as much - sometimes more, depending upon matchup. And yes, it is because of the serve-bot thing. I greatly prefer watching Aggie Radwanska to Milos Raonic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Federberg

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
I just find it insane that people are so concerned with what multi-millionaire athletes are making, or worse, caring too much if mid-level non-millionaire athletes make more. OK, say women now start making as much as men in tennis, how does that impact me or you in any way whatsoever, fragile masculinity being scarred aside? On the flipside, I'm not losing too much sleep over Serena Williams not making a few more millions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: don_fabio

herios

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
8,984
Reactions
1,659
Points
113
First few matches have started, looks as the seeded players will have no problems.
Stan, Bautista-Agut opened a two set lead over their opponents, Anderson also up a set and a break.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.