2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[herios]

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.

All of them nicely through in 3 sets

 

[don_fabio]

Anderson really sealed the match against Herbert much easier than expected. Hope Novak Kohly will be somewhat interesting match on the virgin grass.

 

[don_fabio]

Break by Kohly in the first game

 

[herios]

Two unseeded players, Lopez and Opelka also through in 3

 

[herios]

Break by Kohly in the first game

Novak broke back

 

[don_fabio]

Two unseeded players, Lopez and Opelka also through in 3

Yeah Lopez and Opelka were both expected to win. Will be very interesting to see Lopez Khachanov match in R2

 

[herios]

Two good points won at the net by Novak. Not the volley technique was impressive, rather the reflex.

 

[atttomole]

27 shots on a grass court.

 

[don_fabio]

Khachanov hardly won a first set in TB against a guy who if I remember was mentioned as a second best Korean youngster when the Chung was hot.

 

[herios]

Yeah Lopez and Opelka were both expected to win. Will be very interesting to see Lopez Khachanov match in R2

Same with Stan vs. Opelka

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

FAA has to work out his serve issues. He has to be able to rely on it. Otherwise it will not happen for him.
Happy Canada Day !

 

[kskate2]

Felix drops the opener to Popsicle, but goes up 4-0 in the 2nd

 

[herios]

FAA has to work out his serve issues. He has to be able to rely on it. Otherwise it will not happen for him.
Happy Canada Day !

Happy Canada Day to you too.
I mentioned before that he needs to learn a second serve technique. He is too good not to be able to. A top player cannot afford to be a DF machine.

 

[herios]

Nole up 2 sets on Kohlschreiber. This is a good first round for Nole, a quality opponent who could bring him up to speed.

 

[herios]

I see Darcis won in straight sets against Misha Zverev. That had to be a fun match to watch, two S&V specialists.

 

[Federberg]

@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.

I largely agree with this. I am a capitalist so I don't mind stating quite frankly that if the 2 tours are indeed separate businesses then they have a responsibility to generate revenues for themselves. There should be no riding on the coat tails of each other. I think it's fair to make a distinction between the slams and the tour stuff. It is an inherently good thing that there is equal pay, but I can't say that I would object too much if there wasn't equal pay if the reasoning behind it was as a result of revenue generation. We've had these debates before, and I can concede the argument that it's impossible, during a slam, to determine precisely where the revenue is being generated. On that basis, equality is fair enough. However speaking as someone who has been fortunate enough to go to many many show courts during slams, I do roll my eyes when comparisons are made between the top men and top women at the moment. Let's be completely frank, no one on the women's side is going to draw remotely close to the top guys at the moment. But this is specific to this moment. But particularly Rafa and Roger, and to a great extent Novak as well, represent a draw that not even Serena matches. It's simply the way it is. It's easy to figure that out, by looking at the resale value of debenture tickets. Nothing compares to show courts when Fedalovic is playing. Nothing. But... I do also recall a time when the shoe was on the other foot. This was back in the era of peak Sampras, particularly when Agassi wasn't around. The Graf-Seles dynamic was a bigger draw at Wimbledon than Sampras. That was just a fact at the time. So my point is in no way gender biased. It's more star biased if you will. I guess the question needs to be asked, and I do often wonder, is the WTA being run properly at the moment? I think they could run the ATP close with more effective marketing. But maybe the leadership of the WTA and ATP should merge. I think the UFC does a fantastic job promoting women for example. There are many weekends where the main card is a women's match. The same could and should apply in tennis more frequently

 

[tenisplayrla08]

@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.

So highlighting the WNBA shows how this is a very specific discussion. Because it's only at these 4 tennis slams that men and women are both featured. The WNBA is an entirely different league with ZERO crossover with the NBA. We don't have arena's selling tickets for the night and you go and watch an NBA game and then a WNBA game. You have IW and Miami outside of the slams that offer equal prize money at the same event. But I don't think Madrid or Rome do. And I'm not sure about Cincy. And the Canada tournaments are played in two different cities, even it at the same time. MOST of the women's titles on the WTA tour bring in less money than the men and the ladies get the share of the prize money available. That is one of the ways that the prize money is fair. That has nothing to do with equal prize money because they are not joint events. You can only give out prize money from the money you bring in. But at the slams it is SO important that it be equal.

There is however an important discussion to be had about players getting more prize money from the revenue. Even at the slams. The players, men and women, have fought to get a greater share released. Hence all the prize money increases over the last few years. And I remember distinctly Federer fighting for higher prize money for the first round winners and even the losers. Because he understands that that money matters to those players that lose early and that this sport has to be able to support all of it's top 100 or 150 players. That you can't just have 20 players making money. And I would say the slams and the tour events still aren't giving out enough of their revenue to the players who are the draw. BUT I accept that it's a business, they want to make a profit and they have all of the staff for the event and the setup and maintenance of the court year round, especially for grass and clay, to deal with. Still. I'm pretty sure there is more money they could be giving as prize money. Of course, appearance fees are also a draw for the top players to come so they can bring in more revenue and that is a practice that I frown upon. But one that also seems necessary to an extent. Federer or Djokovic simply have no reason to play a Stockholm or Delray Beach or Chennai or Doha or any 250 really.

The only other comparable sport I can think of is mens and women's national soccer. The US women's team has had a lot to say about not getting equal pay from the US soccer .... I don't even know what it is. But the US soccer governing body. Because they win a lot more than the men. And while there are no joint events in that field, it's a salary paid rather than prize money. And not a salary paid from a women's professional league. But a salary paid by the same body that pays the salaries of the men and the women. Obviously men's soccer/futbol brings in a ton more money than any sport in the world, much less women's soccer/futbol. But at the national level, there is something to be said for paying the men and women the same since the same body is paying them. And when it comes to the US women's team, they're the best in the world and the men are not even close to the best in the world.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

Gulbis naturally cracked under the pressure in the tiebreak and then went away again in the third. Mayer deserves the win. He's been the steadier player. He's solid on grass. At this point I really wouldn't mind Gulbis going ahead and retiring just so I can stop being so frustrated with him.
Mayer with 2 match points on Gulbis serve. Gulbis saved the first but Mayer got the match anyways.
Just so frustrating to watch Gulbis... well for his entire career. But certainly over the last couple years. He'll actually lose some points here having made the 3rd or 4th round last year.

 

[herios]

Gulbis naturally cracked under the pressure in the tiebreak and then went away again in the third. Mayer deserves the win. He's been the steadier player. He's solid on grass. At this point I really wouldn't mind Gulbis going ahead and retiring just so I can stop being so frustrated with him.
Mayer with 2 match points on Gulbis serve. Gulbis saved the first but Mayer got the match anyways.
Just so frustrating to watch Gulbis... well for his entire career. But certainly over the last couple years. He'll actually lose some points here having made the 3rd or 4th round last year.

Gulbis never been good on grass. I thought from the beginning that Mayer would prevail.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

I was looking at the betting lines last night and of course Djokovic was a strong favorite to win his match. But Medvedev was actually the biggest favorite of the day. But that's because he's playing Lorenzi. But I was surprised to see FAA as a fairly large favorite over Pospisil. And Pospisil winning the first set today just shows why. FAA is amazing and will probably win the match. But he's still young. Pospisil just getting back from the back surgery recovery. So that probably played a role in that big of a line. But I was still surprised. Same with Tsitsipas/Fabbiano. I think Tsitsipas will win it. But Fabbiano has had a really nice grass season. The line probably shouldn't have been as big as it was. AND I just checked the scores and Fabbiano is up an early break. He's still only 5'8" so he's got an big task on his hands today. But he's handling it well so early in the match. Turning on that match now.