I’ve long moved on from Chrissy and Martina - they’re like 30 years ago? - but the women’s game has never excited me since then. Even the most wimpish of the men are more interesting than the best of the women’s. There was the season where I was rooting for Serena to finish the CYGS, but she balked against a nobody, but otherwise, just general tepid fare…
Well I suggest you take another look
some male posters here dont even watch the womens game at present, they are still quick to critize, still living in the 70's and 80' lol! which really annoys me no end.Fiero425 is a prime example btw, only comes on to the WTA post to critize.,never watches the present WTA tour. The Wimbledon final between Ons vs Rybakina was a good contest, a contrast of styles, better than the mens final in my view.
Not sure we’re “living in the 80’s and 90’s.” We’re capable of keeping an eye on the ladies while waiting for something to happen.Well I suggest you take another look
As I said nothing remain stat in our game,that is just a fact of life. BTW I have never liked 'wimpish men' LOL!
If you read my original post , I cannot see woman getting equal pay, as we have been down this road before, even if the ATP and WTA joined as one, I still can't see it happeningNot sure we’re “living in the 80’s and 90’s.” We’re capable of keeping an eye on the ladies while waiting for something to happen.
I think the women’s game is what it is - nothing more. I always much preferred the men’s game, for obvious reasons.
But if you can explain to me clearly a reason why I should prefer what the women offer, sure, I’ll listen. I’m reasonable. I’m patient. If the women’s games from 1977-now is presented to me is such a compelling narrative that I’ll switch - I’ll switch.
And demand and argue that they should get equal pay to the men…
I have no problem with winning playing the BO5 in GS, still it is all about bums on seats,which means money.At present there is more interest in the mens game, fans are prepared to pay money to watch them.
I can only speak for Wimbledon as I have not attended the other 3 slams & don't know the pricing. Firstly Wimbledon is a rip off...
I know Wimbledon is very expensive, it is the most expensive of all the GS slams, my daughter went and could not believe the price of the food, let alone the tickets
That’s the predicament for them, because if they play best of 5, I believe it’ll turn more people off. But they do deserve to try, and so I think they should trial it at some of their own events, play the whole thing best of five and see how it goes. Maybe it’ll be a success and then they can produce it at a slam, but either way, they’ll know..
I went to the USO in 2018 for the 1st and 2nd rounds. There was a package that gave me an assigned seat in Ashe and a grounds pass for the other courts for the first 3 days (Mon-Wed) for a total of 6 sessions. The price is based on where your seat in Ashe is located. I sat in row F of the 3rd level. That package costs me about $360. But the tickets for the SF and F were much more expensive.
That sounds good! Did you think it was good value for money? https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/tickets_and_ticket_prices.html That's the prices for Wimbledon this year, it's cheaper at the start of the tournament but quickly becomes more expensive. Also with Wimbledon you have to enter a ballot to purchase tickets so it's random which day you will get & how much you will have to pay, if you get lucky in the draw... It's funny as we rarely win tickets in the ballot, but we also enter my Nonna who knows nothing about tennis, she doesn't understand how to score, has never played tennis, has never even watched a full tennis match, yet she almost always wins in the ballot lol. In the last 8 years she has won the ladies final tickets twice!! 2013 & 2018
I don’t think they’re combining them, but when Novak got a certain amount of weeks as #1, BJK said he didn’t hold the record. As she naturally would, as if the women’s record put the men in the shade. So since then it’s become a thing, far as I know, that we have to be clear about these things in case we offend BJK, who thinks the men and women are in the same business.
I am a 'realist' not to offend BJK, you cannot compare men and women in the game of tennis, apologies also to Bobby RiggsI don’t think they’re combining them, but when Novak got a certain amount of weeks as #1, BJK said he didn’t hold the record. As she naturally would, as if the women’s record put the men in the shade. So since then it’s become a thing, far as I know, that we have to be clear about these things in case we offend BJK, who thinks the men and women are in the same business.
We’re too polite, really…
They ARE in the same business. The tennis business. It's the same game. They've been playing the same Majors for 100+ years. I'm not trying to get into the debate about men being "better," but just to say that comparing records is sometimes irresistible and will be done. Look at El Dude's ELO rankings thread...it smushed men and women together on the list. (He did say he didn't necessarily agree with that.) I don't mind, for example, noting that Rafa has won more times at a single Major than anyone in tennis, women included, when he did have to pass Court's 11 AOs and Martina's 9 Wimbledons. I don't think there's anything wrong with noting that Novak has the most weeks at #1, men or women, either. There are many things that they play in common and are scored the same, including rankings.I don’t think they’re combining them, but when Novak got a certain amount of weeks as #1, BJK said he didn’t hold the record. As she naturally would, as if the women’s record put the men in the shade. So since then it’s become a thing, far as I know, that we have to be clear about these things in case we offend BJK, who thinks the men and women are in the same business.
We’re too polite, really…
Sorry that does not answer my original question? I still think it is not fair to compare women to men especially in the area of the No 1 of weeks as a number one player, I mean Graf's record is outstanding to say the least, still I feel it should be separate, just my thoughts
I don’t think they’re combining them, but when Novak got a certain amount of weeks as #1, BJK said he didn’t hold the record. As she naturally would, as if the women’s record put the men in the shade. So since then it’s become a thing, far as I know, that we have to be clear about these things in case we offend BJK, who thinks the men and women are in the same business.
We’re too polite, really…
It doesn't lessen Graf's record to say that Novak surpassed it on the men's side. It's just a point to be made in terms of general tennis records, and I think they can be made. If you don't want the men's and women's records ever to be compared, that's your choice, and your opinion. I respect that. I'm fine if they are, especially at the top of the charts. I'm not saying it means much, I'm just saying it's interesting.
I never said it lessen Graf's record to begin with. What I am saying those types of records should be separate like other mens and wins stats are separate.You have missed my point., btw it shows how good Graf actually was., a poster carrying on about the womens tour in this post just likes to 'be little the women's tour' it just shows the posters ignorance as far as I am concerned. I brought it up now, seeing Novak has just surpased Graf's record which I feel is a valuable point by the way.
They’re not in the same business. If they were, the women would have an argument in favour of equal pay. They’re not playing the same majors, they’re playing men’s and women’s majors, which are completely different categories. Comparing the records isn’t really inevitable. We’ll always think, ‘Yeah but that’s women’s tennis’, which is enough of a statement to show that their records are not comparable to the men.