Originally Posted by Action Jackson
There is no good case for equal prizemoney in Slams, but it's here to stay no matter what people may wish for.
latso, don't be lazy your comments about top players not men's doubles at Slams are a joke. DC is one weekend. Kafelinkov last man to win singles and doubles at a Slam lets see that is 13 matches in 14 days and this was in 1996. It's a lot harder now in that way and can't be compared. The doubles players should be thankful the best singles players don't focus on doubles at Slams.
Seriously? Did you mean you disagree or just needed to insult?
Not my understanding of moderating...anyways -
Stepanek at the age of 33 plays both events. At USO he played third rounds in both singles and doubles.
If this is possible at 33, then i don't really get your point about dynamics of modern tennis and the tone of the comments...
Same goes for LLodra at 32.
Hence it is clearly possible for men to get more money by playing both events, so Murray's point is not valid.
Pro tennis is not only the top 4 guys and it's not about their prize money only, but the 100+ pros in a GS.
Let me ask you the following - do you think that if the prize money for doubles becomes equal to the prize money for single, do you think Murray won't be playing all GSs with his bro, or Djokovic won't be playing them?
Or would Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, Gasquet, Klizan, Fognini skip them, instead of making a potential double cash?
Of course they will play.
So why don't they play them now? Coz it's impossible physically? sure