entertainment and classic matches vs sexappeal, grunts, and boring beatdowns = same prizemoneymitalidas said:The women bring in as much $ in less time .... this is why they aren't able to pay them less $ for their efforts and less talent
Get bent, douche bag. The women have served up multiple entertaining matches this year, and they actually 'deserve' more prize money than men considering their matches actually bring in more money. That's something that's been "prooved" [sic].croat123 said:they only played two sets cause women's tennis sucks. seriously, this season has prooved why women don't deserve equal prize money - they just aren't as entertaining.
except the Wimbledon final which matches were classics? - the 6:1 6:1 beatdown from Henin vs Pierce in RG surely notLoveFifteen said:Get bent, douche bag. The women have served up multiple entertaining matches this year, and they actually 'deserve' more prize money than men considering their matches actually bring in more money. That's something that's been "prooved" [sic].
I'd say the Serena-sharapova SF from the AO matched Roger-marat in theatrics. The clijsters-Davenport at both W and FO were "classics" (or, interesting and high quality), and so was Venus-sharapova at W.Shabazza said:except the Wimbledon final which matches were classics? - the 6:1 6:1 beatdown from Henin vs Pierce in RG surely not
I agree with this post, the matches you brought up are all good examples of very, very entertaining WTA-tennis (though Masha-Serena was a heartbreaker of sorts). Also, Clijsters-Davenport at Indian Wells was pretty spectacular as well, but I guess that's not a Grand Slam, so, uh...mitalidas said:I'd say the Serena-sharapova SF from the AO matched Roger-marat in theatrics. The clijsters-Davenport at both W and FO were "classics" (or, interesting and high quality), and so was Venus-sharapova at W.
There have been some very good and relatively speaking, high quality matches on WTA this year. at any rate, they pull in the crowds in big numbers
first of all, yes, serena vs. sharapova was interesting and dramatic, but no where near the level of play of the marat vs. roger match.mitalidas said:I'd say the Serena-sharapova SF from the AO matched Roger-marat in theatrics. The clijsters-Davenport at both W and FO were "classics" (or, interesting and high quality), and so was Venus-sharapova at W.
There have been some very good and relatively speaking, high quality matches on WTA this year. at any rate, they pull in the crowds in big numbers
In the WTA, an "upset" is when Serena breaks some earrings or something.croat123 said:men's matches are interesting from the first round. the top players are continually challenged (except for fed; and nadal on clay). meanwhile, the top women are just cruising along into the qfs without losing a set. most 3rd round brackets in the women's draws featured the seeds that was expected to get through - very few upsets.
These sheilasgravity said:Unfortunately there are more borefests of the Clijsters vs. Vento-Kabchi variety than anything resembling entertainment on the WTA Tour. Sorry but these sheila's definitely don't deserve equal prize money unless they start serving up lunches after their 40 minute run around on court.
I'm sorry, but both Clijsters vs Davenport meetings in slams this year were absolutely crap matches. Clijsters' game is a bad match-up to Davenport's and it's hard for her to play her best, and Clijsters under both occasions (especially at RG) cracked apart COMPLETELY, just a disaster to watch. NOT good tennis from Davenport to save it up.mitalidas said:I'd say the Serena-sharapova SF from the AO matched Roger-marat in theatrics. The clijsters-Davenport at both W and FO were "classics" (or, interesting and high quality), and so was Venus-sharapova at W.
There have been some very good and relatively speaking, high quality matches on WTA this year. at any rate, they pull in the crowds in big numbers
almost every commentator I heard said it was the match of the tournament --until Venus-sharapova and then Venus-davenport outmatched itlucashg said:I'm sorry, but both Clijsters vs Davenport meetings in slams this year were absolutely crap matches. Clijsters' game is a bad match-up to Davenport's and it's hard for her to play her best, and Clijsters under both occasions (especially at RG) cracked apart COMPLETELY, just a disaster to watch. NOT good tennis from Davenport to save it up.
I completely agree. the RG match was much lower quality, but given women's tennis levels in general, it was still a pretty decent match. But clijsters-davenport at W was a very good matchslipmaskin said:Come on. I can't for the life of me comprehend how you can call the Wimbledon-bout between Clijsters and Davenport a "crap match" - there were some glorious rallies in that one. The RG-match was definitely nowhere near the standard of the others that we've been mentioning, that I'll give you. But please, seriously...