[croat123]

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.

 

[Fergie]

:haha:

 

[Shabazza]

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

entertainment and classic matches vs sexappeal, grunts, and boring beatdowns = same prizemoney
that's how it works

 

[mitalidas]

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 and poorer quality

Unfortunately, many more people willing to watch the #2 v/s #8 in womens (Sharapova v/s Serena) rather than mens (nadal v/s coria)

 

[LoveFifteen]

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.

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].

 

[Shabazza]

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].

except the Wimbledon final which matches were classics? - the 6:1 6:1 beatdown from Henin vs Pierce in RG surely not

 

[mitalidas]

except the Wimbledon final which matches were classics? - the 6:1 6:1 beatdown from Henin vs Pierce in RG surely not

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

 

[HappyAndie]

I am really picky on what WTA matches I watch. And even then, most of the time I don't watch the first set. It is too boring...It is just that for some reason in women's tennis, there are only a few playes who are really talented and they bagel everyone else.
But, you must admit that the crowds like it. Thr tournament is not paying the women(or men) to play tennis. The tournament is paying them to bring spectators in to watch them.

 

[slipmaskin]

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

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...

 

[Guest]

kimmy won 6-1 6-0 :woohoo:

 

[croat123]

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.

clijsters vs. davenport at rg?? you mean, clijsters completely falling apart was fun to watch. didn't see the wimbledon match

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.

 

[croat123]

btw, for every woman's match in 2005, i can probably easily name 3 men's matches at grand slams or tms events that were more entertaining AND better quality (most entertaining women's matches are just fun because they are long and close - see dementieva vs. chakvetadze)

 

[HappyAndie]

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.

In the WTA, an "upset" is when Serena breaks some earrings or something.
I think both mens and womens matches have potential to be boring. Even if they aren't absolute beatdowns. Boredom does not discriminate.

What is it about women's tennis that makes the level of talent so uneven?

 

[wtn_amanda]

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.

 

[mitalidas]

the men's tour is undoubtedly deeper than the women's. Guys in the Top 50 are all playing high quality tennis. The 50th ranked woman is not playing very good tennis-- so yes, earlier rounds are generally going to be very poor quality on the women's side

But far too many people are more interested in the leggy women, the grudge matches, the cattiness, refusing to shake hands in petty behavior, the very short skirts and such non-tennis features that show up frequently in WTA. These things bring in the $$$$ --- so WTA gets legit grounds to ask for prize money in equal measure. Tennis quality notwithstanding

 

[mitalidas]

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.

These sheilas lol: ) dont deserve it, but when their opponent is Serena or sharapova or kournikova, people come to see even the borefest 6-0 6-1's, much more than they do to see a lets say, high quality creative match by Gaudio v/s Ferrer (at least in the US). its just the reality

 

[lucashg]

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

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.

The Indian Wells final was MUCH better, even if there were one-sided moments (but with good quality).

Justine's beatdowns of Maria on clay this year featured amazing quality of tennis from HH, especially at their Berlin QF match where Sharapova was even playing well. Now at RG wasn't much as fun, but still good play by Justine.

Venus vs Pierce, vs Sharapova and vs Davenport at Wimbledon were all good matches, although the final is a little overrated quality-wise.

RG final was shit, I agree. Pierce's fault, though.

People don't find good early round matches? Henin-Hardenne vs Medina Garrigues R32 of Roland Garros this year was a good match.

 

[mitalidas]

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.

almost every commentator I heard said it was the match of the tournament --until Venus-sharapova and then Venus-davenport outmatched it

How is Clijsters's game a bad matchup against davenport if she (kim) won 6 in a row till the FO??

 

[slipmaskin]

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...

 

[mitalidas]

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...

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 match