To use a very technical tennis term; he's an utter fanny. All the talent in the world, but he's mentally shit.
Roland Garros 2010
- Thread starter Baby Faced Assassin
- Start date
To use a very technical tennis term; he's an utter fanny. All the talent in the world, but he's mentally shit.
Schiavone's grunts are really horrible to listen to.
Dementieva gave up, looks like an injury
Stosur is ripping Jankovic apart at the moment. The women's game is so weak right now. It makes it slightly more interesting to watch, but the actual quality is sadly lacking.
Yeah the womens game is a bit crap right now. The Williams sisters in decline (despite being #1 and #2), and Henin and Clijsters not what they once were. Even the Russians don't seem to have any big stars coming through.
Quite sad when you see a semi of a Grand Slam finish in an hour, and with no apparent resistance being put up by Jankovic. When the Williams sisters aren't up for it, and Henin and Clijsters are not at their best there's almost no real quality there to speak of.
Makes a mockery of getting rid of the disparity in prize money, IMO.
Makes a mockery of getting rid of the disparity in prize money, IMO.
Wimbledon should be a bit more entertaining imo, especially with Stosur's form. The Williams Sisters, and Henin should do well.
Yeah I disagree with getting rid of the difference in prize money too. There was no reason to other than to avoid being sexist.
Prize money should be proportional to the revenue raised. The mens game bring's in more viewers, so they should get more of the cash. Simple.
Yeah. I think equality's (obviously) a good thing, but in terms of tennis, men and women aren't equal. Men bring in more revenue through ticket sales, tv sales, advertising sales during games and sponsorship. They play longer, better quality matches. Though I suppose the argument is that in relative terms, their achievements are no less.
Given two people the same money for doing wildly differing jobs isn't fair, IMO. It infers an equality that doesn't exist. I suppose it was always a P R move.
Its not based on revenue though. Its based on the very concept of gender equality. For them to continue the imbalance would effectively be viewed as an official endorsement of gender bias.
I understand that, but in tennis terms, the sexes aren't equal. That's not bias. It's a fact.
I know why they've gotten rid of the difference, and in truth, it was probably the right move in political terms, but simply saying there's no inequality between the sexes doesn't make it so. It might be aspirational, and the prize money may be a statement that they value women's tennis as highly as men's, but women are being disproportionately rewarded for what they're bringing to the game as a whole, IMHO. It can be argued that that might given the women's game a boost, and promote higher standards, but it hasn't done so so far.
Why is Jankovic such a choker?
Schiavone is so ugly.
Similar concepts could be applied to life in general - Men are stronger than Women etc. I think the Women's game just happens to be crap right now because of the player dynamics of the Williams sisters not being as good as when they were younger, Henin and Clijsters in and out of the game, and no charismatic or dominant figures emerging (not to mention the likes of Sharapova and Ivanovic fading). Its similar to the Mens game during the period following Sampras' decline and before Federer's ascent.
Indeed. She looks like she belongs on Italy's plane to South Africa.
Well Henin typically struggles at Wimbledon. She has never won it afaik. She does not seem to have come back in the form Cljisters did. If not for injury i would have backed Kim for the French Open
Never won a slam.
When she has a chance she bottles it.
I yet dont' know how she had become world number one. As big a joke as Safina being number 1 last year for some months
She's been to two finals which suggests she has the capacity to do very well on Grass, which in addition to her having won all the other slams shows that she's got all the tools. The key will be whether she can elevate her game after all the time off.
Exactly. I doubt she can get herself to the level to win the slam.
Clay is HER surface and if she struggled so much here i really can't see her winning at Wimbledon. IMO Serena will win it easily. We should not look too much into her loss yesterday as she's never even gotten to a French Final since 2002 when she won it.
Yesterday was the first time in 10 years that she lost a match after having match point
Clay is HER surface and if she struggled so much here i really can't see her winning at Wimbledon. IMO Serena will win it easily. We should not look too much into her loss yesterday as she's never even gotten to a French Final since 2002 when she won it.
Yesterday was the first time in 10 years that she lost a match after having match point
Stosur's actually playing really well.
Yeah hopefully she can win it.
On the sexes note - I'm all for giving the women equal prize money, but I think they should play out five-set matches then. It's not like the modern female tennis player isn't fit enough to do so.
They would struggle to get through a whole tournament though, and some of their matches would go on for fecking ever.
like the men then?
Why would they need to play 5 sets? Women don't have the same levels of strength and endurance as men.
That's shockingly ignorant and sexist, Raoul. I'd genuinly expect better of you.
They're either equal - so they do the same work and get paid the same amount - or they're not. Men have been playing five set tennis for decades, long before sports science came about turning them into the physical beasts they are today. The modern female tennis player is far fitter than a male tennis player from seventy years ago, and yet those men were expected to play five sets where our dainty little flowers can only play three?
Bollocks. The women could easily cope with five sets now. The quality of the match should not matter; you can't say they should play fewer sets because the matches would be shit. They can cope with the demands of five sets, particularly as they'd only be playing other women. The reason the men's game is so physically demanding is not because it's five sets, but because you end up playing people like Nadal or Del Potro, who just stand at the back firing the ball like a cannon.
Rubbish. We know that men and women are physiologically different, and that men are stronger, have more muscle mass, endurance etc. The overarching point being that both genders have to be treated within their own parameters; within their ability to excel relative to their own genders. That's why they should be paid the same - because they're competing against their own gender. The Williams Sisters compete against the rest of the women's draw - not Nadal and Federer.
I agree with Raoul here.
I agree that women should only play 3 sets. However I disagree on the equal pay. As Brophs pointed out earlier, it is mens tennis that draws the big crowds, ticket sales, advertising etc. Surely they deserve to earn more? Should arsenal ladies earn as much as the men's team?
I think there's a bit of exaggeration going on surrounding the idea that Mens Tennis is so disproportionately more popular than Womens. Over the last decade the Womens game has provided just as many personalities as the mens game. If there was a disparity, it was because the Mens game was historically promoted as "the main event" (played on Sunday), where the Women's has been couched as sort of a precursor to the main event, which in and of itself is inherently discriminatory. Society has made significant strides towards improving gender [pay] inequality issues and Tennis should be no different.
There was indeed a disparity. The disparity is that the top men play at a higher level of tennis then the top women, which is primarily why people watch professional tennis games - to see good tennis. It's like womens football - take out the fact that they are females and you might as well watch a division 3 side play.
I don't agree with equality for equality's sake. It needs to make sense.
Women could not easily cope with 5 sets now...Have you seen the struggle of some of the women in the grand slams once it goes to a 3rd set, and it lingers on.
Cramps, double faults, weak shots, unforced errors.
The ladies game IS NOT ready to handle 5 sets atm, should they trial it, and and slowly build it up, sure maybe in 5 years time, but as of now. No way.
I think that it is the opposite, womens's tennis is far more popular and news worthy than men's. I'd struggle to name more than about 5 current male players but I could name up to 20 female players. It doesn't help that the men are also so boring at the moment. Federer is a great player and a nice bloke but incredibly boring.
Considering the Arsenal Ladies team is the only Arsenal team that wins anything besides the Emirates Cup they bloody well should earn as much as the first team
Women's tennis has been struggling for ages now. Even more so after the likes of Henin and Cljisters retired. The quality of tennis very poor. Players like Ivanovic, Safina and Jankovic have just faded away. Sharapova is either modelling or just injured. Williams only ever care about the Grand Slams.
Mens tennis has a lot of quality. Sure there are a lot of chokers like Djokovic and Murray and Roddick but it's got a lot more quality with the likes of Federer, Nadal and Del Potro among others.
And it's not like the women are not "boring"
The issue with five sets for the women's game is not their endurance, but the greater proportion of games which end up in long drawn-out rallies. In the men's game, because of the more powerful serve, a higher proportion of games are over after the first serve. Extrapolate those longer rallies over five sets and you will end up with extremely long matches.
Wtf is Soderling doing in this 2nd set ?
This is a far more reasonable response than Raoul's "women are weak so they play less, duh" answer. You can tell he's a squaddie.