Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

5 set tennis for Women. A step in the right direction?

dogbone

dogbone

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 16, 2005
2,341
0
S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
link

It seems so obvious but has always been resisted. Women have come a long way since they were deemed too frail to compete in track events over 800 yards in the Olympics.

The Women's Tennis Assoc, fought tooth and nail for equal pay for unequal work but the pressure is mounting.

I think with the quality of Women's tennis these days the public is being cheated out of a proper sporting spectacle by this 3 set sham.

Is 5 set finals the thin edge, is the WTA afraid that it could lead to 5 set grand slam matches. And is there anything wrong with that?
 
Make them play the 5 sets. I'm sorry, but equal pay should mean equal treatment. Wanting the financial "equality" without wanting the responsibility of winning 3 sets isn't right.

I'll be glad to see this happen.
 
Seems logical to me. Equal treatment means both equal pay and equal requirements to earn that pay...
 
I'd like to see it happen. They're pros and should be in the kind of physical condition and be mentally tough enough to have to take a third deciding set. I don't recall how many mens champions or higher ranked players who got off to a poor start and were down 0-1 or even 0-2, but were able to show they were the better player by coming back, because they had that third deciding set added to the mix. A match which goes five sets with a decision like 9-7 in the fifth is not only great to watch, but it gives both players respect.

With the women, it's over too quickly. It's possible for two to square off in the championship match having only played 8-10 sets the entire tournament.
 
What I have never been able to understand is how the hell has the WTA been able to successfully argue against it. What possible valid objection is there?

I've always thought that women had more stamina which is what is required rather than strength anyway.
 
That's not the way it works. Top-class performers get paid what they're worth, not how long they spend on stage or playing field... besides the women's game is far more interesting to watch these days, especially on grass or hard-courts.

Men's points are often over quicker, too many ultra-fast servers. Perhaps they should be paid less for giving less interesting rallies, if any at all. ;)
 
Sure, they're not payed to stay out there all day. But the great baseliners of the game have become a lost art. My favorites, Björn Borg, Chris Evert. Nowadays one has to have a 115 mph serve, come to net and go for the quick point, avoiding the conditioning factors.

The addage about Evert was "she goes to net once every six months, but to the bank once a week". :) Both she and Borg, as well as Agassi were great with the passing shots. I'd like to see that come back.
 
@xsedrinam

Some good points there, which makes me think that if women players *knew* that a match could go to 5 sets, surely that would change the way they play. I'm speculating now but is it reasonable to say that someone who overly relies on their serve may think they could not keep it up for 5 sets and may therefore play slower serves with longer rallies. What would be more difficult, playing longer baseline rallies or power serving through 5 sets with shorter rallies?

@BV, yes but what possible objections can the WTA have for playing 5 set grand slam matches?
 
dogbone said:
@BV, yes but what possible objections can the WTA have for playing 5 set grand slam matches?
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure... perhaps it might have something to do with how TV schedules and match scheduling fits in around the men's events at grand slam level. If you have all the round 1 & 2 matches upwards potentially going to 5 sets, that might put a pressure on that side of things.

Also, and this applies to the men's game as well... not all men's tournaments play 5 sets in each match. There are a certain number of ranking events played each year.

The money in the game comes from TV. TV doesn't want to see its telegenic stars injured... I dunno, but what I do know is that the concept of equal pay for equal work doesn't apply in any professional sport that I know of.
 
xsedrinam said:
With 36 posts, it's just 200% more redundant than this one. :p :)
Click to expand...

The issue of equal pay was always a furphy. I mean really who gives a frack if these millionairesses get $555,000 or $536,000 not you or I. It has no effect whatsoever on the sport.

But 5 set GS matches will completely change the way that the women's game is played. I'm canvassing opinion on whether it may harm the women's game or help it. I think it would make for great sporting theatre especially with the new breed of Amazon power women. We don't have the super chokers like Jana Novotna to liven things up any longer. I would have like to watch Steffi and Martina play some 5 set GS's.

It was hugely disappointing to see the Henin/Williams match finish when they just looked like getting started. Williams is such a fantastic competitor she probably would have preferred 5 sets in that one, even with her injured ankle. I mean what about that first point, straight at Henins face, no love lost there.
 
I would like to see the Grand Slams adopt a best of 5-set match for women which would allow slower starters to get back into match. How many men have gone down two sets to zero yet managed to claw their way back and force a fifth set? While I'm no fan of the saga that is Wimbledon '07 and its never ending rain delays, I'd really like to see a little more tennis being played on the women side, especially in the earlier draws where it seems the matches average around 50 minutes in length.
 
dogbone said:
The issue of equal pay was always a furphy. I mean really who gives a frack if these millionairesses get $555,000 or $536,000 not you or I. It has no effect whatsoever on the sport.

But 5 set GS matches will completely change the way that the women's game is played. I'm canvassing opinion on whether it may harm the women's game or help it. I think it would make for great sporting theatre especially with the new breed of Amazon power women. We don't have the super chokers like Jana Novotna to liven things up any longer.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Had to go look up "furphy" since I'm not too up on my Aussie slang. :eek:

I also like considering how the game is played aside from the "equal pay" issue, and agree that making GS matches a five set across the board would change the way women play. I know MacNut would love to see Maria out there, longer. ;)
 
@xsedrinam

I didn't realise that “furphy” was Australian, I assumed it was Irish or English.

What do you think of my theory that a knowledge of possible 5 set matches would alter the power serving and rallying style, or do you think it would be the same as now, just longer matches?
 
I would think the style of play would be more or less the same just longer. While it's not expected that a woman qualifier would do anything more than lose something like 6-0, 6-1, 6-1 against someone like Sharapova or one of the Williams sister, it's certainly psyhcologically comforting knowing that it's best 3 of 5 sets. Some of the earlier matches could definitely use an infuse of more tennis as opposed to the current state where qualifiers are absolutely overwhelmed by the likes of Henin, the Williams sisters, Sharapova, etc...

Edit: There's really only a handfull of womens players that posses a big serve. Off the top of my head are the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Vaidasova, Kuznetsova..
 
dogbone said:
@xsedrinam

I didn't realise that “furphy” was Australian, I assumed it was Irish or English.

What do you think of my theory that a knowledge of possible 5 set matches would alter the power serving and rallying style, or do you think it would be the same as now, just longer matches?
Click to expand...
Longer matches, for sure. But those with an advantage in fire power from the service line would have to bring up their baseline game, and pace accordingly. The serve and volley players would be hard pressed to keep that kind of pressure up for 3 or more sets. Personally, I enjoy some longer rallies mixed in with net play, and much prefer that kind of tennis over the sheer power play point after point.
 
dogbone said:
At least the W sisters are the best in the era of modern ova's
Click to expand...

Yes, well outside of the Williams sister U.S. tennis is in a sad state of affairs on both the men and womens side. I'd like to think that Venus will win Wimbledon but she's been so oft injured recently and her level of play has been so erratic that you'll never know which Venus will show up.
 
Gymnut said:
I'd like to think that Venus will win Wimbledon but she's been so oft injured recently and her level of play has been so erratic that you'll never know which Venus will show up.
Click to expand...
And it's that kind of erratic play and player which is rewarded by having only to get by with staying afloat for two sets. IMO. Another reason why I'd like to see a third deciding set in womens GS.
 
I went to Wimbledon a few years ago and got centre court tickets. I watched three matches, two mens and one ladies. I fell asleep during the women's game.
 
R.Youden said:
I went to Wimbledon a few years ago and got centre court tickets. I watched three matches, two mens and one ladies. I fell asleep during the women's game.
Click to expand...

I hope it wasn't during one of Kournikovas matches:) Sad to say that as talented as she was, she let tennis fall to the wayside.
 
@R.Youden.

Last time I was at Wimbledon was for the filming of Wimbledon which was pretty funny watching Pat Cash try and teach Kirsten Dunst how to bounce a tennis ball once without dropping it. I managed to pimp my way into the shot where Bettany goes down the tunnel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back