|Williams v Williams
||[Jul. 4th, 2009|04:50 pm]
It wasn't a great match. Williams v Williams never is. There were very few exciting passages of play- and once Venus's game started to sag in the second set there was little doubt about the outcome. |
Afterwards the BBC commentators were saying how much better it would be if the women's final ran to 5 sets. I agree. Five sets might have allowed Venus to pick up form- as she seemed to be doing towards the end of the match- and give her sister a run for her money and the spectators something to cheer about. I can't conceive of an argument against this that isn't sexist, insulting and/or plain wrong. The women get the same prize money as the men; let them do the same amount of work.
from the point of view of if I had to watch
it I would rather reduce the mens' game to 3 sets.
but I dislike games that are back and forth back
similarly with futbol...
just me obviously people like these things
and I do rather cheer for roger federer who seems
to be a nice guy.
question is there a gender difference in stamina?
or rather I would guess there may be a bit on average?
but likely it can be not enough to make a problem
well but I hold for 3 sets for all!
of fast back and forth games I like watching
ice hockey when I see it on tv, most often when
in moscow come to think of it.
perhaps if tennis was played on skates I would
enjoy it more.
2009-07-04 06:07 pm (UTC)
Re: a further thought
My understanding is that women actually have more stamina than men. I believe, though I couldn't document it, that women score better in endurance tests.
I like sports that last a long time. Test cricket- for example- in which each game stretches over five days.
"...women get the same prize money as the men; let them do the same amount of work."
That's not a sexist statement at all. It's just plain common sense. Women in other professions have been using tht same argument in order to get equal pay, so it only follows that for equal pay there ought to be equal work.
Exactly. I don't see any reason why male and female sportsmen shouldn't be treated exactly the same.
The argument that women deserve equal prize money in tennis has always seemed shortsighted to me. Why should women - who can win matches in just two sets - get the same amount as the men who often have to go to four to win?
The current generation of female players are forever bragging about how they are equal to men. Fine. Prove it. Best of five in the Slams, please.
I think the women's side is pretty weak right now. It's ridiculous to have a World Number One who has never won a major. The ease with which the Williams sisters swept through the opposition was depressing. The only player who put up a real fight was Natalie Mauresmo- another veteran and former Wimbledon champion. My fear is that once the old stagers retire the women's game is going to turn into a prolonged photo-op with lots of interchangeable, Slavic blondes patty-caking the ball around in the hope of catching the eye of the fashion and perfume houses.
The women's game has been dull-as-ditchwater for years. 20 years ago, it was the Seles/Graf axis, with the odd flash from Sabatini or Sanchez; then it was Graf vs Everyone else as Seles was injured. Pierce promised much, delivered little; Capriati promised much, delivered little; Kournikova promised little and delivered even less. Hingis had a couple of years, then the Williams juggernaut kicked in ten years ago. Women's tennis has always been the Odd Three At The Top And the Rest. Which is why thery don't deserve equal money, as there are too many who cannot and too few who can.
Men's tennis is far more unpredictable than women's - the top four seeds are not always guaranteed a safe passage to the top.
Edited at 2009-07-05 09:48 am (UTC)