Roddick had zero forehand winners. Consider what you typically need to do to beat Nadal (i.e. you probably won’t outlast him in long rallies), and I wonder what the eff Roddick was thinking when he came up with his gameplan.
Murray v Nadal; I think Murray could pull it off here; he did in 2008
Djokovic v Federar; Djokovic is terrified of Federar; as seen in the French Open.
Make your official predictions for the matches today here, folks:
Fed vs. Novak: Federer wins in 4 sets.
Nadal vs. Murray: Nadal in 3 sets, relatively easily.
Serena vs. Wozniacki: Serena in 2 sets, relatively easily.
Stosur vs. Kerber: No idea. Uh, Stosur in 3 sets.
I don’t really care much about women’s tennis, so my picks there are just because.
I’ve never paid much attention to tennis and know little about it, but I’ve been interested in this US Open. And I have this question for our tennis experts:
Why do women play best-of-3-sets, while men do best-of-5? Is this some sort of holdover from 1950s-era “women are the weaker sex” thinking? Is there any move toward making it the same for both?
It’s always been that way, basically. Some people have tried to change it, since now the women earn the same amount of money as the men in the major tournaments. The idea is that their winnings should be lower since they play less.
Martina Navratilova has even said women should play 3 of 5. She was fitter than her competition and could have won even more.
Oh, and the men do play 2 of 3 in most tournaments. It is in the majors and the Davis cup that they play 3 of 5.
Adding to what Mahaloth said, the trend has actually been to reduce the number of men’s matches that are best of 5. The finals of the Masters Series events, or ATP 1000 as it is now called, was best of 5 until 2006.
There was a small flirtation with best of 5 for women. The year end championship had a best-of-five final from 1984 - 1998.
I think the women’s majors should be best of 5, by the way. I just can’t think of any reason, aside from some scheduling troubles, to not play best of 5.
Oh, and rain delay on the men’s Semi-finals. 
Interesting - I would have assumed the men made more, based on the matches being longer, and the assumption of higher skill and greater spectator interest.
But are these assumptions valid? Could the best women compete with the men? (A naive view based on the speed of serves says this may be dubious.) Do spectators have an equal interest in men’s and women’s matches (leading to equal gate receipts for tournament organizers)? Wouldn’t a men’s match make more television money (because networks could sell more commercials)?
No - not even close.
No. TV ratings are higher for men. I suspect attendance is also but could not find any details - the prize money is certainly larger for men when comparing men-only events with women-only. The men’s 250 level events typically have prize money of about $400k, versus $220k for similar level women’s events.
Yes. If the match lasts longer, and more people watch it, then clearly the men are generating more revenue for the tournament and TV networks, and hence sponsors and advertisers will pay more.
The decision to pay women the same as men is not based on financial logic. It is more a decision as to what seems socially fair (or to give the tournament organizers less grief from those who think the money should be equal).
Forget just the serves. Everything, everything, everything, is faster and more powerful in the men’s game.
I think John McEnroe has said that 9 times out of 10, the 100th ranked man could annihilate the #1 woman.
Federer is really playing smoothly. Up 2 sets to none on Djoker.
I was watching Nadal practice here in Cincinnati a few weeks ago. At one point he took off his sweaty shirt and went through the motions of pretending to look for another shirt, but tragically could not find one.* So he had to go shirtless.
A woman in front of me busily snapped photo after photo of him shirtless, as her husband rolled his eyes. “Seriously? You’re a 40 year old woman. Seriously?”
I leaned down and said, “Sharapova was practicing earlier. She didn’t take off her shirt.”
“Yeah,” He muttered. “And they want equal pay.”
**
*FYI, I do not believe for one nano-second that Mr. OCD “forgot” another shirt. Not that I don’t appreciate the pretense of humility.
Having been heavily involved in tennis in my younger days, including as a signed pro (and later coach) with Yonex, I can say pretty confidently that you could start every game at 30-love in favor of the female player and the 100th ranked male player would still win 6-0, 6-0. The female player could claim a significant moral victory for any game they won where the guy didn’t double-fault.
Well, this is scary. Don’t tell me Federer is going to give up another 2 set lead and fold! Don’t do this to your fans! :mad:
Props to the Djoker for hanging in there so well.
One other thing the men have going for them is consistency. Seedings generally reflect grand slam outcomes relatively decently as you progress deeper into the tournament. With the women, well, it’s a crapshoot whether the player favoured on the books will live up to her ranking/seeding.
Yep, basically what I think. Jimmy Connors played Martina Navratilova in 1992, past both of their primes(but not in their 60’s or anything). He won 7-5, 6-2.
But, he only got one serve per point. And she got to hit into the doubles court, which is crazy.
I think Serena Williams should offer to play a serious exhibition match against one pro male. Not Nadal or anything, but a serious pro played, like I’d love to see how it plays out.
I am SO winning the men’s semifinal match being played today! Because no matter who wins, Djokovic and Federer have played one HELL of a match!
What a match!
Wouldn’t be close. A decent male pro would crush her.