This could be the dullest match I’ve seen in a long time. Isner stands back there and kills his serves, doesn’t return well. Verdasco hits a lot of groundstroke winners, but he didn’t come to net even once in the first two sets. (The stat tracker says he’s come in twice, but I must have blinked and missed them both). Only 13 approaches for Isner. Verdasco really impressed me during his run in the Australian Open - he played a terrific match against Nadal. But when analysts talk about “an interesting contrast in styles,” they mean the exact opposite of this.
Well, I think Verdasco played exactly how he should have played against Isner. Staying back on the baseline yanking Isner around like a giant yo-yo plays to Isner’s weakness; why come to the net and shorten the points against someone who’s clearly not moving too well and looks tired to boot? It wasn’t the most exciting match ever, but it was far from dull.
But their one match is two sets shorter (potentially) than a men’s match.
Attempts to hand-wave away the difference are missing the point. The question of whether men or women champions should be paid the same at the same tournament should be determined not by who plays more tennis, or who is “stronger,” but by who is bringing in the fans. For me, watching women’s tennis is often just as interesting as watching men’s tennis. Thus, I have no trouble with paying the women’s champion the same amount as the men’s champion. It’s even possible they could deserve MORE money.
By contrast, we could take the US Open Golf Championships, where the interest in the Men’s Championship is substantially higher than the interest in the Women’s Championship. Thus, there is a good reason that the female contestants earn less than their male counterparts do.
Verdasco played to his own strengths. I don’t think Roddick played to his. He’s worked on the net game and the backhand, and I don’t think he used them. I’m not complaining that Verdasco used the wrong strategy, I’m saying that this time it did not make for a good match this time. The match between Verdasco and Nadal in January was another story.
I’d noticed. 
At the end of the day, as far as I am concerned they are being paid for playing tennis matches, not because of the amount of sets they are playing. I think you make a fair point on your own, though.
Kuznetsova is now playing Wozniacki, and I have to say it’s very confusing that there is a Caroline Wozniacki (9) and Aleksandra Wozniak (39) in the top 40. I guess it’s no worse than all the -ovas, but still. Djokovic-Stepanek to follow.
Congrats again to Oudin. I did want to say, though, that amidst the talk about women who collapse under pressure we are overlooking a common element: almost all of the Russian women fold like chairs when the going gets tough. Sharapova doesn’t, but Safina, Dementieva, Petrova today, Myskina in the past… Kuznetsova’s had her issues over the years, although they didn’t stop her in Paris this year… since Yeltsin, the Russians have churned out more than a few technically solid players, but for the most part they have been groundstroke machines whose mental games desert them in the clutch. Shades of the USSR chess machine, perhaps.
When I think of chokers, I think of Mauresmo. But your observation about the Russians is spot on.
Are you saying women are incapable of playing a compelling 5 set match?
I’m saying exactly what I just said: I think you would get lower quality play, and a transition to best of five every match would be really brutal. I’m not saying none of the women are capable of it, but they don’t need to play five sets for “equality” purposes and it would not improve the matches or help the sport.
I think you’re right that’d definitely be the case at the beginning, but the women would adjust to the 5-set matches and start emphasizing conditioning and fitness more. You may also see different types of players emerge in the women’s game, like more speed-fitness oriented Murray and Hewitt. So it would start out ugly, but it would just end up changing the game and the players that thrive.
I wouldn’t mind seeing it.
There’s also scheduling issues to consider, even tho otherwise 5 sets for women is appealing to me.
Another battle of nerves here in Kuznetsova v. Wozniacki. Kuznetsova unforced errors her way into being broken, and then Wozniacki does the same, serving for the match. Now back on serve. Who will stop cracking first?
And another Russian shrinks under the pressure. Although, you have to give it to Svetlana, she didn’t really collapse so much as not rise to the occasion. She put in a pretty good performance in the third set, but just kept dumping forehands into the net, and Wozniacki balled up for the tiebreaker, making some great saves to get some of those mini-breaks.
I wonder if Oudin is disappointed without a Russian to play!
And by the way, does anyone (besides Oudin) really care that this is the first quarterfinal without a Russian woman or American man? It’s an individual sport with individual personalities, and I don’t give a fuck what country they’re from. I was rooting for Verdasco against Isner and Clijsters against Venus because I’d rather see them win and play than their opponent. Their being from the same country as me doesn’t mean anything.
The thing that gets glossed over here is that the women don’t want to play best of five, so nobody is going to make them. But Dementieva isn’t fit? Or Clijsters and Kuznetsova, or Henin? Safina looks a little chubby but I’ve never seen her lose because of a lack of fitness. And then there’s Venus and Serena. There’s too much power tennis especially among the mediocre players, but I don’t think it has the first thing to do with the length of the matches.
Well, first of all, you can’t say for sure that some of the top players wouldn’t be affected fitness-wise by 5-set matches when we’ve only seen them play 3-setters. Heading into 3, 4, and 5 hour territory is very different than a 2.5 hour “marathon” 3-setter. But I agree that some of the women could handle it, even now.
However, if the women really are overhitting more than the men, it’d be harder to maintain that over 5 sets, as opposed to 3. That could change the style somewhat.
Yeesh, Stephanek is playing like crap, uninspired and sluggish. I nominate this match as the most boring of the ones they’ve shown, unless Radek really steps it up…
I guess I don’t regard “mixed doubles” the same as you. Did you really not understand what I was saying about direct head-to-head competition between the genders? Or has there ever been a FORMAL mixed-doubles match where a 2-man team competed against a 2-woman team? And just because you misunderstood what I wrote doesn’t mean it was a strawman. :rolleyes:
Then I must have also misunderstood when you wrote…
[bolding and underlining are mine]
Yes, those 3 occasions where you used the word “equal” must have thrown me off. Sorry. :rolleyes: … But you did ask lots of questions, and I attempted to answer them, giving my own opinion about it. Or did you just intend your questions to be rhetorical? Did you not really want any answers?
I wasn’t suggesting any such thing, and I don’t even know the answer nor do I have an opinion about how many sets women are capable of playing. But I do know that I just spent this weekend watching both genders play and was stating that it was obvious (at least to me) that men’s and women’s strength and stamina are clearly miles apart. And that’s the reason the number of sets in matches are different for each gender. It just seems crystal clear to me. Of course if this was just a rhetorical question from you, or if I’ve misunderstood you yet again, please just disregard everything I’ve written in this last paragraph.
Um, is this a trap? I’d never get sucked into a golf discussion while participating in a TENNIS thread, especially with someone who misinterprets my meaning the way you do. Besides, I don’t know a damn thing about what goes on in golf associations. Nice try though.
AFAIK when colleges were told to split the sports funds equally between both genders they used the same exact argument, but to no avail. At least at that level congress was unconcerned that men’s sports brought in more money and kept pushing to end the centuries-long financial inequality. But I do agree with you, that the women’s tennis game is just as interesting as the men’s. And I can imagine those who set the purses do know the value of women’s ability to draw public interest, support, and affection.
(and when I previously wrote mens’ and womens’ :smack: :smack: :smack: … I do know how to write right, really, I do.)
Holy calzone, Novak and McEnroe is some funny shit!
If you are referring to Title IX, that applies in situations where Federal assistance is provided. Presumably the government is allowed to set rules about how its money is spent. But I doubt that the US government funds US Open tennis, and certainly not any of the other slam events.
They do - which is why men’s events have higher prize money than women’s - except at joint events. For example, Cincinnati paid $443,500 for the winning man, and $350,000 for the winning woman - but these were separate events, not played together. The prize money had the same discrepancy at the Rogers Cup (Men - Montreal, Women - Toronto). While there are certainly many people who prefer women’s tennis, overall more people watch men’s tennis, and the advertisers know that.
You said “You may also see different types of players emerge in the women’s game, like more speed-fitness oriented Murray and Hewitt.” I was pointing out that some of the top players of recent years have been very fit and not relied on power alone. You can’t possibly tell me that Clijsters wasn’t a speed and fitness type! Henin was in terrific shape and had a lot of shots, although she hit hard considering her size. People call Serena fat sometimes, and she and Venus do hit enormously hard, but they still cover the court better than anyone else on tour. You can go pretty far with pure power, but the greatest players have had more, and I do think there’s some variety there.
Loved Djokovic after his match tonight, and for that matter, Darren Cahill went out of his way to give him a chance to win over the crowd. It was nice to see that side of Djokovic again. He’d gotten a bad rap in the last year or so, partly for stuff that was not his fault (like his family getting too vocal in supporting him). He’s got a nice personality when he’s not down on himself, and he has a tons of shots. I’d say he has more talent than Murray, but Murray has a significant edge in mental strength. Although that’s not forget Djokovic has one major title under his belt and Murray still has none.
Save the rolleyes; you assumed a meaning of equal I did not write. I never wrote anything about muscular strength or stamina. By equal, I meant that women are supposed to be given the same respect as men. Playing 3 sets instead of 5 offends me exactly as it would if a “women’s marathon” was only 16 miles so the poor delicate women wouldn’t get too taxed. It’s insulting to women.
Female MMA stars were pissed that their rounds were 3 minutes compared to the men’s 5 minute rounds. They were like, what the fuck? Since they can probably kick the ass of every man on the rules committee, I’m guessing whoever originally put that in had some serious brass balls. The last women’s MMA match I saw was 5 minute rounds, so hopefully they woke up to the insult and fixed it.
You really think women can’t build the stamina to play 5 sets of tennis? I think women tennis players don’t bother with stamina because they don’t need it. And the only reason they don’t need it is the same condescending sexism that prevented women from competing in track events longer than 200 meters from 1928 to 1960. The fight of women athletes: “not appropriate for ladies”.
You quoted Title IX as a justification for equal purses: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, etc…”, and then followed that up with your own interpretation: “Ya see, it was never intended to suggest that women were physically equal to men, just that mens’ increased muscle mass didn’t entitle men to more benefits and money.”
No person shall be excluded from participation, eh? Except men in women’s leagues, right? Then it’s okay. Clearly, the LPGA’s “no men allowed” policy demonstrates that Title IX is completely irrelevant to professional sports, making that entire section of your argument invalid.
I never said that.
I question whether or not you can legitimately take offense at this. In any case the women don’t seem insulted. If they wanted to play five sets, trust me, you would hear about it. They could put pressure on the organizers of the major tournaments. The WTA (like the ATP) is essentially a players’ union, so they could easily get together and threaten a boycott of a tournament that did not comply. They don’t want to play best-of-five matches, and it makes no sense to say they should be forced to. They could if they wanted.
This summer Serena said she’d be fine with five sets on grass. Other times she and Venus have just dodged the question.