Yes they are.
The tickets for the women’s final are cheaper than the mens. Same for the semis. Can’t think why you ever reckon otherwise. T’was ever thus.
See here for prices next year (warning…commercial site)
Oh sure, I don’t deny that. It just takes a heck of a good story to overcome the lower quality. Women’s tennis rarely does that, and while I’m waiting to be gripped by a good story I’m remaining unmoved by the quality of the tennis.
Personal choice and all that.
I think they’re reselling tickets, which is a different story. At the U.S. Open it’s hard to compare. Tickets to the men’s and women’s finals cost the same, but the tickets to the women’s final also includes the men’s doubles final.
The irritating thing about this perpetual debate is that people keep forgetting how to tell the difference between their personal preference (I also watch more men’s tennis than women’s) and objective statements about the sport.
It’s an exaggeration, but I’m assuming he’s talking about guys like Ivo Karlović (Croatian).
At any rate, whether fairly or not, I understand the feeling behind his statement, as the men’s game to me has just gotten so fast and powerful that I just don’t enjoy watching it any more.
Well for one thing it clearly reflects demand.
Agreed, An objective statement is that it is slower, over sooner and the skill level is lower. A subjective statement is that is provides less entertainment. That is, and can only ever, be true for me personally. Others prefer it…good for them (especially as they’ll get cheaper tickets)
I preferred women’s tennis in the era of Steffi Graf, Martina Navritalova and even Martina Hingis, where all-court play was common and it was less about power and more about shot selection and tactics. Nowadays, women’s tennis is mostly a power game, but unfortunately, the power game they produce is less powerful (and accurate) than the men’s game, so it’s basically an inferior clone of the men’s game.
Agnieszca Radwanska is the only notable exception at the very top of the women’s game, as her biggest weapon is probably her brain and her variety. She’s very good at redirecting pace and creating awkward balls for her opponent, using dropshots and slices to good effect. Unfortunately she’s still the 4th ranked player, has never won a major, and has a serious problem facing the top 3 (Sharapova, Azarenka, and Serena), who are all consistent baseline power hitters.
Sabine Lisicki (the recent Wimbledon runner-up) is cool, in that while she relies on her power game, she’s also really big into dropshots and adding a bit of variety as well. It sometimes gets her into trouble, but it’s fun to watch. Unfortunately, Lisicki (like a lot of the female tennis pros) is a total headcase. She’ll start out strong, get emotional over something, drop 8-9 games in a row, somehow regain her composure and then close out a match. She managed to do something like this several times in this most recent Wimbledon. The prevalence of emotional basketcases in the women’s game often leads to weird swings in matches where 6-1, 0-6, 6-2 victories are not uncommon, or where a strong player (even Slam-winners) will melt down straight away and barely win a game or two in an entire match. A few players have actually been crying on court (many a Russian meltdown over the last several years, probably led by Zvonereva), and even Lisicki, who I am a big fan of, was barely keeping it together in her final against Bartoli.
All in all, the men’s game, while it has settled into a baseline power game and does (to be fair) have its share of basketcases, it still on average WAY more enjoyable to watch than the women’s game. The average quality is just higher in terms of consistency and power of shot, movement and court coverage, and in terms of winners:unforced errors ratio (usually). Also, you’re less likely to see utter collapses of good players - they may choke or feel a ton of nerves, but usually it won’t be something ridiculous like 6-1, 6-0. Pure blowouts between seeded players are significantly less common.
I wish the women’s game could somehow revert to the Graf days, as I’d probably find it more enjoyable to watch than the current men’s game, but for right now, women’s tennis is firmly in the backseat for me. If Radwanska-type players could somehow start winning majors, that’d be great, but I’m not holding my breath. And don’t even get me started on the shrieking!
Culture and PR are part of the market.
28 posts and no one has mentioned the Screeching and Grunting?
That makes me want to turn off the TV. I like Monica, but she was one of first Grunters
My point is that on a purely commercial level, the women’s final is worth less than the mens. The fact that the winners get equal money is obviously based on something other than pure financial considerations. None of that changes the fact that people are willing to pay more to watch the men. It is a more prestigious and lucrative product.
The top 10 money making tennis players - #1 Roger Federer
There are 5 men and 5 women in the top 10, and except for Federer at #1 the numbers are fairly close. But the edge is clearly on the men’s side overall.
same for me. When i was little, main players were - graff, arancha sachez vicario, monica seles and hingis. i used to enjoy watching long rallies.
and then williams sisters, henin harden, capriati and devenport it was less enjoyable than earlier but still good. I watch for mainly hotness these days, less interested in quality these days. Quality is also better i think. serena and azarenka would have beaten steffi graff i think.
A year out and with a decent chance that a British man is going to be in the men’s finals, yes. But the listed prices are about the same.
I’ll give you credit for one objective statement out of three.
Sure. And Sampras won his first major title in 1990 and last 2002. Becker his first in 1985 and last in 1996. Agassi in 1992 and in 2003. Nadal and Fed have a difference of nearly 9 years between first and last as well. Graf and Navratilova have 12 and 14 years between their first and last titles.
In all the above cases except Agassi and Federer, they were no longer the best players in the world, in each case (especially Becker and Sampras) it was more of a last hurrah of a great. Becker never played a Grand slam semi final again after his victory. Sampras never played again, period.
In women’s tennis, you have had Serena from circa 2002 (except for a short period in the mid 2000’s) been consistently the best in the business. She would have been even better, except for injuries and motivation and her sister.
On the other hand you have had people like Safina as no 1 and Clijsters coming back to win three slams after retirement and a child. Not exactly a great advertisement for depth.
Nor has Serena (and Venus’s) dominance been tested much, like say Graf’s was. Serena has rarely had to push herself beyond well beyond her limits and never consistently. Her defeats have usually been to poor play (see 2011 US Open final). Graf had some titanic battles in slam finals against Sanchez-Vicario and Seles for instance and also Novotna.
That’s not true. Since 2003 there have been two different two year-periods where she didn’t win a single Slam title and a third where she went almost two years between major titles. And because of her injuries and sometimes light schedule, she wasn’t ranked number one at any time between August 2003 and September 2008 or October 2010 and February of this year.
Clijsters was a great player. It’s true that some players who were not all-time greats have gotten to number one by playing a lot of events and being consistent, but then again, that’ll happen when the top players have inconsistent appearances or results.
She played a great match against Azarenka in the U.S. Open final just last year.
A few years back, I tried my tickets the US open women’s final for a cab ride. Just sayin is all 
For the record, I don’t care what they pay men or women for tennis, that’s between them and the players.
Simply untrue. I don’t know what prices you are looking at but that is not what I see. Nor is it the experience of my tennis fan colleagues who look to get semi and final tickets for Wimbledon and French open every year (through official channels)
This has been the same way for ages, when men and women play their semis and finals on different days the men’s tickets are more expensive. Same at the French open, Go look at the Roland Garros website for the 2014 tickets if you don’t believe me. Can’t imagine they are inflated due to an imminent French victory.
which of those are not objectively true?
The more prestigious “product” I refer to is the tennis match itself. I don’t think celebrity endorsement value enlightens us too much, though it is worth noting the amount of money Anna Kournikova made from being easy on the eye and pretty woeful on the court. She was in demand everywhere but in the sporting arena.
The prices of the last two sessions (women’s singles/men’s doubles final and men’s final) for the U.S. Open.
“Slower” and “skill level is lower.”
On the contrary, I think it’s a much more valid way to determine the relative “worth” of tennis players. You’ll notice they all make significantly more money via endorsements than in prize money. And while ticket prices do measure demand, TV ratings (and the prices paid by advertisers) are probably much more important to the sport.