Australian Open (1 Viewer)

[georgefren]

was that it ...

 

[dum_di_dum]

Never in doubt. I'm all for gender equality and everything...but this equal prizemoney business is a farce

 

[Collin]

Regarding the Mens Final tomorrow night, I've got a gut feeling Nadal is gonna take it out in an epic five-setter. I'm still hoping Federer wins though.

Actually, I'm just happy Djokovic is out.

 

[akrinis]

Men's Doubles Final was disappointing. I really wanted Mark Knowles and Bhupati to win that, they had so much momentum and they should have closed out that second set.

No doubt the Mixed Doubles won't last long [stupid rules, even for normal Doubles play, in the third set, they go to a tie-breaker at 6-all] But I'm just watching to see Sania and Bhupati win.

Never in doubt. I'm all for gender equality and everything...but this equal prizemoney business is a farce

Hey, it's not Serena's fault she was too good.

And like her sister said, "women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments...." Interestingly, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's.

Equal prizemoney isn't about the longevity of matches.

 

[samwell]

although i wanted Serena to win i wish Sharapova/Venus was in the final instead of safina(coz of experience)
But all in all Serena was on hot form so i doubt she wou'd have lost the final irregardless of her opponent

 

[spence]

Men's Doubles Final was disappointing. I really wanted Mark Knowles and Bhupati to win that, they had so much momentum and they should have closed out that second set.

No doubt the Mixed Doubles won't last long [stupid rules, even for normal Doubles play, in the third set, they go to a tie-breaker at 6-all] But I'm just watching to see Sania and Bhupati win.



Hey, it's not Serena's fault she was too good.

And like her sister said, "women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments...." Interestingly, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's.

Equal prizemoney isn't about the longevity of matches.

I still think equal prizemoney is bullshit unless women play 5 sets

 

[dum_di_dum]

Hey, it's not Serena's fault she was too good.

And like her sister said, "women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments...." Interestingly, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's.

Equal prizemoney isn't about the longevity of matches.

Good one buddy

Firstly, wake up, 99% of the women on tour can't play best of five matches unless by five sets you mean the last two is them standing still and rolling the ball in. Of course that's mostly down to physiology but you are delusional if you honestly believe that claim. It is a common sight to see female players fatigued in the third set.

Where did I say that? Prizemoney should always be about the quality of matches, duh. Were you even watching? The gulf between no.2 and no.3 in the world is that large? Ridiculously farcical. Yeah it's not Serena's fault she can take home an odd mil for 59 minutes of utter crap, playing her normal game while Safina hands her breaks with DFs and nerves despite playing professionally for many years and already being in a GS and Olympics final. That's down to this equal rights hoohah (in the game) and the tennis governing bodies. Oh, and Venus campaigning for equal prizemoney.

No doubt the Mixed Doubles won't last long [stupid rules, even for normal Doubles play, in the third set, they go to a tie-breaker at 6-all] But I'm just watching to see Sania and Bhupati win.

I need to vent. I'm so frustrated at the rules for Doubles Matches!!

Why are the doubles matches so quick?!! WHY!!

Who was silly enough to change the rule, in MIXED DOUBLES to No Advantage Point on Deuce. That's ridiculous. I mean, spectators want to see a LONG, exciting contest. What's the harm in having Advantages at Deuce?!

I really love watching doubles action but they always go by so fast. I think a doubles match only lasts 1 hour.

Funny how you used longevity to 'prove' your point, even though you claim it is not a factor in granting equal prizemoney. Interestingly, you use one essentially freak occurence 4 years ago in isolation, so clearly the prizemoney should be equal because of this one match. Who the hell talks about the 'quality' ladies singles final at Wimbledon last year? In terms of wta matches, i watched it and it was right up there, but it was completely eclipsed by the mens final.

Williams sisters relatively fit, Justine out of the game, you might as well toss a coin between them at the start of the tournament. Hell both of them aren't even fully dedicated to the sport (Serena and her clothing line, lack of motivation, acting aspirations, etc). What does that tell you? There is no way the mens equivalent of Serena would do well on the tour with that physique, it takes a more well-rounded athlete rather than one-dimensional lumbering skyscrapers who can simply hit the ball hard. Sure there are chokers on both the mens and womens tour, but it is rare to see lopsided seesawing scorelines like 1-6, 6-2, 1-6 on the ATP, where concentration has clearly gone out the window and the match has turned into an unforced error and DF mugfest. When is the last time you saw serving yips on the mens tour?

The only argument that can be made for equal prizemoney is the crowd and ratings that the wta tour draws, and theres no denying that a lot of that is down to the attractiveness of the players at the top. Sharapova probably earns more than Federer outside of tournaments, all the more power to her, but in terms of entertainment and the quality of tennis, no way.

And yes this post took ages

 

[DaGizza]

The prize money should be valued on how good the players are. For this year, I have no problem with Serena winning the amount she does because she is so strong and could possibly play 5 sets too. But Safina was pathetic, a real let down. I'm pretty sure whoever loses tonight in the men's final (Nadal or Federer) would have been way more competitive than her.

 

[sunjet]

cmon 5hr game, so keen

 

[akrinis]

Williams sisters relatively fit, Justine out of the game, you might as well toss a coin between them at the start of the tournament. Hell both of them aren't even fully dedicated to the sport (Serena and her clothing line, lack of motivation, acting aspirations, etc). What does that tell you?

Don't you think they're allowed to have a life outside of tennis? It's like going to work. Obviously you're not going to have that dominating your life. A lot of tennis players do things outside the sport. Some study and get degrees, others are like the Williams sisters and have their own interests and past-times. I believe, that at the end of the day, it's just going out onto the court and giving it your all.

Good one buddy

Where did I say that? Prizemoney should always be about the quality of matches, duh. Were you even watching? The gulf between no.2 and no.3 in the world is that large? Ridiculously farcical. Yeah it's not Serena's fault she can take home an odd mil for 59 minutes of utter crap, playing her normal game while Safina hands her breaks with DFs and nerves despite playing professionally for many years and already being in a GS and Olympics final. That's down to this equal rights hoohah (in the game) and the tennis governing bodies. Oh, and Venus campaigning for equal prizemoney.

The way you constructed your post made it seemed as though you were suggesting the match was too short, thus, poor quality.

I think Serena did play well. She hits heavy and her game play was aggressive, which was a big improvement from her first few matches. Safina was shaky this tournament and she was fortunate to get out of her R4 & Quarterfinal match against Jelena Dokic, who really I think should have been the one in the Final.

The only way the match could have been better, was for Serena to play worse and let Dinara back into the match, then go a third set. I don't think players PLAN how a final is going down. When you play, you're in control of your own game, not the opposition. If the other player isn't playing their game well enough or how the crowd or audience expects them to play, the winner shouldn't be penalized for that.

Funny how you used longevity to 'prove' your point, even though you claim it is not a factor in granting equal prizemoney.

Yes, I enjoy long matches, and I don't like the format of doubles play. However, that's why I think the singles event does deserve equal prizemoney, because singles matches DO last longer.

I think that the prizemoney shouldn't come down to the FINAL. I think both the men & women winners deserve their reward because of ALL the matches they've played in the tournament, so whoever comes out the victor should walk away with it, irrespective of the final match. The prizemoney should be measured as a WHOLE.

 

[spence]

I think that the prizemoney shouldn't come down to the FINAL. I think both the men & women winners deserve their reward because of ALL the matches they've played in the tournament, so whoever comes out the victor should walk away with it, irrespective of the final match. The prizemoney should be measured as a WHOLE.

Absolutely, and to win the final, men need to win 21 sets, whereas women need only win 14

 

[dum_di_dum]

Don't you think they're allowed to have a life outside of tennis? It's like going to work. Obviously you're not going to have that dominating your life. A lot of tennis players do things outside the sport. Some study and get degrees, others are like the Williams sisters and have their own interests and past-times. I believe, that at the end of the day, it's just going out onto the court and giving it your all.

Tennis is not the most important thing in the world, far from it. You should read my post more carefully - it is ridiculous to suggest that tennis be the sole focus of players if they didn't want it to be. But to also state that tennis does not dominate most top players lives, always practising, on the move to the next tournament, maintaining physical conditioning even during the offseason etc. is wishful thinking. It is a 24/7 job, for much of the year. The very fact that the Williams sisters do not have to do this says a lot about the lack of depth in the women's game - Serena has taken breaks from tennis in the past and yet shows up at a GS unfit and still able demolish everyone in the field.

The way you constructed your post made it seemed as though you were suggesting the match was too short, thus, poor quality.

I think Serena did play well. She hits heavy and her game play was aggressive, which was a big improvement from her first few matches. Safina was shaky this tournament and she was fortunate to get out of her R4 & Quarterfinal match against Jelena Dokic, who really I think should have been the one in the Final.

The only way the match could have been better, was for Serena to play worse and let Dinara back into the match, then go a third set. I don't think players PLAN how a final is going down. When you play, you're in control of your own game, not the opposition. If the other player isn't playing their game well enough or how the crowd or audience expects them to play, the winner shouldn't be penalized for that.

What in my post made you think I was talking about match time? Or that a short match equals poor quality? Even though it was both short and low quality. That's Serena's normal game as I said, she only had to step up in comparison to earlier matches, she has not been playing well in this tournament. Kuznetsova should have beaten her too, simply choked, despite tournament organisers during everything they could to assist Serena by disrupting the match and closing the roof between sets. Similarly, Azarenka was in an advantageous position.

It's always the same, Cornet held two match points against Safina, etc. That's no excuse for Safina, she is experienced and in a GS final for the second time; the crowd simply did not get their moneys worth on the tickets. You know how this match could have been better? If Safina had not choked in the first place. You can (pretty much) guarantee that tonight the match will be hard fought despite Nadal running on empty.

Again, I obviously don't blame Serena for putting a beatdown on Safina, she should not be penalised for trying to win as quickly and easily as possible. The only fault here is that the prizemoney should never have been equal in the first place.

Yes, I enjoy long matches, and I don't like the format of doubles play. However, that's why I think the singles event does deserve equal prizemoney, because singles matches DO last longer.

I think that the prizemoney shouldn't come down to the FINAL. I think both the men & women winners deserve their reward because of ALL the matches they've played in the tournament, so whoever comes out the victor should walk away with it, irrespective of the final match. The prizemoney should be measured as a WHOLE.

Ok...singles matches DO last longer. Also, singles players get paid more than doubles players. Mens singles matches DO last longer than ladies singles. Some doubles matches can last longer than singles matches, like last night's 'less than an hour' final. What's your point? I thought 'longevity' had nothing to do with equal prizemoney.

Sure, the prizemoney shouldn't come down to the final alone, as Spence pointed out 21 vs 14. Sure, there are more upsets in the womens game with qualifiers and lower-ranked players beating those at the top, that does not point to depth on the womens tour, but rather the lack of depth at the top, one-dimensional games are liable to break down much more often. The womens matches throughout the tournament just do not match the mens in terms of quality or intensity. I agree, the prizemoney should be measured as a WHOLE. Clearly our definition of that differs.

Actually I was under the impression the winner gets a lot more dough than the RU, double if I'm not mistaken, regardless whether or not the last match they play (both obviously having played the same number of matches) is high quality. I don't think the gap should be that much either, both in points and money won.

There is nevertheless a case to be made for length of match factoring into the amount of prizemoney anyway; whilst the women may work as hard as the men, simply put they don't spend as much time on the court, period.

 

[Omium]

Too long to read....

Its a testament to the Williams sisters talent that they can simply "turn it on" whenever they want.

They are truly great.

 

[LordPc]

So final is starting soon.

Im thinking Federer will get there in 4. Nadal being too tired to play 3 hard core sets.

your picks?

 

[Air Jordan]

I also go for Federer

 

[dux&src]

i want Fed to win.

 

[smilesmilesmile]

federer win for sure

 

[addikaye03]

I hate nadal. So go FED-EX!!!!

 

[shady145]

i wanted verdasco or whatever his name was to win, but now im going for Fed coz verdasco is out

 

[Roy9]

Only the first two games have gone past and it's already like watching two superhumans playing.