Isnt it time we had best of 5 in the semis and final for the women?

Question

C'mon - they've been bleating about equal money for decades and just about have it anyway.

A womens match can last an hour...a mens match 3 hours or more so...what is fair?

Answer 1

I completely agree with you. Its a little annoying women`s matches are best of 3.....grrrr i wish the atp would change it.

Answer 2

Would you really want womens tennis matches to last from 3-5 hours? Really? Argh that sounds incrediably painful to me.

I don't think women can do it for 5 sets, I honestly don't. Some maybe, the absolute fittest, but most wouldn't be able to cope. Imagine the injuries that would plague the game (and the long boring baseline rallies). Best of 5 for the final... maybe, but to me it might come down to who is the fittest, and that wouldnt be very cool.

Women should have equal money because they are being pushed to their limits just like men. Women's tennis also attracts a h**l of a lot of viewers and is almost as popular as the men's game. If that money didn't go to the players who would it go to? It wouldn;t be going to starving children in Africa or anything, or you and me, so we might as well give it to them!

Tennis lover23- I havent heard any woman say they wanna play 5, but I have heard Henin say it wouldnt be possible.

Answer 3

It's not just about how much work they do it's about how much money they can make the tournament. The women rival the men in terms of popularity. They bring in as much and sometimes more money (per ticket sales) than the men. Women's matches also continuously bring in more television viewers and higher ratings than the men. So I think they deserve their equal prize money.

Personally though I'd love to see the women play best of 5 sets just for pure entertainment.

.

Answer 4

no

Answer 5

the last two sets they would be worn out

Answer 6

Yes. If women want equal pay in tennis, they should play the same amount as men. Not just in the semis and final either but in all matches. End of.

Answer 7

well,i think they should cut men's matches to three,imo. yes,it's more fun to see marathons but alot of times,the fifth set ends up being so one-sided or that the winner goes into the next round and is so fatigued the player gets demolished. and the men do already play three-setters in masters play so why not make that transistion in the slams too? to me its not a question of making the women play 5 sets because frankly that's silly and illogical. let's be sensible,women are not built the same as men and could never last that long,in consecutive rounds. imagine how ugly the tennis would be if that were to be? and at the end,in a final....just awful. i just think men should be given a break....health-wise and sustainability in a slam and a calendar year. that makes more sense to me.

just my 2 cents.

Answer 8

well, the thing is that i don't think they can hold for five sets.-

maybe it's not fair they get equal prize, but there's nothing we can do about it, :)

Answer 9

ye you right. i think that the reason for that is because women are so consented and every thing has to be right . they go out so time in every thing they do.

Answer 10

Certainly for the final I agree with you. But the question is are women physically capable of playing for potentially 5 sets and would it be worth watching if they are too tired to play well.

But yeah I agree with you. Grand Slam finals have been soooo short on the women's side. I is not much of a spectacle.

Answer 11

yes

Answer 12

Yup. Women should play the same amount of sets as the men if they want equal pay. Why should the men have to work harder than the women but the women get the same amount of money? It also attracts more people to come watch longer and more tennis!

Answer 13

About the prize money

Throughout the whole year the men play the same as the women best of 3 NOT best of 5.

When the slams come around the powers that be want the men to play best of 5 sets that's fine. But when the men have been playing the same though out the year (best of 3) they should absolutely be given the same prize money.

Women have already expressed their feelings about playing best of 5. They do not have a problem with it. They powers that be do.

The women should not be penalized because some superior macho jerks think that they can't handle it.

And if you look at the tournaments played during they year even the smaller tourney's that the men play are paid at a higher rate then the women's tourney's what do you guys think about that? Doubles only play best of 3 yet the men's doubles and women's doubles are at a different pay rate?

If it really had anything to do with the amount of sets played or the amount of time spent on court then the smaller tourney's in which the men only play best of 3 should be paid at the same rate as the women's and so should men's doubles.

Ana Ivanovic got 332,000 for winning Idian Wells. Novak Djokovic got over 500,000 they both played best of three sets for the whole tournament yet Novak made over almost 200,000 more. Does that seem fair??

No I think best of three is good enough

Answer 14

If women are too tired to play five sets then fine, but they shouldn't get paid the same amount. Tennis seems to be unique though in the sense that it's the only sport were the women compete at a lower distance,time limit, or game count than men. Taking the men's competition at slams down to three sets would merely denigrate the slams to almost the same level of the rest of the tour. Part of the challenge of the slams is the fact that it takes true sustainability. There are plenty of mugs out there who would have won slams had they been played at the three set level.

To the answerer that said the ATP should: the ITF are the ones who regulate the slams. And the women have their own union, the WTA.

Sean IZ Kool: it's the men's tennis that garners all the revenue. The women's matches always get played first on virtually all courts, and when they are second, most of the stadium clear out. This doesn't happen as much at slams but that's because the majority of people who attend slams actually no FA about tennis. Lets face it, making women play five sets would not make it any worse than it already is, and might make it better.

Tennis Lover 23: smaller tournaments have to award pay in proportion to revenue, they simply cannot afford to artificially raise the prize money for draw that earns them less money in terms of attendence, television deals etc. The smaller tournaments are where you see money aportioned accurately in relation to revenue. Yes, it's a slightly bizarre contradiction when you look at the slams. And as for women wanting to play best of five, that's a slightly dubious claim. Who said that? When Venus Williams was buying up newspaper space she didn'task for women to play five sets in tandem with a raise in prize money. The only women I've seen suggest it was Mauresmo, and even she said "only for finals"!

Answer 15

Imagine the crappy play if a woman went to two consecutive five set matches. The men usually look disgusting after that long. The women are not built for it. I'd rather see one hour of good tennis than three hours of terrible tennis. Basically, the men can handle five sets, the women cannot.