Time For Five-Set Women's Grand Slams

LOL I WANNA SEE THAT...Well hell they get the same money then play 5 sets

Reply

Ive got two words...TENNIS LMAO !!!

Reply

I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of these lousy 6-1, 6-2 matches that these top women players get by with. It's time the women earn those big paychecks that are now equal to men's pay. Let's see if a woman's serve (and fitness) can last for four or five sets. I think this would make women's tennis much more competitive and exciting.

Reply

The best way to start would be for a sponsor (perhaps Energizer batteries?) to offer a large purse for an up-and-coming tournament to test out 5-set women's matches. The Grand Slams won't make the switch unless the format has already been tested in top-level competition with favorable results.

Reply

I think some place tried this a bunch of years ago. Only the final was 5 sets and from the look of things it darn near killed them with exhaustion. Almost doubling the time is a big change but yes I would like to see it.
TV wouldn’t however, as this is easier to schedule.

Reply

there's no excuse for a three set game. soccer games take 90 minutes for both men and women.

Reply

I always wondered why whenever anyone complained about women not earning as much as men in Tennis that no one ever brought up the fact that they don't nearly play as long as the men do. A so-called grueling three-set women's match is a straight set victory for a men's match. And when you have one final ending in under an hour in two sets, and another going over five hours in five sets with both participants barely able to lift their legs and arms at the end - I think it should be obvious why women weren't making as much money as the men were.
Of course there were some sexist men who had other reasons for it; but there is basic logic and truth to the reason for them earning less pay.
Would you pay someone the same amount of money to do three hours of construction work as opposed to someone doing five hours of the very same construction work? And how then would you argue that because one is a woman she should make as much even though she only works three hours and the man works for five?
It is time for the women to either start playing five sets regardless of the consequences, or go back to earning less for...well...less work.

Reply

I vehemently DISAGREE! Doctors know that women are more likely to experience knee problems from that kind of stress than men. Both Lindsay Davenport and Serena Williams had knee surgery. Lindsay's kept her out of tennis for a year. Serena came back much sooner than that, won her first event back, thoroughly astounded a shocked Lindsay Davenport in doing so, and paid for it later - having to stop playing again for a time to finish recuperating properly. Roger Federer is the same age Serena is. Has he had knee surgery? NO!

Women players pack spectators into the stands at Wimbledon like the men do. They are playing a sport. They don't get paid by the hour! LOL And as Venus astutely noted in her brilliant letter ( which led to equal pay for women at Wimbledon this year for the first time in HISTORY), the women's final in 2005 lasted LONGER than the men's final. Venus should know. For both Venus and then #1 Lindsay Davenport battled in the longest women's final at Wimbledon in HISTORY until Venus finally won!

The point is no one has any way of knowing how long any one GAME will play, much less how long a set or a match in tennis will last. So Venus was totally dominant and won quickly that LAST time. Federer has done the same.

Tennis is entertainment. And people watch women's tennis for the personalities and storylines as much as for the great exhibition of tennis skills. Want proof? The top officials at the Australian Open this year said the North American tv ratings this year were the highest they'd been in HISTORY because of SERENA WILLIAMS' compelling run over the course of the tournament to ultimate victory! People are watching women play, REGARDLESS of how long they play. And again, NO tennis player, male OR female is getting paid according to how long they stay on the court. That would be impossible to guage, anyhow, even if they were to WANT to do that.

Verily

Reply

How long does the Superbowl last? I love tennis. I play it, read about it, and watch it. But I don't know that I think a FIVE HOUR match is necessarily a good thing. If people are evenly matched, it does NOT necessarily mean they are both GREAT! It is sometimes also entertaining to see Roger Federer's transcendent skill and grace while he dominates - as long as there are some good rallies (sp?) lol in the match.
Verily

Reply

How about best of 3 for everybody till the quarter-finals, then it's 5 for everybody.

Reply

I am a female tennis player and do not see the benefit of a 5 setter; after the 3rd set most of the women in the national and international level are done.The other argument is: do you want the same money? Do the same work. The money though is a very small part of their earnings; endorsment is what everyone is after.

Reply

Nora, you DO know that the women's Wimbledon final in 2005 lasted LONGER than the MEN'S final, don't you? Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport played heroically in the longest women's final in HISTORY at Wimbledon. So should the women in the final that year have gotten more than the men whose final did NOT last as long? The POINT is nobody gets paid in tennis for how long they play on court. Many of brilliant Roger Federer's matches have been quick ROUTS but people still enjoyed watching his artistry.

And Venus is right: Tennis is entertainment. The athletes don't get paid by the hour! And interestingly enough, there have been quite a few women's finals that got HIGHER tv ratings than the MEN'S finals - and that's really SAYING something considering women's finals generally take place on SATURDAY, a much lighter day for tv viewing than SUNDAY when the men's finals generally occur. Many more people normally watch tv on Sunday than Saturday in GENERAL - as a rule.

And again - the main officials at the Australian Open this year said that SERENA WILLIAMS' amazing run to the title over the course of the tournament is the reason why that 2007 Australian Open had the HIGHEST tv ratings in North American HISTORY! Should Serena Williams get more money than other female and even MALE tennis players because she OBVIOUSLY normally draws higher ratings for events? Her final drew more viewers than the MALE final at the Australian Open!

The women deserve equal pay for the entertainment value and revenues they bring to the game. It's the right thing to do. Period.
Verily

Reply

If I'm READING "verily's" comments CORRECTLY, she is saying that because the ladies' ASSES look better in skirts, they should get paid equal MONEY. I wholeheartedly AGREE.

Reply

For years women cried and complained about unequal paycheck for their performance in sport such as tennis. Somehow, the world gave in to their ridiculous demand and gave them the equal prize money as men.How in the world the woman can earn the same pay for a much lesser job than a man.Even their final matches are incomparable to the men qualifying rounds in any tournements when you compare their performance as well as their serving speeds. Then mens second serve on the average is faster than the women first serve, and they play longer matches than the women.

Reply

Insomniac, you are most definitely NOT reading my posts correctly!! Didn't you see where I mentioned the FACT that the WOMEN'S Wimbledon final in 2005 lasted LONGER than the MEN'S final that year?! Women make up 50% of the population. Men AND women watch women's tennis and because of Serena Williams' compelling ( some say improbable) run to her Australian Open win this year, Australian Open officials revealed that the 2007 Australian Open had the HIGHEST television ratings in North American HISTORY. Now, by some people's logic here that means SERENA should have gotten more money than the MEN for her Australian Open win since the tv ratings for HER final were HIGHER than the tv ratings for the MEN'S!! I wouldn't go that far, but I know this. Women should get EQUAL pay. Period!
Verily

Reply

If they are getting same prize money thsy should play 5 sets. It should be atleast from round of 16 onward.

Reply

The men's game depends more on strength, the women's more on skill. The very top players in both draws tend to display greater balance of both strength and skill.

If the ladies were required to display strength equal to the average male pro there would be many fewer lady players.

If the men players were required to display skill equal to the average lady pro, don't dispair. Roger Federer and very few others would remain.

I would prefer three set matches for both men and ladies. More important, though is to accept what each brings to the sport and not to require women to be more like the men, nor men to be more like the ladies. Viva la difference.

Reply

For years women have shouted the mantra of equal pay for equal work (rightfully so). So why haven't the women gone to 5 set matches??? If they were awarded equal prize money this year, the matches should be 5 sets.

Reply

Verily, I say unto you that sarcasm is lost amongst those that abuse the caps lock key.

Reply

IN MEN'S TENNIS, MOST OF THE POINTS HAPPEN VERY FAST(SERVE AND VOLLEY, SERVE AND VOLLEY). AS SUCH THE GAMES AND SETS GO MORE QUICKLY THAN THE WOMEN'S. MOST OF THEIR MATCHES CONSIST OF BASELINE PLAYERS WHO SIMPLY WAIL AWAY AT ONE ANOTHER, WHICH MAKES THE POINTS LONGER(AND MORE ENTERTAINING IN MY OPINION), AND RESULTS IN MORE SERVICE BREAKS, MORE TIMES AT DEUCE, AND THE SETS MORE TIME CONSUMING, OVERALL. TO MAKE THEM GO 5 SETS WOULD BE UN-NECESSARY AND MAYBE EVEN CRUEL. THE WOMEN DESERVE EQUAL PRIZE MONEY. THEY EARN IT JUST AS THE MEN DO.

Reply