Sky Cricket have found an absolute diamond in Dinesh Karthik. One of the best expert summarizers I have heard for a long time. Full of technical knowhow and some wit to go with it.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Or the Republicans had been try to use 'England's' enemy. I'm prepared to be told I'm wrong but I don't think Germany was particularly interested in Ireland before Anglo-German relations went wrong after the death of Edward VII.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
De Valera agreed with you. But the IRA thought of their enemy’s enemy as a friend. And so did the Nazis.
The wars between the Soviet Union and Finland are a case in point. Finland was rather unlucky to be 'done over' by the allies; for example, if they'd pressed on towards Leningrad, instead of stopping when they'd recouped the land they'd lost the Siege might well have been broken and the city taken by the Germans.
Mannerheim succeeded in preserving the existence of Finland against incredible odds. He walked a very fine line for years - in the end, Stalin respected him....
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I think either this or men to play 3 sets (as they do in all non-grand slams, I believe) is a no brainer. The women's tour has had the fitness to match the men for at least a decade or two.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Yes, a good point. But - again - context and perspective. It's true that the women do disproportionately well out of the slams but all the ways to counter this bring bigger problems than anything solved. And remember it IS just the slams. Per annum the top men make more in prize money than the top women.
Sky Cricket have found an absolute diamond in Dinesh Karthik. One of the best expert summarizers I have heard for a long time. Full of technical knowhow and some wit to go with it.
They really need to ditch Bumble and Holding for more people who actually understand the modern game.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Are these your opinions, or facts? I've never looked into whether players (of either gender) want 3 or 5 sets to be honest.
In between tbh. Something stronger than pure opinion but not quite 100% proven fact.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Are these your opinions, or facts? I've never looked into whether players (of either gender) want 3 or 5 sets to be honest.
In between tbh. Something stronger than pure opinion but not quite 100% proven fact.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Dear old Roger Casement.
He's one of major the reasons why commas are so important to me (and should be for the rest of the world.)
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
That is a really interesting account. I cannot find any reference to Calista Hebburn anywhere outside that Twitter account. She’s a “local government and devolution expert” not on LinkedIn. Not on FB. She Tweets very cleverly anti-English content that just oversteps where most ScotNats are prepared to go - in one tweet she suggests a “hostile environment” for English immigrants (something that the SNP would never advocate) and in another she says Brexit is worse than anything Germany ever did. In another post a week or 2 ago she claimed to have been in England the week before attending an A&E - but no mention of it in the week in question. She’s taking Nat talking points and exaggerating them. Such as -
I think this is a quite sophisticated trolling operation. A bit like another I saw called “Zero Covid Zoe” who similarly took ZeroCovid talking points and exaggerated them (12 month lockdown, separating key workers from their families) causing outrage.
I think this is a very clever troll account. She’s attracted attention before-
Sky Cricket have found an absolute diamond in Dinesh Karthik. One of the best expert summarizers I have heard for a long time. Full of technical knowhow and some wit to go with it.
They really need to ditch Bumble and Holding for more people who actually understand the modern game.
Bumble is a character and amusing but I agree he knows very little about the modern game. Holding has a beautiful voice, I just love listening to him, but really knows nothing other than fast bowling.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
They've been very poor friends. Only the French have been worse.
Sky Cricket have found an absolute diamond in Dinesh Karthik. One of the best expert summarizers I have heard for a long time. Full of technical knowhow and some wit to go with it.
They really need to ditch Bumble and Holding for more people who actually understand the modern game.
Bumble is a character and amusing but I agree he knows very little about the modern game. Holding has a beautiful voice, I just love listening to him, but really knows nothing other than fast bowling.
He didn't know much about the modern game when he was coaching England.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Dear old Roger Casement.
He's one of major the reasons why commas are so important to me (and should be for the rest of the world.)
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Dear old Roger Casement.
He's one of major the reasons why commas are so important to me (and should be for the rest of the world.)
Sky Cricket have found an absolute diamond in Dinesh Karthik. One of the best expert summarizers I have heard for a long time. Full of technical knowhow and some wit to go with it.
They really need to ditch Bumble and Holding for more people who actually understand the modern game.
Bumble is a character and amusing but I agree he knows very little about the modern game. Holding has a beautiful voice, I just love listening to him, but really knows nothing other than fast bowling.
Holding in particular has no knowledge of who a lot of the players are, he admits it on camera, let alone what the tactics are / flaws in their game etc.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Dear old Roger Casement.
He's one of major the reasons why commas are so important to me (and should be for the rest of the world.)
Terrifying. My son in Banff (Alberta) says that a place just down the road from him (relatively speaking) got hotter a few weeks back than Vegas has ever been. Vegas is hot.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But they only do 60% as much of very inferior quality product.
James Ward @JamesWard73 · 4h …doesn’t mean that I think you’re a psychopath. And just because you might support extending regulations for another few weeks, doesn’t mean I think you’re a “bedwetter”, or uncaring about those who have suffered during lockdown. So I’d be grateful if you…
James Ward @JamesWard73 · 4h …could do me the return favour of not thinking I’m a genocidal maniac because, after a great deal of thought, analysis and heart-searching, I think it’s probably the best of a series of unattractive options for us to proceed to Step 4 on 19th July.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
Would extending the length of football matches them more prestigious? Make it a game of three halves perhaps?
There must have been a 24-hour game of football, at least once, for charity with lots of substitutes.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
Would extending the length of football matches them more prestigious? Make it a game of three halves perhaps?
There must have been a 24-hour game of football, at least once, for charity with lots of substitutes.
Seems like this is done relatively often, but for even longer, with the record increasing a lot in recent years.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
True enough. But this isn't reverse sexism. It's just the best available option for the peculiar situation of tennis slams - where the 4 pinnacle events have a shared venue and draw, so no separate revenue, and the real world (as opposed to internet debating) demand for women's best/5 is not there.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
Would extending the length of football matches them more prestigious? Make it a game of three halves perhaps?
It would if the men played three halves and the women only played two. One would be seen as the more testing challenge.
Seriously, I don't understand the reluctance on this front at all - despite the comments about quality from some here women's tennis is one of those where the attention and money rightly recognises that it is genuinely elite in its own right, with big names and big prizes. With no physical impediment to making the rules the same for men and women, why the heck not? It doesn't play second fiddle to the men's game, nor should it, so why not let both genders compete on the same basis? Why give succour to arguments the tournaments are not equivalent because the rules are not the same?
Make it equal in all things, as it should be.
We could reduce the men to three sets, that which they play most of the year, if you'd prefer.
how about a compromise and make both 4 sets with fifth set only if level after 4)))))
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
True enough. But this isn't reverse sexism. It's just the best available option for the peculiar situation of tennis slams - where the 4 pinnacle events have a shared venue and draw, so no separate revenue, and the real world (as opposed to internet debating) demand for women's best/5 is not there.
Variation on a theme - is there a demand for five sets for men?
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too.
Terrifying. My son in Banff (Alberta) says that a place just down the road from him (relatively speaking) got hotter a few weeks back than Vegas has ever been. Vegas is hot.
The only positive is maybe a few more americans will become concerned about climate change with this heat.
But I guess it will only be one side of the aisle.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
So why not just one set then on that argument? If the reality is too often the early rounds are such walkovers?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
Except the viable alternative is both play three sets or both play five...
That's a viable development but a negative one because there's demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5. So you'd be either introducing something unwanted or removing something that is wanted.
"Looks like new cases have peaked at around 33000 per day as unvaccinated numbers drop and vaccinated cases increase and will soon be the majority but cases still increasing in many areas in our watch list with low vaccine rates - thx for logging with ZOE!"
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
Except the viable alternative is both play three sets or both play five...
That's a viable development but a negative one because there's demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5. So you'd be either introducing something unwanted or removing something that is wanted.
You keep saying about the demand - where’s the evidence for that?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
But you have to consider the practical question - if there is audience demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5, how do you suggest the prize money be split (at the slams) if not equally?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
So why not just one set then on that argument? If the reality is too often the early rounds are such walkovers?
I think one set would be a bit disrespectful! I’ve never done any analysis of this so perhaps my gut feelings are wrong.
If you had men and women playing five sets each then scheduling would be tricky. At the moment, the women’s matches fit neatly in and around the men. Obviously from the QFs onwards at Wimbledon the two are separated and you could have best of five women’s matches no problem whatsoever.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
But you have to consider the practical question - if there is audience demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5, how do you suggest the prize money be split (at the slams) if not equally?
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
So why not just one set then on that argument? If the reality is too often the early rounds are such walkovers?
I think one set would be a bit disrespectful! I’ve never done any analysis of this so perhaps my gut feelings are wrong.
If you had men and women playing five sets each then scheduling would be tricky. At the moment, the women’s matches fit neatly in and around the men. Obviously from the QFs onwards at Wimbledon the two are separated and you could have best of five women’s matches no problem whatsoever.
The scheduling is only an issue in the first week as the ties per round halves each round. Don’t forget a hell of a lot of doubles and juniors and wheelchair tennis gets played too, yet they somehow accommodate it. If women’s five setters are just going to walkovers anyway, it’ll add about 30 extra minutes.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Just to add, I don’t care if women get the same prize money as men for less time on court (it didn’t bother me when they were paid less, mind). But I did used to annoyed by the whinging about women being on outside courts on the second Monday. If you cough up the money for Centre or No 1 court, you want two men’s matches. Two women’s matches might be acceptable if one features a decent Brit as happened this year.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Are these your opinions, or facts? I've never looked into whether players (of either gender) want 3 or 5 sets to be honest.
In between tbh. Something stronger than pure opinion but not quite 100% proven fact.
So an opinion then?
No, rather more than that. Something very VERY close to fact. -
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
It is. The relevant galleries of the military museum in Collins Barracks are absolutely fascinating - on the various ongoing battles and struggles.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
It is. The relevant galleries of the military museum in Collins Barracks are absolutely fascinating - on the various ongoing battles and struggles.
Incredibly (or maybe not) this entire thread was started by a probable Russian Troll Farm (not @williamglenn I hasten to add but the Tweeter he quotes)
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
But you have to consider the practical question - if there is audience demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5, how do you suggest the prize money be split (at the slams) if not equally?
Evidence for the demand?
Can't link you a YouGov or anything. But most serious tennis fans I've conversed with concur. Plus of course the fact the slams don't do it. If the fans were keen for women's best/5, they'd find a way (as we agreed).
Any case, back to my question to you. Assuming for these purposes it's right - the consumer demand for women's best/5 isn't there and so we're sticking to women playing best/3 - how are you going to split the prize money at the slams?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
But you have to consider the practical question - if there is audience demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5, how do you suggest the prize money be split (at the slams) if not equally?
Evidence for the demand?
Can't link you a YouGov or anything. But most serious tennis fans I've conversed with concur. Plus of course the fact the slams don't do it. If the fans were keen for women's best/5, they'd find a way (as we agreed).
Any case, back to my question to you. Assuming for these purposes it's right - the consumer demand for women's best/5 isn't there and so we're sticking to women playing best/3 - how are you going to split the prize money at the slams?
I’m happy with the money splits. As you say, it may be the best solution. I don’t accept it’s the only solution though.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
For giggles
That's almost as bad as the Presbyterian kirks of Scotland!
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
But you have to consider the practical question - if there is audience demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5, how do you suggest the prize money be split (at the slams) if not equally?
Evidence for the demand?
Can't link you a YouGov or anything. But most serious tennis fans I've conversed with concur. Plus of course the fact the slams don't do it. If the fans were keen for women's best/5, they'd find a way (as we agreed).
Any case, back to my question to you. Assuming for these purposes it's right - the consumer demand for women's best/5 isn't there and so we're sticking to women playing best/3 - how are you going to split the prize money at the slams?
One for you. Should England women internationals be paid the same as their male colleagues? Even if one team sells out Wembley and the other doesn’t?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
Not really a good comparison . The marathon is defined as a running event over 26 miles 365(?) yards. It is not a marathon if run over less by men or women .It is not the same discipline even. Tennis though is defined as a game where the rules of "combat " are fixed - get ball back over net inside court etc but not the duration.Hence a game of tennis can be over any duration
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
But you have to consider the practical question - if there is audience demand for men's best/5 but not for women's best/5, how do you suggest the prize money be split (at the slams) if not equally?
Evidence for the demand?
Can't link you a YouGov or anything. But most serious tennis fans I've conversed with concur. Plus of course the fact the slams don't do it. If the fans were keen for women's best/5, they'd find a way (as we agreed).
Any case, back to my question to you. Assuming for these purposes it's right - the consumer demand for women's best/5 isn't there and so we're sticking to women playing best/3 - how are you going to split the prize money at the slams?
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
It is. The relevant galleries of the military museum in Collins Barracks are absolutely fascinating - on the various ongoing battles and struggles.
Incredibly (or maybe not) this entire thread was started by a probable Russian Troll Farm (not @williamglenn I hasten to add but the Tweeter he quotes)
Well, just for a Saturday pre=dinner nibble, here's a nice example of the Oglaigh name on a Roller
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
For giggles
That's almost as bad as the Presbyterian kirks of Scotland!
Understanding the Troubles is helped by understanding that "The Lieutenant of Inishmore" was a serious* attempt to explain Republicanism.
*Serious as in makes-sense-after-14-pints-plus-a-disco-biscuit
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
People are not processing this properly in the light of the special circumstances of tennis.
The 4 pinnacle events have a shared draw/venue and so revenue can't be hypothecated.
There's no consumer demand for women's best/5 so they play 3.
Choice is then between equal pay or setting the women's at 60% - you'd have to use the 3/5 quantity adjustment otherwise you'd be making a precise relative judgment on quality of play which you can't.
If you set the women's pay at 60% they'd go nuts and (rightly) insist on playing 5. For which there isn't the demand.
So you stick with equal. Which also has the symbolic merit of the sport saying that women = men in our eyes.
Whilst not massively bothered either way , there is a reasonable point of view that women's tennis (being less dependant on sheer power or speed) has longer average rallies and therefore 5 sets of women's tennis would be harder and longer than 5 sets of mens all other things being equal (equality of opponents ability etc)
Whilst not massively bothered either way , there is a reasonable point of view that women's tennis (being less dependant on sheer power or speed) has longer average rallies and therefore 5 sets of women's tennis would be harder and longer than 5 sets of mens all other things being equal (equality of opponents ability etc)
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
For giggles
That's almost as bad as the Presbyterian kirks of Scotland!
Understanding the Troubles is helped by understanding that "The Lieutenant of Inishmore" was a serious* attempt to explain Republicanism.
*Serious as in makes-sense-after-14-pints-plus-a-disco-biscuit
Never heard of it, thank you!
*investigates*
Synopsis: "The Northern Ireland peace process is taking its faltering first steps, and INLA man Mad Padraic is hard at work pulling out the toenails of Belfast drug pusher James, when the news comes through that his beloved cat, Wee Thomas, is poorly. So instead of slicing off James's right nipple, as planned, he heads back home ..."
Uh oh, the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles wanted to start using the title of the Duke of Edinburgh but was told not to, however Prince Charles has decided to ignore his father's wishes and keep the DoE dukedom when he becomes monarch and not give it to Prince Edward.
Incidentally speaking of women's sport , England got into the European finals with Sweden the other day (not sure if final yet played) so golf maybe coming home!
Uh oh, the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles wanted to start using the title of the Duke of Edinburgh but was told not to, however Prince Charles has decided to ignore his father's wishes and keep the DoE dukedom when he becomes monarch and not give it to Prince Edward.
Uh oh, the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles wanted to start using the title of the Duke of Edinburgh but was told not to, however Prince Charles has decided to ignore his father's wishes and keep the DoE dukedom when he becomes monarch and not give it to Prince Edward.
Reminds me of Series 1 of Blackadder (series 1 was unfairly maligned inho) when the King was dishing out titles and Blackadder's brother got all of them but one - Did Edmund get Keeper of the Privy Toilet or something?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
No, I totally get you and it's cool. Some blokes bang on about this for all the wrong reasons - as sly point scoring against gender equality - but I sense this isn't the case with you.
All I'm trying to do is explain why the current setup - for the peculiar circumstances of tennis slams - is better than any of the alternatives.
If times change and there does develop a real fan demand for women's best/5 at slams there will be women's best/5 at slams and I'll be delighted with that.
Uh oh, the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles wanted to start using the title of the Duke of Edinburgh but was told not to, however Prince Charles has decided to ignore his father's wishes and keep the DoE dukedom when he becomes monarch and not give it to Prince Edward.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
People are not processing this properly in the light of the special circumstances of tennis.
The 4 pinnacle events have a shared draw/venue and so revenue can't be hypothecated.
There's no consumer demand for women's best/5 so they play 3.
Choice is then between equal pay or setting the women's at 60% - you'd have to use the 3/5 quantity adjustment otherwise you'd be making a precise relative judgment on quality of play which you can't.
If you set the women's pay at 60% they'd go nuts and (rightly) insist on playing 5. For which there isn't the demand.
So you stick with equal. Which also has the symbolic merit of the sport saying that women = men in our eyes.
C'mon. Thinking caps.
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies play the full 90 minutes for football matches, in leagues the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like playing only a 54-minute footy match.
Uh oh, the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles wanted to start using the title of the Duke of Edinburgh but was told not to, however Prince Charles has decided to ignore his father's wishes and keep the DoE dukedom when he becomes monarch and not give it to Prince Edward.
Uh oh, the fornicator and adulterer that is Prince Charles wanted to start using the title of the Duke of Edinburgh but was told not to, however Prince Charles has decided to ignore his father's wishes and keep the DoE dukedom when he becomes monarch and not give it to Prince Edward.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
People are not processing this properly in the light of the special circumstances of tennis.
The 4 pinnacle events have a shared draw/venue and so revenue can't be hypothecated.
There's no consumer demand for women's best/5 so they play 3.
Choice is then between equal pay or setting the women's at 60% - you'd have to use the 3/5 quantity adjustment otherwise you'd be making a precise relative judgment on quality of play which you can't.
If you set the women's pay at 60% they'd go nuts and (rightly) insist on playing 5. For which there isn't the demand.
So you stick with equal. Which also has the symbolic merit of the sport saying that women = men in our eyes.
C'mon. Thinking caps.
They way see it is like this:
Both gents and ladies play the full 90 minutes for football matches, in leagues the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like playing only a 54-minute footy match.
And football has 4 pinnacle events with shared venues and revenues, does it?
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
There was no IRA *before* WW1.
Yes, formally came into existence in 1917, but there were plenty of people bombing and shooting before the war. On both sides.
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
You had the "Irish Volunteers" from 1913, which gave rise to the short-lived "National Volunteers" and then the IRA from 1917 - although they didn't "officially" start military operations until 1919.
With the same Irish name all the way through.....
Tsk! You should've written:
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Or maybe
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
Ah! I didn't know they had the same name in Irish!
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
For giggles
That's almost as bad as the Presbyterian kirks of Scotland!
Understanding the Troubles is helped by understanding that "The Lieutenant of Inishmore" was a serious* attempt to explain Republicanism.
*Serious as in makes-sense-after-14-pints-plus-a-disco-biscuit
Never heard of it, thank you!
*investigates*
Synopsis: "The Northern Ireland peace process is taking its faltering first steps, and INLA man Mad Padraic is hard at work pulling out the toenails of Belfast drug pusher James, when the news comes through that his beloved cat, Wee Thomas, is poorly. So instead of slicing off James's right nipple, as planned, he heads back home ..."
*adds to shopping list*
If you go to see the play - be prepared for a blood bath......
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Only Wimbo has the extra day from next year - but I agree the scheduling could probably be fixed somehow if necessary. So if the women really wanted to play best/5 at the slams AND the fans really wanted to see it, we'd have women's best/5 at the slams. It's because they don't and (especially) that there isn't, that the current (imo perfectly acceptable) situation prevails.
Look, I’ll be honest, there is a lot more wrong with the world than this. But it does irk me. Maybe it’s just me. I think there is an inherent disrespect in not having five set matches. It reminds me too much of not letting women run marathons, or other distance races, thankfully a thing of the past. Maybe I just need to let it go...
My main objection to five sets for women is that I think it would be pointless most of the time because the result wouldn’t be different.
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too,
So why not just one set then on that argument? If the reality is too often the early rounds are such walkovers?
I think one set would be a bit disrespectful! I’ve never done any analysis of this so perhaps my gut feelings are wrong.
If you had men and women playing five sets each then scheduling would be tricky. At the moment, the women’s matches fit neatly in and around the men. Obviously from the QFs onwards at Wimbledon the two are separated and you could have best of five women’s matches no problem whatsoever.
I’m not sure Emma Raducanu would agree with that...but in a sense, that proves your point better.
Comments
https://twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1413880466567012361/photo/1
I do wonder if the cigar story is true...
I think this is a quite sophisticated trolling operation. A bit like another I saw called “Zero Covid Zoe” who similarly took ZeroCovid talking points and exaggerated them (12 month lockdown, separating key workers from their families) causing outrage.
I think this is a very clever troll account. She’s attracted attention before-
https://www.tomwinnifrith.com/articles/17635/today-s-victim-of-brexitderangementsyndrome-is-calista-hebburn-pray-for-calista-she-is-not-well
The Imperial German attempts to co-opt them into their plans often sounded like high farce.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57788118
Terrifying. My son in Banff (Alberta) says that a place just down the road from him (relatively speaking) got hotter a few weeks back than Vegas has ever been. Vegas is hot.
James Ward
@JamesWard73
·
4h
…doesn’t mean that I think you’re a psychopath. And just because you might support extending regulations for another few weeks, doesn’t mean I think you’re a “bedwetter”, or uncaring about those who have suffered during lockdown. So I’d be grateful if you…
James Ward
@JamesWard73
·
4h
…could do me the return favour of not thinking I’m a genocidal maniac because, after a great deal of thought, analysis and heart-searching, I think it’s probably the best of a series of unattractive options for us to proceed to Step 4 on 19th July.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/worlds-longest-football-match-raises-6039540.amp
https://www.cardiffcityhouseofsport.co.uk/news/kicking-off-against-cancer-world-record-attempt/
"The Germans had been trying to use the Irish Volunteers as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
Perhaps the slams could go to five sets for women from R16 onwards? In fact, they could do that for the men too.
But I guess it will only be one side of the aisle.
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
https://t.co/CK2IVc7rNu
Rather annoying not split that chart into partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated.
"The Germans had been trying to use the Óglaigh na hÉireann as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI..."
In fact they tried to work with various groups before that.
If you had men and women playing five sets each then scheduling would be tricky. At the moment, the women’s matches fit neatly in and around the men. Obviously from the QFs onwards at Wimbledon the two are separated and you could have best of five women’s matches no problem whatsoever.
Anyway, interesting that the National Volunteers supported the War Effort and went off to fight in France, and actually comprised almost all of the Irish Volunteers, leaving only a rump to plot with the Germans.
Any case, back to my question to you. Assuming for these purposes it's right - the consumer demand for women's best/5 isn't there and so we're sticking to women playing best/3 - how are you going to split the prize money at the slams?
Both gents and ladies run the full 26 miles for the marathon, in cities the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like running only a 16-mile "marathon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicles_of_the_Irish_Army#/media/File:The_Big_Fella_and_The_Fighting_2nd_(6340864262).jpg
*Serious as in makes-sense-after-14-pints-plus-a-disco-biscuit
The 4 pinnacle events have a shared draw/venue and so revenue can't be hypothecated.
There's no consumer demand for women's best/5 so they play 3.
Choice is then between equal pay or setting the women's at 60% - you'd have to use the 3/5 quantity adjustment otherwise you'd be making a precise relative judgment on quality of play which you can't.
If you set the women's pay at 60% they'd go nuts and (rightly) insist on playing 5. For which there isn't the demand.
So you stick with equal. Which also has the symbolic merit of the sport saying that women = men in our eyes.
C'mon. Thinking caps.
Public attitude to lifting restrictions on the 19th July
Support 41
Oppose 37
Neither 19
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1413898467018264581?s=19
*investigates*
Synopsis: "The Northern Ireland peace process is taking its faltering first steps, and INLA man Mad Padraic is hard at work pulling out the toenails of Belfast drug pusher James, when the news comes through that his beloved cat, Wee Thomas, is poorly. So instead of slicing off James's right nipple, as planned, he heads back home ..."
*adds to shopping list*
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edward-wants-to-be-duke-but-neither-history-nor-his-brother-is-on-his-side-77v25z3b0
All I'm trying to do is explain why the current setup - for the peculiar circumstances of tennis slams - is better than any of the alternatives.
If times change and there does develop a real fan demand for women's best/5 at slams there will be women's best/5 at slams and I'll be delighted with that.
End of OUR best of 5 -
Plus there's plenty of dukedoms for William's kids, Windsor for example.
Both gents and ladies play the full 90 minutes for football matches, in leagues the world over, right?
Women playing only best of 3 sets in tennis is a bit like playing only a 54-minute footy match.
Threes always talk to countries leaving the UK. Scotland, NI. Gareth Southgate is nailed on now.