.. I just wished the women's final would have been the best of five sets, I genuinely think Ons could have fought back..
I don't understand why there isn't parity in the women's game, it would be so much better??
3 legends of the game... And Andy Murray 馃榿
I'm not sure. I think her head had gone, unfortunately. I'd love to see her win a slam but she seems to wear the weight of expectation heavily.
Djokovic can鈥檛 figure out why people don鈥檛 like him. Maybe he should throw another tantrum.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/66226270
Djokovic can鈥檛 figure out why people don鈥檛 like him. Maybe he should throw another tantrum.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/66226270
That fine will definitely teach him!
I'm not sure. I think her head had gone, unfortunately. I'd love to see her win a slam but she seems to wear the weight of expectation heavily.
Agreed. Even how tense she looked before the match started was a sign that she was really feeling it. In contrast Marketa looked quite relaxed. Understandable as she really had a great week and getting this far was just gravy.
.. but there really should be parity in the women's game.. as we've seen time and time again in the men's game where a player loses the first two sets comprehensively, and can even be a break down in the third, only for them to come back and win it in the fifth..
I love that kind of battle, and for me, that's where women's tennis just doesn't cut it in the same way..
Just before we all move on to Cincinatti or Rogers Cup etc, is it just me would happily lose the on-court interview with the defeated finalist? Like, what insights are they bringing? If a champion wants to cry, fine. But breaking down the loser in public is just bloodsport. For every polished performer with great English skills like Djoko, there will be a Murray or Jabeur who is hugely hurting and just needs a quick hug from the president of Kia Motors or Princess Kate and done.
the people doing the interviews should have some empathy for the loser
What I would really like to see is the after each match on court interview with the winner eliminated. They already do press so for me this is an add on that is of little value...
Oh, just a point of order...it is not the Rogers Cup anymore. It鈥檚 the National Bank Open...or just the Canadian Open. It is the second oldest active tournament after Wimbledon, by the way...
This argument gets made often, that women should play 5 sets in majors if they want to be paid the same as men, etc.
There鈥檚 some history of them doing that in the year end finals, back from the mid-80鈥檚 to the late 90鈥檚. It didn鈥檛 work well, as matches went on for far too long, and ratings fell. If men鈥檚 and women鈥檚 tennis were played the same way, it would maybe make some sense, but the differences in how men and women play would make it unwelcome.
Men tend to hit a lot of aces, and have a lot of serve plus one points as they call it now. Points and games tend to be shorter with fewer points played than women. Women tend to have longer rallies and longer games, so extending to 5 sets is really going to drag things out. Schedules are already packed at grand slam events, so adding a pile of extra time to a lot of the women鈥檚 matches is only going to make this dramatically worse. Would we now need majors to be 3 weeks long to accommodate the extra time this will add? Players already complain that matches end far too late (where there is no curfew in place) so trying to cram more into the same time frame is going to make this unworkable.
Remember when all the masters 1000鈥檚 were all 5 sets for men? Now they are all 3 set matches, and still, some of these events take nearly 2 weeks to complete. The tennis schedule is packed all year long, and players have very little time off at the end of the year. I honestly don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 a real need for this. If anything, given how the masters events have changed, if anything happens it would be for the men to play 3 sets in majors.
I鈥檓 good with the final interviews with both players. It would be odd not to hear from both finalists, but the people doing the interviews should have some empathy for the loser.
What I would really like to see is the after each match on court interview with the winner eliminated. They already do press so for me this is an add on that is of little value...
Oh, just a point of order...it is not the Rogers Cup anymore. It鈥檚 the National Bank Open...or just the Canadian Open. It is the second oldest active tournament after Wimbledon, by the way...
Yes, I think Sue Barker (who retired last year) did a much much better job, and you really felt that she had so much empathy for the runner-up.. Probably because she was so often in their shoes馃檮
You make some very valid points, but my argument is not about being paid the same. It's purely about the match, the battle, the competition between two great athletes; for me, three sets don't hold anywhere near the same amount of interest as five sets, for example; just imagine Alcaraz vs Djokovic's final at Wimbledon being three sets, it would have been massively compromised and depleted in my opinion.
I take your point about scheduling and that would need to be very carefully worked through; perhaps a tournament like Wimbledon (my favourite for so many reasons, and not because it's my local馃槈 could take place over two sites (another nearby Tennis Club) in the first week, condensing down into one site for the second.
In terms of the number of aces nowadays, there is no doubt a disparity, but if we go back to the wooden racket/crossover days there weren't anywhere near the number of aces in the men's game, probably not too dissimilar to the number of aces in the women's game nowadays, and it was still just as exciting (if not more) at five sets.
I would really hate it if the men's game were to go to three sets across the board, it would not hold anywhere near the same level of fixation and fascination for me.
The men's doubles was already trimmed to 3 sets from 5, so that is now the case across the board at all majors (Wimbledon was the last hold out). Sorry but the trend is not going in the direction you favour, it's going the opposite way. 5 sets for men's singles is a big tradition, so I don't think it's going away any time soon, but I do think it will eventually be that all matches are 3 sets.
For me the interest isn't based on the number of sets, but the quality and style of play. I've seen very boring 3 set and 5 set matches, and very thrilling 3 set and 5 set matches. For me the number of sets is not a key factor.
My username is archer because I was a competitive archer for a very long time. My sport went through a major upheaval in the 90's that dramatically shortened the event and how the winner was chosen (at the behest of the IOC). It went from archers shooting for 4 days (288 arrows total), and whoever had the highest cumulative score won, to having a ranking round of 72 arrows, then very short head to head matches of 18 and 12 arrows each - single round elimination. It changed the flavour of the competition in a major way - in the old format having one bad arrow out of 288 was something you could live with, and not have a big impact. In the new format, having one bad shot in a 18 or 12 arrow match means you lose, period. It went from a rather leisurely drawn out event, to short high pressure matches.
People whined and complained that the matches were too short, but those who understood what they had to do to win, just did that and moved on. I competed under both systems and won and lost under both systems. A good player will adapt to whatever the changes are that is made, rather than pulling a Jamie Murray and whine that if it was 5 sets they would have come back...
the last thing I really want to see with five-set singles tennis is pandering to the casual viewer or to those with a short attention span.
