By Benjamin Conkey
January 29th 2009 @ 2:52am
Women tennis stars need to play best of five-sets
More than two million viewers tuned in to see Jelena Dokic lose to Dinara Safina in her quarter-final. Two million! That’s more than any cricket match could attract. Actually, make that most male sports.
It’s a sign of how far women’s tennis has come.
The fact that women’s Grand Slam tennis rates so well is the main reason women have gained equality in prize money. They bring in the crowds and, therefore, deserve to be paid handsomely for their efforts.
But should they be paid the same as men considering they do far less work?
The answer is no, just like it would be in any other workplace.
For women to truly break through the tennis glass ceiling they need to play best of five-set matches. So, why doesn’t it happen?
Women run marathons and do the same distance in triathlons, so why can’t they play a couple of extra sets of tennis?
It’s not just a typical male perspective.
Natalie Medhurst, The Roar’s expert female columnist, expressed the same view in her first article for the website.
Grand Slam tennis is supposed to be the ultimate test of skill and physical conditioning, and you just don’t get that in a best of three-set match. The match can be over before you know it.
Think about how many matches Lleyton Hewitt would have lost in Grand Slams if it was best of three sets?
If you look at on-court duration between men and women, the difference is vast.
So far at the Australian Open, Federer, Roddick and Verdasco have spent more than ten hours on court on their way to the semi-finals, compared with Zvonareva, Williams and Dementieva spending between six and eight hours sweating it out.
Then there is the difference in other sports.
In Olympic diving, men dive six times, women dive five. In the Beijing cycling road race, the women did one lap of the course and the men did two. And on golf courses around the world, the ladies tees are consistently 20 to 50 metres ahead of the men’s.
Sportswomen should make a stand and say they want to compete on equal terms with men.
There’s no reason why they can’t. It’s just a question of whether women want true equality in sport or just the appearance of it.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(37)
Spiro Zavos said | January 29th 2009 @ 4:42am | Report comment
There is a good argument for this with the women’s marathon at the Olympics. Until the modern era it was considered impossible for women to run a marathon, so the event was never scheduled. When it was, at the Los Angeles Olympics it was seen once and for all thatg women could run the distance, and in a good time.
The same argument applies to five-setters at the major tennis tournaments.
sheek said | January 29th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
The thing about tennis is that it requires both endurance strength & strength endurance. It’s a bit like being able to run a marathon while also lifting heavy weights at regular intervals.
Some of the women can probably play 5 great sets at the moment, but I doubt it would be a widespread skill. There have been many great 3 setters at this Australian tournament. Would the women be able to maintain that level over 5 sets?
My view is that women will get there eventually (best of 5 sets), just as they now run marathons. But not at the moment. However, I do believe women are worth the same money as men, even if they play best of 3 sets. They’re much prettier to look at (or is that politically incorrect to say?).
Kazama said | January 29th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
I agree with you Ben. If there is going to be equality between the sexes in tennis then the women should play to five sets at a Grand Slam. People might think we are sexist for saying that, but IMO it is more sexist to suggest that women are incapable of playing to five sets.
You are right in saying the prize money isn’t equal. Imagine if your boss announced that from now on female employees would only have to work half the hours as the men for the same amount of money. Would you think that was fair? That is the situation we currently have in professional tennis.
The Cougar said | January 29th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Isn’t it in vogue to shorten traditional forms of sport (eg Twenty20 cricket)? So why don’t we cut the men back to best-of-three sets in the Grand Slams?
It seems that in the cinema world these days, if you make a three-hour “epic”, then it’s more likely to be a great film. That is, make a longer film, and they will come.
Rubbish.
Horatio said | January 29th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Grand slam events must be five sets. And Kazama, dont worry about being called names when women cant get their own way. Thats what females do! The womens rights movement is about equality – that is, until they get into a majority situation; then forget it. There is no mens movement. That would be sexist iis the grasping world of women in business.Big business..
Can someone – who is not afraid of his mother – tell me. Are women getting more prize money than men in this event?
onside said | January 29th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Either way Chanel 7 will continue to DISCRIMINATE against Queenslander viewers
The results of the Dokic match was available on Fox Sports ,plus verbal overview
whilst Chanel 7 were still halfway through the second set.
The Australian interest in all sports including tennis stretches only as far as an Australian is playing.
It will be interesting to see other ratings now Dokic has departed.
Whatever,just dont show it live in Queensland
jrjr said | January 29th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
I agree women should play best of 5 but it sounds like the writer of this article, Benjamin Conkey has never been to the Tennis. Please explain how they would fit all the schedules matches in each day if women played best of 5 also!??
Grand Slams would have to run for an extra few days.
I noticed he hasn’t touched on the important issue of where they would find the extra time.
Also, all the people who tuned in to watch the Safina Vs Dokic match isn’t necessarily to do with how far womens Tennis has come. It has a lot to do with the fact it was simply Dokic playing.
Apart from that yes, I agree that if they get the same prize money they should have to earn it.
Equlity!, yeah right………when it suits them. (NOTE: My wife agrees)
http://protennisplayers.blogspot.com/
Savvas Tzionis said | January 29th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
I agreew with some of the writers sentiments insofar as I have always felt the women do not play long enough. But to go from 3 sets to 5 sets is never going to happen. The solution could be in removing Tie-Breakers for the Women for sets 1 & 2. I think a nice compromise!!! However I have no comment on the issue of ‘equal-pay”….do any women comment here at all?
))
Let me point out that it probably depends on how heavily you weight market forces, gender equality, pay per performance factors.
As for the following statement….”Isn’t it in vogue to shorten traditional forms of sport (eg Twenty20 cricket)? So why don’t we cut the men back to best-of-three sets in the Grand Slams?”
I am not sure about the history of non-Grand Slam events but currently aren’t at least 70% of tournaments only 3 sets affairs anyway? So, we can leave the Grand Slams untouched, I would think.
dasilva said | January 29th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Are women getting more prize money than men in this event?
Answer is no – they get the same amount
However you are thinking of the Sydney International tournament where women got paid more
hOwever I think that’s because of market forces more then anything else. The Sydney International attracted more “stars” players. While the male version – most of the star players went and play at the kooyong classics
Therefore the women tournament at sydney international had far more profile then the mens and hence got paid more. It was the first time in tennis history that has ever happen.
Benjamin Conkey said | January 29th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
jrjr, I have been to the tennis, a number of times. I don’t think it would be that tough. They have 24 courts with lights. It would be easy to schedule every court for night matches..get rid of the Legends doubles if you have to. The problem would be Wimbledon and French Open without lights.
Savvas, I love your idea about removing tie-breakers for women..that would be a nice compromise.
Benjamin Conkey said | January 29th 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
And also why do they have to start at 11am every day? Surely you could change it to 9am.
jrjr said | January 29th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
I think 9am would be too early but totally agree it should be started early. It’s not just the players you have to think about. Many staff especially sports commentators, umpires etc, by work place health and safety laws require a 10 hr turn around which I don’t think would be possible with a 9am start.
Staff would also have to be at around 7am to set everything up each morning.
I think 10 would be a little more reasonable.
It’s definitely a long running debate with many pros and cons.
I actually like the tiebreakers. It adds suspense to a match.
Greg Russell said | January 29th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
The difference in performance between men and women is approximately 10% in all sports. It is on this basis that tennis is ridiculous, because 3 sets versus 5 sets is a far, far greater difference. The problem for tennis is that there is nothing in between, e.g. best of 4 is not feasible.
I was thinking about exactly this problem the other day while watching the Australian Open. What suddenly struck me is that it is precisely because the women only play best of 3 that so many of them enter the doubles competitions, often both women’s and mixed. By contrast, doubles is essentially a specialty for men these days.
And so the thought occurred: if women’s singles tennis will not be changed to best of 5, then what about reducing men’s to best of 3 and requiring all the top men to enter a doubles competition? I mean, how good would it be to see Nadal-Venus play Federer-Serena in mixed doubles?
Of course I’m being somewhat ridiculous here. But my point still stands: it is making singles best-of-5 that robs doubles of any attraction.
jrjr said | January 29th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
I never really bother with doubles. I personally find it a bit boring.
jrjr said | January 31st 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
How about this idea Benjamin. I think I’m on to a winner here…………..how about if the women were at least made to play best of 5 in the Final!
Make the winner earn her $2 Million Bucks!
That way it wouldn’t be all over in under an hour giving people better value for money and it would be more a true test of mettle between the 2 players.
I think we should take this up with the appropriate people, however I want credit for the idea!
Benjamin Conkey said | February 1st 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
Yep I think that’s a good idea. I’ll let you have that one! At least the fans might get over an hour of tennis to watch. It was cringeworthy seeing that first set..yes Serena played well but to only score eight points was a joke.
Can you confirm to me jrjr that the media’s been getting it wrong about the longest match at Melbourne Park following the Nadal-Verdasco match? I could have sworn it was broken in the 1st round in that Lopez-Muller match which was 16-14 in the 5th…wasn’t that 5hrs 34mins? And yet everyone’s saying the Nadal match is the longest.
jrjr said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:57am | Report comment
. You may be right. The only other long match I know anything about is 5 Hrs 11 min by Boris Becker Vs Omar Camorese back in 1991
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
There was a match in 2003 between Roddick and El Aynaoui that went five hours but I’m not sure of the exact time, fifth set was 21-19.
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Ah, here is the answer: “However, it was later discovered that a timing error had added over an hour to the match, that in reality lasted 4 hours and 24 minutes. (The semifinal match between Rafael Nadal and Fernando Verdasco did become the longest, however, at 5 hours and 14 minutes.)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Australian_Open#Notable_stories
Benjamin Conkey said | February 1st 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Thanks Kazama. It all makes sense now. Good old Wikipedia comes through with the goods again.
jrjr said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Never mind that………………what’s the shortest ever womens match? Less than 59 min?!
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Can’t find anything else on the web so I’ll have to rely on Wikipedia again: Steffi Graf beat Natasha Zvereva 6-0 6-0 in 32 minutes at the 1988 French Open final.
jrjr said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
Woah!
Benjamin Conkey said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
Wow..32 minutes. I bet Natasha was glad it was best of three sets that day!
Benjamin Conkey said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
Ok this one would probably be pretty hard to find out..but I wonder what’s the shortest on-court duration a player has had to win a Grand Slam? I’m tipping around 7 hours by Steffi Graf or Martina Hingis. Kazama, if you can find that one you are amazing.
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Well, the agony would not have been too prolonged if it were best of five – at that rate another set would have only taken 16 minutes!
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
I’ll keep looking but so far things point to Graf – at that tournament she lost only 20 games on her way to the title, which is the record. Amazing.
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:41pm | Report comment
And 9 of those games were in the semi against Gabriela Sabatini (6-3 7-6)!!!
Benjamin Conkey said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Yeah just taking a look myself. Six 6-0 sets! I think it’s safe to assume she would have the record for shortest duration. Most of those matches would prob have been well under an hour…incredible.
jrjr said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Longest time on court was 6hrs 31 min by Vicki Nelson-Dunbar d Jean Hepner 64 76 (11) The tie break alone took 1 hr 47 min. At one point the tie break took 29 minutes whereby the ball crossed the net 643 times.
I think that’s right…………….just off the top of my head LOL
Just for interest longest, womens single final was 3 hrs 24 min Justine Hennin d Maria Sharapova 57 75 63
jrjr said | February 1st 2009 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
Just going through my tennis Bible and was thinking, I wonder if Jelena Dokic will get comeback player of the year for 2009.
Kazama said | February 1st 2009 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
It just doesn’t seem to be anywhere which is a bit disappointing. I guess we’ll just have to assume for now that Graf has the record.
Here’s a Sports Illustrated article from 1989 that covers Graf’s insane year in 1988: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1126662/1/index.htm
jrjr said | February 2nd 2009 @ 6:08am | Report comment
This is for Kazama who didn’t read my post previously:
AGAIN………………
Longest time on court was 6hrs 31 min by Vicki Nelson-Dunbar d Jean Hepner 64 76 (11) The tie break alone took 1 hr 47 min. At one point the tie break took 29 minutes whereby the ball crossed the net 643 times.
I think that’s right…………….just off the top of my head LOL
Kazama said | February 2nd 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
Mate, I read your post – what we are looking for is the shortest amount of time on-court to win a Grand Slam.
Patrick said | September 17th 2009 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
If 3 sets is not enough and 5 sets might be too much for women, what if they increase the 6 game requirement to 8 to win a set.
Sportsmouth said | December 21st 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
For Grand Slams and any other big tournaments the ladies should play 5 sets from at least the semi final onwards, maybe even from the quaters, keep the early rounds down to 3 sets as there is still way to big a gap generally between the top and bottom of the ladies players.
Although I must admit, I cannot watch womens tennis anymore, even though they are certainly worth watching, but it’s the never ending screaming and grunting that I just can’t cope with!
jrjr said | December 21st 2009 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
I agree with Sportsmouth. That is a great idea about best of 5 sets from Quarters onwards. Perhaps give them a longer time out.
I am actually becoming more interested in womens singles Tennis. I’m looking forward to seeing Kim Clijsters and Maria Sharapova play at the Australian Open in 2010 as last year I obviously didn’t get to see them play there.