Women tennis stars need to play best of five-sets
Roar Pro
By Benjamin Conkey, 29 Jan 2009 Benjamin Conkey is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Australian Open, Dementieva, DINARA SAFINA, Federer, Jelena Dokic, Lleyton Hewitt, Safin, Safina
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.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- Why I won’t be watching the Sharapova-Azarenka final (51)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (45)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (4)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (4)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (19)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (4)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (19)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (43)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog [video] (181)
- Explore:
- Australian Open, Dementieva, DINARA SAFINA, Federer, Jelena Dokic, Lleyton Hewitt, Safin, Safina
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.