Comments on: Women tennis stars need to play best of five-sets

By: jrjr

jrjr — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:05:08 +0000

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.

By: Sportsmouth

Sportsmouth — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:00:38 +0000

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!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:31:06 +0000

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.

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:20:39 +0000

Mate, I read your post – what we are looking for is the shortest amount of time on-court to win a Grand Slam.

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:08:57 +0000

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

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:35:21 +0000

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

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:50:26 +0000

Just going through my tennis Bible and was thinking, I wonder if Jelena Dokic will get comeback player of the year for 2009.

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:46:21 +0000

Just for interest longest, womens single final was 3 hrs 24 min Justine Hennin d Maria Sharapova 57 75 63

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:46:08 +0000

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.

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:41:20 +0000

And 9 of those games were in the semi against Gabriela Sabatini (6-3 7-6)!!!

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:38:44 +0000

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.

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:34:14 +0000

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!

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:30:34 +0000

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.

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:28:31 +0000

Wow..32 minutes. I bet Natasha was glad it was best of three sets that day!

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:24:05 +0000

Woah!

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:22:01 +0000

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.

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:04:46 +0000

Never mind that………………what’s the shortest ever womens match? Less than 59 min?!

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:25:28 +0000

Thanks Kazama. It all makes sense now. Good old Wikipedia comes through with the goods again.

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:55:22 +0000

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

By: Kazama

Kazama — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:48:24 +0000

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.

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:57:57 +0000

. 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

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:21:21 +0000

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.

By: jrjr

jrjr — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:26:06 +0000

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!

By: jrjr

jrjr — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:33:27 +0000

I never really bother with doubles. I personally find it a bit boring.

By: Greg Russell

Greg Russell — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:31:58 +0000

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.

By: jrjr

jrjr — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:46:27 +0000

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.

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:31:05 +0000

And also why do they have to start at 11am every day? Surely you could change it to 9am.

By: Benjamin Conkey

Benjamin Conkey — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:29:19 +0000

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.

By: dasilva

dasilva — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:27:17 +0000

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.

By: Savvas Tzionis

Savvas Tzionis — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:20:05 +0000

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.