As we enter another summer of tennis there will be the inevitable men’s tennis versus the women’s game debates.
Millions more words will be added to the billions already out there on the three sets/five sets argument. The equal pay situation will see the righteous PC brigade battle it out with forces of chauvinism.
I’ll let the maths speak for my position here, then move on.
The maximum length of a women’s match (three sets) is 66% of a man’s five sets. The minimum length of two – as opposed to a men’s three – is therefore 60%. Split the difference to arrive at an average and you’ve got 63%.
Imagine the women at your workplace clocking of just after lunch each day and being on the same salary. Enough of that though.
Where women’s tennis does itself an enormous disservice and alienates many fans is in the one-sided nature of the early rounds.
The top seeds cruise through with 6-2 6-0 score lines. 6-1 6-4 is seen as a struggle. Entire matches last 50 minutes. Duck out for a quick swim or fire up the barbie and all you’ll see is the handshake.
Media, especially the host broadcaster, will promote these results as ‘a dominant display’, ‘she powered to victory’ and ‘she was in full flight’.
No, it was an out-and-out pizzling.
What we all love in sport is a contest. The occasional hammering of your foes can be enjoyable, but in women’s tennis rounds one to four are as gripping and thought provoking as the lions versus the Christians.
There is no doubt who will win, just by how many.
Imagine your AFL team winning by 15 goals every week. Your soccer team regularly achieving double figure victories. Yawn.
The brevity and predictability of women’s tennis is costing it fans, TV ratings and sponsorship.
My solution – take out the top eight seeds.
Place the top women in two pools, like the end of season masters format.
In pool one are seeds one, four, six and seven; say Serena Williams, Victoria Azarenka, Li Na and Maria Sharapova all playing each other.
Pool two would be seeds two, three, five and eight.
Each woman would play three high quality matches. The top two in each pool qualify for the quarter finals.
Everyone else from the ninth seed down plays a normal knockout event. Women outside the seeds would be ‘shielded’ from the top annihilators until they’re in form.
The last four here join the four qualifiers from the top seeded pools in the last eight – which would be a random draw.
TV networks and viewers would have an interesting choice in the first week of a grand slam.
A guaranteed interesting contest between say Caroline Wozniacki and Sam Stosur or a five set slug-a-thon between two unknown gentlemen from central Europe? The TV coverage would quite rightly focus on the top seeds’ round robin. A 6-4 win in the third set would be far preferable to yet another 6-1 6-0 drubbing.
The cruise control nature of women’s grand slam tennis has made it stale and predictable.
A shake up of the format is needed to re-invigorate interest and give us what well want in sport-a bloody good contest.
Whether it’s aces or races, try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp for great odds and a great punting experience. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
Alex de Minaur has missed out on the chance of a lifetime to beat Rafael Nadal on clay in successive tournaments, blown away by…
The Spaniard scores first Top 20 win since November 2022, and reversed the result of a few weeks ago where the Australian came out…
Former Wimbledon champion, double grand slam winner and Australian Open finalist Garbine Muguruza has announced her retirement from tennis at the age of 30.…
Rafael Nadal has hailed the brilliance of Alex de Minaur, calling him "a great player" after the Australian forced the Spanish legend to say…
The clay season promises to be one of high level and tight margins. With the Monte Carlo open just around the corner, it will…
In incredible scenes, defending champion Carlos Alcaraz's quarter-final clash with Alexander Zverev at Indian Wells was halted abruptly due to a "bee invasion." Less…
