PDA

View Full Version : Why womens event at this years French and Wimbledon should be covered more!


federerhoogenbandfan
06-03-2006, 10:41 AM
With Nadal being a total lock to win this years French Open, and Federer a total lock to win this years Wimbledon, the womens event at both events is far more interesting and should get more coverage, does anybody agree?

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-03-2006, 10:48 AM
who says Nadal is a lock to win this years French, did you see his match with Polo today?

federerhoogenbandfan
06-03-2006, 11:15 AM
who says Nadal is a lock to win this years French, did you see his match with Polo today?

Yes Nadal is a lock to win this years French. It does not matter how many people have a chance to take sets off him or even take him into a 5th set struggle, nobody has a chance to actually beat him, so yes he is a lock to win this years French, just as Federer is a lock to win this years Wimbledon with Hewitt, Roddick, and Henman all struggling.

dubsplayer
06-03-2006, 11:16 AM
Maybe to you it's more interesting, but I find watching womens tennis as exciting as watching paint dry.

stoffer
06-03-2006, 11:18 AM
1. Federer, will win both French and Wimbledon this year.
2. Interest is not simply a factor of having several people capable of winning, its about good shots and exciting tennis and the women are incapable of producing either.

Max G.
06-03-2006, 11:20 AM
Womens tennis gets interesting in the second week. For the first week, it's really not - one-sided matches, filled with errors. There are exceptions, such as Sharapova's first round, but not as a rule. Once the top players start meeting each other, then it starts getting good - Henin-Myskina could be interesting, also once Hingis starts running into top seeds.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-03-2006, 11:23 AM
The Sharapova-Washington first round match(what they showed of it, which was not enough)was very interesting, and the Sprem-Venus Williams(one of the few matches they showed almost entirely, expected since it is a Williams)
was also very good.

Watching events where the eventual winner is already a foregone conclusion is kind of a drag I find, it is like watching a movie that you already know the ending to.

Court_Jester
06-03-2006, 11:26 AM
who says Nadal is a lock to win this years French, did you see his match with Polo today?

So he struggled today. Big deal! At the end of the day, he's pretty much a lock for the FO. There's a substantial parity in the ATP tour that you can pretty tell who's going to win the matches.

The WTA tour, on the other hand, doesn't have that kind of parity, which makes each match or less a toss up. That's why I prefer watching WTA matches: there's always a surprise at the end of the match, i.e., an upset.


CJ

vkartikv
06-03-2006, 01:06 PM
Women's tennis died with the retirement of Graf. Hingis is trying to revive it, good luck to her. All the others - Russians, Americans, French can go about their everyday business without troubling us.

holterguist
06-03-2006, 01:11 PM
I would rather have an enema than watch Sharapova or the williams sisters any day.

dmastous
06-03-2006, 01:16 PM
I think the red clay slows the game down enough to make it very intreguing. The women's game is not as good. But the men's game on grass is too powerfull and boring while the women are much more interesting there.
In all the coverage is fairly even in the opening rounds. I would just like to see, make that hear, less of Sharapova.

vkartikv
06-03-2006, 01:17 PM
Even if they played in the nude like the olympics were back in the days, I wouldn't watch it.

tennissavy
06-03-2006, 05:51 PM
NBC and ESPN didn't show the Hantuchova/Dechy match but I was able to livestream it and it was a fantastic 10-8 in the 3rd set match. The women's matches which I have seen have been better than the men's matches at RG with the exception of Nadal/Mathieu. The women's tour has much more depth and anything can happen. The matches are usually more exciting than the atp.

brolycjw
06-03-2006, 07:11 PM
I'd rather watch grass grow then watch womens tennis.

D-man
06-03-2006, 07:14 PM
i gotta admit many of the women's styles seem rather... uncreative...

malakas
06-03-2006, 07:17 PM
I'd rather watch grass grow then watch womens tennis.

hahahaha!!!!:D :D :D

FEDEXP
06-03-2006, 07:43 PM
Actually in life nothing is a "lock" though the odds may be very good, and as to women't tennis, after watching the women at the Australian Open I agree with the women around me who were saying the women should not get equal prize money!

Dan007
06-03-2006, 07:44 PM
Maybe to you it's more interesting, but I find watching womens tennis as exciting as watching paint dry.

Yeah I agree, exept for Clijsters who is the only womens player I actually watch.

chess9
06-03-2006, 08:12 PM
Here we go again. More moaning about women's tennis....Well, since when are Williams, Clijsters, Sharapova, H-H, "CAN'T SERVE" Dementieva (my favorite, actually), Hingis, Sprem, several other "ovas", etc. boring? There are at least 20 women who are very good athletes. Yes, the numbers are not there, but the quality at the top is very good. I have to wonder if some of you guys have personal issues.... :) (The doctor is in, that will be $100.)

-Robert

tennus
06-03-2006, 08:20 PM
Yeah I agree, exept for Clijsters who is the only womens player I actually watch.

Is that because she plays tennis like a man ? :mrgreen:

arosen
06-03-2006, 09:50 PM
Maybe to you it's more interesting, but I find watching womens tennis as exciting as watching paint dry.

Hingis was hitting some wicked good shots today. She can be a lot of fun, both on court and off during the interviews.

Dan007
06-04-2006, 06:46 AM
Is that because she plays tennis like a man ? :mrgreen:

Kind of. She is really fun to watch!

dubsplayer
06-04-2006, 06:50 AM
Hingis was hitting some wicked good shots today. She can be a lot of fun, both on court and off during the interviews.

Chuckie beating some nobody 1 and 1 interesting?? Sorry lopsided blow outs are duller then dishwater and error strewn breakfests aren't my thing either.

The Dav
06-04-2006, 04:32 PM
Good grief, this has got to be the most sexist tennis board on the web! I take it you're all male chauvinist pigs then?

How anyone can enjoy the men's game and then proceed to compare the women's game to watching paint dry or watching grass grow is unbelievable to me :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but the gulf is not that great, sure you can have your favourites, but having such an extreme like for one and such an extreme dislike for the other just doesn't make sense, they play the same game, and have the same exciting matches, and hit the same spectacular shots, it can only be explained by sexism, and these people are not true tennis fans IMO...

Now, get back to be 'thrilled' by Davydenko and Ljubicic :rolleyes: I'm looking forward to Venus, Henin and Hingis :D

dubsplayer
06-04-2006, 05:52 PM
Good grief, this has got to be the most sexist tennis board on the web! I take it you're all male chauvinist pigs then?

How anyone can enjoy the men's game and then proceed to compare the women's game to watching paint dry or watching grass grow is unbelievable to me :rolleyes: I'm sorry, but the gulf is not that great, sure you can have your favourites, but having such an extreme like for one and such an extreme dislike for the other just doesn't make sense, they play the same game, and have the same exciting matches, and hit the same spectacular shots, it can only be explained by sexism, and these people are not true tennis fans IMO...

Now, get back to be 'thrilled' by Davydenko and Ljubicic :rolleyes: I'm looking forward to Venus, Henin and Hingis :D

What makes you so sure everyone on this board is male? I'm not, for instance. And believe it or not there are a lot of other women who could care less about women tennis.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-04-2006, 06:20 PM
Alot of women I know feel womens tennis today is boring and have told me things like "the field sucks", "there is no depth", "they dont hit the ball hard enough or arent athletic enough to make them interesting like the men, especialy now with the Williams not at their peak anymore", "it isnt competitive enough", "there are too many errors". I totally disagree with those views as shown by me starting this thread but still it is quite evident there are many women who dont enjoy womens tennis that much these days either.

I am at a loss for it since I find mens tennis to only equal the excitement level of womens tennis on hard courts, on grass and clay the women far outshine the men currently as far as a competitive and balanced field IMO.

brolycjw
06-05-2006, 01:19 AM
You can call me a sexist but my reason is simple: women pros don't produce convincing winners like men pros.

croatian sensation
06-05-2006, 05:47 AM
I'd rather watch grass grow then watch womens tennis.

Ditto. LOL (Of course it's exaggerated but I have to agree that I don't like watching womens tennis)

federerhoogenbandfan... Where are you from?
I'm watching German Eurosport here...and they show ATP tennis ONLY during GS. All year they are showing WTA tour. They didn't show any ATP masters so far, instead (if they're not showing snooker or poker :rolleyes: ) they are showing some lousy WTA tourney.
So I guess this is a try to make it even.
But still when it adds up..it's 70% WTA and 30% ATP at Eurosport.

Don't know how is it in the US..but here in Europe we're stuck with WTA.

Rabbit
06-05-2006, 07:59 AM
Chuckie beating some nobody 1 and 1 interesting?? Sorry lopsided blow outs are duller then dishwater and error strewn breakfests aren't my thing either.

You didn't watch the same match then. Hingis' use of court and invention of shot when she needed it were just what the women's game needs, a breath of fresh air. She and Henin are the only two women at the top who can play from anywhere on the court. While small of stature, both are great movers and users of the court. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Hingis use her skills rather than knock the cover off the ball.

David L
06-05-2006, 11:38 AM
Ditto. LOL (Of course it's exaggerated but I have to agree that I don't like watching womens tennis)

federerhoogenbandfan... Where are you from?
I'm watching German Eurosport here...and they show ATP tennis ONLY during GS. All year they are showing WTA tour. They didn't show any ATP masters so far, instead (if they're not showing snooker or poker :rolleyes: ) they are showing some lousy WTA tourney.
So I guess this is a try to make it even.
But still when it adds up..it's 70% WTA and 30% ATP at Eurosport.

Don't know how is it in the US..but here in Europe we're stuck with WTA.

You need to get Sky Sports if you want to see the ATP tournaments.

dubsplayer
06-05-2006, 11:56 AM
You didn't watch the same match then. Hingis' use of court and invention of shot when she needed it were just what the women's game needs, a breath of fresh air. She and Henin are the only two women at the top who can play from anywhere on the court. While small of stature, both are great movers and users of the court. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Hingis use her skills rather than knock the cover off the ball.

Ermm....I didn't watch it at all.

skip1969
06-05-2006, 12:03 PM
i don't really know why people feel compelled to compare the tours, anyway. they are both different, and they offer something different and unique to tennis fans, both avid and casual. it's silly to go back and forth about which tour is best. who cares? watch the one you want and enjoy our great sport. the tours only get together at the majors, so it shouldn't be such an awful pill to swallow if you have to endure the 'other' tour for eight weeks out of the year. big deal.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-06-2006, 02:44 PM
dude hoogenband Nadal won't win French this year, wait and watch

dh003i
06-06-2006, 03:35 PM
How about this: women just aren't as good as men in sports. I apologize to all of the feminists, socialists, and egalitarians out there, but women are different from men. Ya know, testosterone, among about a million other things.

Look at the women's events at the French. You don't see the wonderful dashes to the net, net-exchanges, or very much gliding either.

Quite frankly, I can tell you that for a lot of men, the only reason they even occasionally watch women's tennis is because of Sharapova's @$$.

unsung
06-06-2006, 04:04 PM
Ok, I'll admit it, watching Vaidisova and Venus bash that ball back and forth today was almost disgusting, in a most banal way. And... something like 50-60 unforced errors from both of them (!!)

But, let us not forget about HINGIS ;) She is masterful. Even when she was sick today out there, she managed some brilliant plays. She is the reason I like tennis.

unsung
06-06-2006, 04:10 PM
How about this: women just aren't as good as men in sports. I apologize to all of the feminists, socialists, and egalitarians out there, but women are different from men. Ya know, testosterone, among about a million other things.

Look at the women's events at the French. You don't see the wonderful dashes to the net, net-exchanges, or very much gliding either.

Quite frankly, I can tell you that for a lot of men, the only reason they even occasionally watch women's tennis is because of Sharapova's @$$.

You are a pig. Women may not be as strong as men, overall, but I bet there are quite a few women (even on this board) who could serve you right off the court. Instead of watching Sharapova's ***, you'll be sitting on yours in the dirt.

dh003i
06-06-2006, 04:39 PM
unsung,

Sure, I'm sure there are a bunch of women who could blast my @$$ off the tennis court. Any of the top 100 women's players would beat me, probably without me winning a single point. Just like there are a bunch of women who could blast my *** off a volleyball "field" (or whatever the heck you call it), because I don't play volleyball.

That's not the point. The point is that in general, men are better at sports than women*. Sorry, this is a fact. It's why almost every professional skater can do a triple -- some now even a quadruple -- axle, but hardly no professional women can (on the other hand, in skating, women excel in grace).

This doesn't mean that no particular woman can be better at a particular sport than a particular man. It means that on average, men are better. This also applies to the extreme: the best men in just about any sport are better than the best women in that sport (figure skating, bowling, "billiards" are possible exceptions, although one could quibble if they're even sports).

The fact that they have separate leagues for men and women flatly indicates this.

Now, as for the women's game, I'm simply being honest. I'm sorry that you can't accept reality, but part of what the WTA is selling is sex-appeal. Look at the way some of the female players dress. There's nothing wrong with this, but lets be honest about it.

* I could also extend this point to other "games" like chess, where there are only 2 grandmasters in the world who are female.

Moose Malloy
06-06-2006, 05:01 PM
The fact that they have separate leagues for men and women flatly indicates this.


Except in tennis. The women are given equal billing as the men. They get equal showcourts, prize money(well they get 95% of what the men get, close enough),
tv ratings(not just a US thing, eurosport shows far more women's tennis over a year than mens)

So yes men are better than women in sports. But yet women's tennis is as popular(or nor far behind) as the men.

Heck even in golf, women play their majors at a separate venue.

There's a reason the grand slams are the biggest events in tennis as far as revenue. Because the game is more popular when both men & women are playing it.

Women tennis players aren't jokes to sports fans like WNBA, softball, soccer, or whatever fledgling leagues that women have tried.

Guess that says quite a bit about tennis as a sport, that women can provide equal value to the fans, but can't in any other sport.

unsung
06-06-2006, 05:19 PM
That's not the point. The point is that in general, men are better at sports than women*. Sorry, this is a fact. It's why almost every professional skater can do a triple -- some now even a quadruple -- axle, but hardly no professional women can (on the other hand, in skating, women excel in grace).

This doesn't mean that no particular woman can be better at a particular sport than a particular man. It means that on average, men are better. This also applies to the extreme: the best men in just about any sport are better than the best women in that sport (figure skating, bowling, "billiards" are possible exceptions, although one could quibble if they're even sports).


I don't want to get into a lengthy debate with you, but the reason why "on average men are better at sports", is because most sports were invented by men, for men, to capitalize on particular male strengths.

There exist sports and physical activities which capitalize on the strengths of the female body. Case in point: balance beam. Women are, on average, shorter, with lower sense of gravity (i.e. better sense of balance). How many men would be able to complete the difficult tumbling women gymnasts routinely accomplish on a 4 inch wide beam?

With regards to figure skating, few men can do the Bielmann spin (where one leg is hoisted behind the skater's head). Few men can do a decent layback spin (recall why the "trophy" back arch serve position is so difficult for your average man!)

Other examples (like rhythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming, abound). But notice how most of these sports in which women excel are usually denigrated and derided as "not really sports". Is this, however, logical ? Competition that is based on flexibility, exquisitely fine motor control, balance, finesse constitutes *sport*, every bit as much as competition based on brute strength and force.

The only difference is that your average man tends to have more brute strength than flexibility or grace, and so of course, he would typically favor the sport that capitalizes on those qualities. (The guys whose bodies don't fit that mode who choose other sports are typically ridiculed along with the sports themselves. Great.)


Now, as for the women's game, I'm simply being honest. I'm sorry that you can't accept reality, but part of what the WTA is selling is sex-appeal. Look at the way some of the female players dress. There's nothing wrong with this, but lets be honest about it.


No argument there. The female form is infinitely more appealing and more graceful in sport and in life.


* I could also extend this point to other "games" like chess, where there are only 2 grandmasters in the world who are female.


That's a whole other issue. I suppose you believe in the argument that men are superior in math and science due to their biology. Interestingly, studies show that while Caucasian boys outperform Caucasian girls on the SATs in the math portion and so forth, Asian girls outperform Caucasian boys on these same measures. If you look at cross cultural studies, you'll find the same result: girls from East Asian countries routinely trump Caucasian boys in Western countries.

In light of these results, it's interesting that many people examine a simple fact such as "under 5% of American engineers are women" and interpret that as an indication of female inferiority in mathematical aptitude. The fact that East Asian women have higher math scores overall than American males should tell you something. Namely, that socialization and environmental influences contribute to a majority of the gender difference in mathematics observed.

But... let's not get too off-topic here. I thought the point of this board was for tennis lovers to discuss the game of tennis. As a tennis lover, I cannot believe anyone could watch Hingis play and not take some enjoyment out of her great sense of touch and feel for the game. Actually, it's rather sad.

ta11geese3
06-06-2006, 06:17 PM
Unsung... then you basically agree that men are better than women at sports., right..?

Also, if you had read the other posts, you would have realized that many are saying that Hingis is fun to watch. And that she is an exception in the wta.

dh003i
06-06-2006, 10:21 PM
Unsung,

Good points. I'll address some of them, as I find this interesting.

is because most sports were invented by men, for men, to capitalize on particular male strengths.

Ok, this is interesting, and certainly true. And your later point that there are many sports that women excel at over men is also true; these sports tend to be more flexiblity, motor-control, grace, and balance-based. This is fair enough. And I'd be saying the same thing about these sports with regards to women just being better than men in them.

As for perception of these sports, well, which sports are downgraded or upgraded is a matter of personal preference -- based on personal criteria, or some gut feeling. I used to love football and basketball (when MJ was playing). I also used to think tennis extremely boring -- just a ball going back and forth. Summarily, my sports ranking used to be:

(1) Football; (2) Basketball; (3) Ice-skating.

Now, it's:

(1) Tennis; (2) Ice-skating; (3) Football

That's a whole other issue. I suppose you believe in the argument that men are superior in math and science due to their biology.

Well, one wouldn't have to believe that men are superior in mathematics and science to explain the high % of men in those fields to women, and high % of male grand-masters. One could explain such by arguing that the male distribution has more variance than the female distribution, thus there are more extremes in the male distribution.

Interestingly, studies show that while Caucasian boys outperform Caucasian girls on the SATs in the math portion and so forth, Asian girls outperform Caucasian boys on these same measures...The fact that East Asian women have higher math scores overall than American males should tell...that socialization and environmental influences contribute to a majority of the gender difference in mathematics observed.

Or you could conclude from this study that oriental people are simply smarter than caucasian people. Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me. There's actually a lot of evidence on IQ differences between the races, especially evidence regarding above-average IQs for orientals and the Jewish.

I cannot believe anyone could watch Hingis play and not take some enjoyment out of her great sense of touch and feel for the game. Actually, it's rather sad.

Well, I do appreciate that she has a great touch. However, what I found severely lacking in that match was some of the exquisite net-interplay, and some of the spectacular sliding that is typical of men's matches on clay.

dh003i
06-06-2006, 10:25 PM
Moose Malloy,

That was a great post. I love people who actually refer back to the free market and consumer-preferences! It shows an amazing understanding.

I definately agree -- in terms of money brought in, women are approximately equal to men in tennis. That is, in terms of the free-market value of WTA and ATP matches.

All I'd say is that in terms of the actual gameplay itself, men are better than women. Why don't they have men vs. women? Because this would destroy value, relative to unisex matches -- which would be more competitive.

I'd argue that the reason for the free-market parity of men's and women's tennis is that -- in terms of the perceived quality of competitiveness and entertainment -- it isn't that much between men and women's tennis. The sex appeal probably helps some too. (many female tennis players are very attractive, as compared to professional female athletes in other sports, like say weightlifting).

Except in tennis. The women are given equal billing as the men. They get equal showcourts, prize money(well they get 95% of what the men get, close enough),
tv ratings(not just a US thing, eurosport shows far more women's tennis over a year than mens)

So yes men are better than women in sports. But yet women's tennis is as popular(or nor far behind) as the men.

Heck even in golf, women play their majors at a separate venue.

There's a reason the grand slams are the biggest events in tennis as far as revenue. Because the game is more popular when both men & women are playing it.

Women tennis players aren't jokes to sports fans like WNBA, softball, soccer, or whatever fledgling leagues that women have tried.

Guess that says quite a bit about tennis as a sport, that women can provide equal value to the fans, but can't in any other sport.

superman1
06-06-2006, 10:29 PM
Is there really an argument here, or are you making something out of nothing? Men are built to be stronger and faster than women, thus are usually better at sports. Didn't they teach you that in Kindergarten?

And that's no reason not to watch women's tennis. Women's tennis can sometimes be much nicer to watch than men's.

nadalgirl26
06-06-2006, 10:41 PM
Men are hotter, that is why mens tennis should be ptayed more mroney!

unsung
06-07-2006, 09:12 AM
Is there really an argument here, or are you making something out of nothing? Men are built to be stronger and faster than women, thus are usually better at sports. Didn't they teach you that in Kindergarten?

And that's no reason not to watch women's tennis. Women's tennis can sometimes be much nicer to watch than men's.

No, thankfully no one taught me that in kindergarten. Men are stronger and faster. But a sport, is by definition, a contest of physical skill.

And contests of physical skill need not limited to contests of strength and speed. They may be contests of accuracy and fine motor control. (Air rifle, anyone? Huge muscles won't necessarily help you excel over someone smaller by providing better aim.)

They can also be contests of flexibility, contests of endurance, contests of balance. There are sports which capitalize on these traits and in which women have distinct advantages. They simply aren't sports popular among men. (Gee, I wonder why?)

Of course, tennis, however, is not one of these sports, and thus you can see a definite disparity between the women's game and the men's game. I agree with you that that is not a reason not to watch, enjoy, and support the women's game.

Anyway, the women of today are probably better than the men's game a few decades back. Just as the best female marathon runners of today clock better times than male marathon runners a few decades back. It's like the women's game is just on a different timeline than the men's game. And that's fine.

If you watch the national table tennis championship in a country in which the sport isn't very popular, it's certainly going to be a different level of play than the national championship in a country that is famous for the sport. That doesn't mean, it's not worth watching.

Moose Malloy
06-07-2006, 09:24 AM
Anyway, the women of today are probably better than the men's game a few decades back.

Lets not get carried away. Davenport, Graf, Navratilova, Evert during their careers were coached by former male players decades older than them. They all said they couldn't beat their coaches.

You honestly don't think McEnroe(close to 50) would lose to anyone on todays WTA?

unsung
06-07-2006, 09:32 AM
As for perception of these sports, well, which sports are downgraded or upgraded is a matter of personal preference -- based on personal criteria, or some gut feeling. I used to love football and basketball (when MJ was playing). I also used to think tennis extremely boring -- just a ball going back and forth. Summarily, my sports ranking used to be:

(1) Football; (2) Basketball; (3) Ice-skating.

Now, it's:

(1) Tennis; (2) Ice-skating; (3) Football



True. Anyway, bonus points to any man who is able to appreciate the great athleticism involved in skating.




Well, one wouldn't have to believe that men are superior in mathematics and science to explain the high % of men in those fields to women, and high % of male grand-masters. One could explain such by arguing that the male distribution has more variance than the female distribution, thus there are more extremes in the male distribution.



I agree with this to an extent. It's true that the male distribution has more variance (both brilliance and ******ation) than the female distribution. But I also believe the extreme dearth of female presence up near the top of that curve is disproportional to actual gender differences in the distribution curves.

We are more alike than we are different. The extreme skew (ex: 95% of American engineers are male) is more reflective of cultural norms than inherent biological differences. In China, for example, where there is less of a stigma towards women in science or technical careers (and towards science in general), a far greater % of engineers are women.


Or you could conclude from this study that oriental people are simply smarter than caucasian people. Doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me. There's actually a lot of evidence on IQ differences between the races, especially evidence regarding above-average IQs for orientals and the Jewish.


I don't know if I want to touch this one... ;)


Well, I do appreciate that she has a great touch. However, what I found severely lacking in that match was some of the exquisite net-interplay, and some of the spectacular sliding that is typical of men's matches on clay.

Agreed. The women's game is a bit lacking right now with its many one-dimensional baseliners. It was rather painful watching Venus & Nicole bash the ball around as though they were playing on hard court. But. That's not because they're women. That's just because they are boring, one-dimensional players. The women's game has a shorter history than the men's. It's still developing.

shideg
06-07-2006, 11:51 AM
I'd rather watch grass grow then watch womens tennis.


Huh? You'd like to watch grass grow, and after that go watch some women playing tennis?