Women's scheduling solved by men's best of 3

BorgTheGOAT said:
Good points especially with the pre tie-break era which I wanted to bring up myself. However, reason that those USO (and also the FO that had Bo3) aren’t seen of less value is that a) they have been some time back so not many do even know that and b) neither Connors nor Orantes nor Vilas or Borg are contender for slam record. If Borg had 24 slams I am sure many would hold it against him in GOAT discussions with Djoko that his 74 and 75 FO had Bo3 rounds.
Click to expand...
When Borg retired, he was tied with Laver for the second-most slams ever won by a man and was far and away the leader for slams won in the open era. In fact, with OE 11 slams after 1981, Borg had more than twice as many slams in the open era as the second-place guys (Laver, Newcombe, & Connors, all with 5). Borg absolutely was a GOAT candidate at the time. No one ever suggested that any of his slams were of lower value because of a partial 2/3 format.
 
diggler said:
There has been a lot of discussion about the women's scheduling on the main court. In particular, there is only one match at night in prime time, a men's match. This is preceded by the day session which is 2 women's and a men's.

The reason for this is clear. Men's matches are 5 sets and the length of tennis matches is unpredictable. If you schedule a women's then a men's at night, you could get a 4am finish as happens sometimes in the Aussie Open.

The answer is to make men's matches best of 3 for the first 4 rounds. That would allow you to schedule 2 men's and 2 women's during the day and a mens and a women's at night. Women can get their prime time spot.

Women's quarter finals is typically the second Tuesday. The 2 matches from the top half of the draw can be in the morning session. The two in the bottom half of the draw can be in the evening session. Women's semis can be on Thursday night with the final on Saturday night.

Men's quarter finals which are best of 5 can be 2 on the Tuesday day session and on Wednesday day and night. The semis are Friday day and night, final on Sunday night.

Men

The men will be happy because the lighter workload of best of 3 for 4 rounds is better for their bodies. They also have more energy for the final rounds.

Women

The women get a night time prime time match for the first 8 days, plus 2 quarters, both semis and the final.

Fans

The fans are also winners. The day session gets an extra men's match. The night session gets an extra women's match.
Click to expand...
There's simpler solution: Schedule women's Slams completely separate from men's, a week before or after, or a completely separate date. Week before or after works for mixed doubles too.
 
JMR said:
When Borg retired, he was tied with Laver for the second-most slams ever won by a man and was far and away the leader for slams won in the open era. In fact, with OE 11 slams after 1981, Borg had more than twice as many slams in the open era as the second-place guys (Laver, Newcombe, & Connors, all with 5). Borg absolutely was a GOAT candidate at the time. No one ever suggested that any of his slams were of lower value because of a partial 2/3 format.
Click to expand...
During Borg’s time the slam count wasn’t the be all end all in GOAT discussions. Borg was primarily seen as a legit GOAT candidate because of his 5 consecutive Wimbledons. Of course nobody brings up 2/3 format slams when he has double the amount of slams as guys like Connors. However, do you really think, if Djoko would have won let’s say 5 slams in 2/3 format, this wouldn’t be held against him in fanwares/GOAT debates? We have heard far dumber attempts to diminish him.
 
diggler said:
I think you have misunderstood what the problem is. They currently schedule one men's match in the prime time night position. If you put 2 women's matches in the place of a best of 5 men's, you won't get any men's match in that night time prime spot. Is that what you want?
Click to expand...

yes alternate mens & womens matches on different nights. i guess they think they won’t make enough money on the women days becuz this could be easily solved
 
BlueB said:
There's simpler solution: Schedule women's Slams completely separate from men's, a week before or after, or a completely separate date. Week before or after works for mixed doubles too.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said. We give highest peak level spot to men's tennis. We can schedule women's tennis 1 week afterwards.
 
diggler said:
I don't think you understand the problem. The night session is one best of 5 men's. How does making women's matches longer solve that problem.
Click to expand...
Because then you can't argue a women's match is too short for a full night ticket session.
Harder to argue men BO5 vs women's BO5 in the night session.

Right now we have a logistics issue that women's BO3 might be too short for a full evening ticket whereas a 5 setter guarantees almost 2 hours of play.
As I think more, not sure why they can't slide the schedule where they alternate BO5 men's one night and two women's matches the next with possibly a slightly earlier start.
But this might ask the question which sells better consistently?
 
JMR said:
When Borg retired, he was tied with Laver for the second-most slams ever won by a man and was far and away the leader for slams won in the open era. In fact, with OE 11 slams after 1981, Borg had more than twice as many slams in the open era as the second-place guys (Laver, Newcombe, & Connors, all with 5). Borg absolutely was a GOAT candidate at the time. No one ever suggested that any of his slams were of lower value because of a partial 2/3 format.
Click to expand...
The French Open was only best of 3 sets for the men's singles in the first 2 rounds in 1973, 1974 and 1975. So that's 2 of Borg's 6 French Open titles.

Borg had more of an aura than Laver in the 1990s, as I recall. Borg's 6 French Open titles (and 49-2 win-loss record) seemed absurdly good, as did his 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles alongside that, and all in the open era. In the 1990s, clay and grass were more polarized than ever, so it was very hard to believe a player winning both in the same year, yet Borg did it 3 years running from 1978-1980. Borg's most dominant years were also better, statistically, than Sampras' best years.

The US Open had best of 3 sets for the men's singles in the first 3 rounds in 1975, 1976 and 1978, and in the first 4 rounds in 1977.
 
Robert F said:
Because then you can't argue a women's match is too short for a full night ticket session.
Harder to argue men BO5 vs women's BO5 in the night session.

Right now we have a logistics issue that women's BO3 might be too short for a full evening ticket whereas a 5 setter guarantees almost 2 hours of play.
As I think more, not sure why they can't slide the schedule where they alternate BO5 men's one night and two women's matches the next with possibly a slightly earlier start.
But this might ask the question which sells better consistently?
Click to expand...
Men's.

I am not dumb to have few left wing news networks giving biased Serena Williams in USA stats to show women's is as popular as men's. It isn't.
 
Why don't they play women's night sessions in Suzanne Lenglen simultaneously? You can also alternate with Philippe Chatrier to avoid complaints from women.
 
The deal with the French federation and Amazon prime (the exclusive broadcaster for the night session matches) is to show one match starting no earlier than 20:15. If it's one match, then clearly a best of 5 set men's match is a better option than a best of 3 set women's match, to ensure that paying spectators get to watch at least 3 sets of action - I'm talking as someone that is personally much more interested in women's tennis nowadays than men's tennis.

Also if 2 women's matches were scheduled instead, with the same start time, then the players picked for the later match most likely wouldn't be very happy.

If the night session would start earlier, that would allow time for 2 matches. But I understand that Amazon prime don't want it any earlier, to make sure that enough people are back to home / ready to tune in / can get to Roland Garros after finishing work etc. And I understand (posters in France can correct me if I'm wrong) that the prime time TV slot in France is considered to start well after 20:00 (maybe even from 20:45 after the news?). In the UK in contrast, the prime time slot TV slot is considered to start from 19:00.

Now to be honest, there's no way that I'd personally consider buying a ticket for a night session, with just one match scheduled. But maybe that's just me !
 
Last edited:
SonnyT said:
Unacceptable, we rather do away with women's tennis than accept this solution!
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Have three options.

1. Make bo3 for men's and share spotlight.

2. Completely cancel wta and keep bo5 men's

3. Postpone wta by 1 week.

Majority will choose option 2 and 3.
 
Women should be playing best of 5 sets in the majors, really. They should never have got equal prize money without it.

I believe in equality between the genders. Notice that women are often told "You deserve better", while men are told "Make yourself better"?
 
Mustard said:
Women should be playing best of 5 sets in the majors, really. They should never have got equal prize money without it.

I believe in equality between the genders. Notice that women are often told "You deserve better", while men are told "Make yourself better"?
Click to expand...
It is more about revenues than Bo5. If they generate the same revenues they should get equal prize money even if they play Bo3. If they don’t generate similar revenues then also Bo5 should not get them equal prize money. Pretty simple actually.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
It is more about revenues than Bo5. If they generate the same revenues they should get equal prize money even if they play Bo3. If they don’t generate similar revenues then also Bo5 should not get them equal prize money. Pretty simple actually.
Click to expand...
I don't see it in revenue terms. I see it as equality as a sporting competition, especially in the ITF-run events which are more protected from the obvious profit motive, being the governing body of the sport historically. The majors are supposed to be the hardest events to win, so they should be best of 5 sets in every round. If the women want equal prize money at the majors, why shouldn't it be best of 5 sets like the men? Then it would be fully deserved.

I've heard some people say "women can't do best of 5 sets", which is as ridiculous as saying that women can't run marathons. Likewise, the feminists who think that the status quo is "equality" know that it isn't, as equal prize money for only playing best of 3 sets at the majors just isn't.
 
Larger data sets involving hours of play would also be useful. It seems matches are lasting longer regardless of sets played.

Mustard said:
The French Open was only best of 3 sets for the men's singles in the first 2 rounds in 1973, 1974 and 1975. So that's 2 of Borg's 6 French Open titles.

Borg had more of an aura than Laver in the 1990s, as I recall. Borg's 6 French Open titles (and 49-2 win-loss record) seemed absurdly good, as did his 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles alongside that, and all in the open era. In the 1990s, clay and grass were more polarized than ever, so it was very hard to believe a player winning both in the same year, yet Borg did it 3 years running from 1978-1980. Borg's most dominant years were also better, statistically, than Sampras' best years.

The US Open had best of 3 sets for the men's singles in the first 3 rounds in 1975, 1976 and 1978, and in the first 4 rounds in 1977.
Click to expand...
 
The reality is that women's five set matches would be considerably shorter than a men's matches so the same old whining would re-appear at that level.

Mustard said:
Women should be playing best of 5 sets in the majors, really. They should never have got equal prize money without it.

I believe in equality between the genders. Notice that women are often told "You deserve better", while men are told "Make yourself better"?
Click to expand...
 
Women do run a marathon of the same length as the men, so if women's slams are BO3 it's because that is was is preferred by tournaments.

Mustard said:
I don't see it in revenue terms. I see it as equality as a sporting competition, especially in the ITF-run events which are more protected from the obvious profit motive, being the governing body of the sport historically. The majors are supposed to be the hardest events to win, so they should be best of 5 sets in every round. If the women want equal prize money at the majors, why shouldn't it be best of 5 sets like the men? Then it would be fully deserved.

I've heard some people say "women can't do best of 5 sets", which is as ridiculous as saying that women can't run marathons. Likewise, the feminists who think that the status quo is "equality" know that it isn't, as equal prize money for only playing best of 3 sets at the majors just isn't.
Click to expand...
 
Lukhas said:
I should berate myself for taking this thread seriously... Sinner suggested that there could be two women matches during a night session for spectators to give spectators some guarantee.
Click to expand...
Yes but have no fear azarenka will be whining about bedtimes, etc.
 
JMR said:
This is almost certainly wrong. The U.S. Open had a partial best-of-three format for men's matches from 1975 through 1978. This includes all three years on Har-Tru clay and the first year on hard courts at Flushing Meadows. In '75, '76, and '78, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first three rounds. In '77, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first four rounds.

The champions in those years were Orantes, Connors, Vilas, and Connors again. The runners-up were Connors, Borg, Connors again, and Borg again. I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that these slam accomplishments should be downgraded in any way due to the tournament's format. (Of course, some online pundits are simply ignorant of these facts, but that's their problem.) No arguments about "inferior" titles. No over-the-top theses about how to calculate any purported reduction in legacy value.

On a related front, no one (to my knowledge) insists that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.This applies to both men and women. Margaret Court beat BJK in the 1970 Wimbledon final, 14-12 11-9. Is that title worth more than Wimbledon titles won with sets that included tiebreaks? No. No one believes that. The 1970 final may be deemed a great match by many due to its length and closeness, but the championship obtained is not more valuable than later editions.
Click to expand...

I believe and insist that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.
 
Federev said:
I believe and insist that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.
Click to expand...
The 1969 Australian Open semi final between Laver and Roche, with wooden racquets, in boiling Brisbane heat, and before any sitdowns at the change of ends, saw Laver win 7-5, 22-20, 9-11, 1-6, 6-3.
 
Robert F said:
I believe the slams have been integrated the longest with men's and women's events. The masters and women's premier began to schedule together and it has benefited both tours in popularity and growth especially the WTA. There is a push for more and more to have combined events and continued rumors about eventually uniting the tours.

If the slams were separated--say women play in weeks 1-2 and men weeks 3-4. I worry how crowded the days without stars would be on both tours but worry slightly more on the women's tour.
If two journeymen were on court before a Serena match in the US Open, the journeymen match might be pretty full as people are grabbing seats for Serena.
The same goes the other way if tow journeywoman were playing before Fed, Fed will get the stadium full before he arrives.
Click to expand...
Something in between would be to stagger. Have men or women start 1 week before. Then, as you get into the latter rounds, you'll have more availability on the main courts for the biggest matches. There's a large cost in running the event so having them sequentially likely would increase costs by quite a bit.

I suspect the answer is not that simple and the event organizers have thought of all the different possibilities. The tennis calendar is quite complicated given that the tennis season is practically year around and one event leads into another.
 
We're told that it lasted over four hours with the second set lasting two, so in terms of time only only the second set is unusual. The other sets are quite short.

Mustard said:
The 1969 Australian Open semi final between Laver and Roche, with wooden racquets, in boiling Brisbane heat, and before any sitdowns at the change of ends, saw Laver win 7-5, 22-20, 9-11, 1-6, 6-3.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
We're told that it lasted over four hours with the second set lasting two, so in terms of time only only the second set is unusual. The other sets are quite short.
Click to expand...
The third set at 11-9 is hardly short. That's close to 2 normal sets, in the boiling heat, with wooden racquets (where you can't just overpower) and no sitdowns but just a quick drink while standing and then move to the other side.

Sitdowns are included in match times. Laver vs. Roche at the 1969 Australian Open would have been something like 40+ minutes longer with sitdowns, like the 1969 Wimbledon Gonzales vs. Pasarell match being 5 hours and 12 minutes over 2 days (Gonzales won 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9), when it would have been over 6 hours with sitdowns.
 
This match is highly unusual in any event. My only slight point is that it's probable that matches last a lot longer in time per set played these days.

You are dealing here with pre-tie break tennis as well, so just imagine if they did not exist? Five set tennis has been radically changed by the tie-break.

My only further slight point is that this change nullifies mostly any argument that women must play equal sets in order to get equal prize money.

Tennis has been going in the direction of quickening the game, so sending the women's game in the opposite direction is just not going to happen.

Mustard said:
The third set at 11-9 is hardly short. That's close to 2 normal sets, in the boiling heat, with wooden racquets (where you can't just overpower) and no sitdowns but just a quick drink while standing and then move to the other side.

Sitdowns are included in match times. Laver vs. Roche at the 1969 Australian Open would have been something like 40+ minutes longer with sitdowns, like the 1969 Wimbledon Gonzales vs. Pasarell match being 5 hours and 12 minutes over 2 days (Gonzales won 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9), when it would have been over 6 hours with sitdowns.
Click to expand...
 
BlueB said:
There's simpler solution: Schedule women's Slams completely separate from men's, a week before or after, or a completely separate date. Week before or after works for mixed doubles too.
Click to expand...
Yepp, different weeks. Problem is, the whole world will see that nobody watches womens tennis, and thus they don’t deserve to get the equal prize money. And before anyone accuses me of being misogynistic, I am a female. :cool:
 
Women can be misogynistic.

Incognito said:
Yepp, different weeks. Problem is, the whole world will see that nobody watches womens tennis, and thus they don’t deserve to get the equal prize money. And before anyone accuses me of being misogynistic, I am a female. :cool:
Click to expand...
 
I can't tell if this is a troll post or not because it's so ridiculous. Who cares if there are no women's matches on the night session? Women get twice as many day session matches on Chatrier is that a problem? Should we equal that out? This is a total non-issue.
 
if we are talking about Women's scheduling, it can only be solved when women's competition can attract bigger audience and generates reasonable profit
when you change the men's side to help women's, may be it would be successful to lift it a bit but overall speaking the sum of total will be lowered

it is capitalism while you cant win all
 
This is a slam event. The men play best of 5 sets. Period. This is not the same as your average ATP tournament. The best women's match ups are coming up at the FO and hopefully, they will get a prime time TV slot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tacou
Women's Doubles Final Scheduling?
Replies
1
Views
271
ibbi
ibbi
jarko111
Women's matches at USO - best part
Replies
13
Views
862
Fed881981
Fed881981
G
USO Men's Final Not on DirecTV, can't watch live...
Replies
8
Views
1K
borg number one
borg number one
lunaticmochi
  • Poll Poll
Grand Slams should alternate days between men's and women's
Replies
30
Views
3K
Krish872007
Krish872007
N
Why is the WTF schedule so bad ?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Lendl
Lendl
Back
Top