Wozniacki Whining While Wasting in the Wilderness at Wimbledon

Kalin

Legend
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/wozniacki-wants-show-court-equality-171025421--ten.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

Quote: 'Former world number one Caroline Wozniacki has accused Wimbledon chiefs of failing to give female stars equal billing with their male counterparts on the main show courts.'

I'm pasting my comments I made below the article:

Caro, maybe if your tennis wasn't so one-dimensionally boring and if you would be able, once in a while, to win a tournament of note then people would give you the stage you so mistakenly think you deserve.

Quote: 'On Monday, only two of the six matches on Centre Court and Court One -- the two biggest arenas at Wimbledon -- involved women players.'

So, the two big stars of the women's game got top billing as they should. Also-rans like Caro got sent to the side courts where they belong. Where is the problem again?

Caro's head has got literally and figuratively too big for her limited talent. Too much overexposure, mostly due to her relationship with Rory McIlroy. No wonder the guy ran for his life...
 

Joseph L. Barrow

Professional
They also don't give equal billing to the junior draws, senior draws, or wheelchair draws. The men's draw is the best tennis draw in the world; all of the others are lower-level league draws which rightly do not draw the same attention.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Ouch... too mean about McIlroy! But I do agree with you on the rest. At least her BFFL Serena and Venus were on centre court
And maybe if more of the top women seed survived they would have been on main court. But Kvitova, Halep, Ivanovic all fell in the early rounds! If you want to be on centre court, one of the players has to be a slam winner or top 3 player and neither Caro nor Muguruza are that.
 

mightyrick

Legend
It isn't really a surprise. I mean Wimbledon has a long and fabled history of giving the short shrift to players, favoring certain players, banning players, suffering boycotts, et cetera. People think it is the most prestigious major, but quite honestly, it has the most questionable history of any tennis tournament ever.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
It isn't really a surprise. I mean Wimbledon has a long and fabled history of giving the short shrift to players, favoring certain players, banning players, suffering boycotts, et cetera. People think it is the most prestigious major, but quite honestly, it has the most questionable history of any tennis tournament ever.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It isn't really a surprise. I mean Wimbledon has a long and fabled history of giving the short shrift to players, favoring certain players, banning players, suffering boycotts, et cetera. People think it is the most prestigious major, but quite honestly, it has the most questionable history of any tennis tournament ever.
It has only ever suffered 1 boycott back in 1973 and the boycott was against the ITF not Wimbledon.
 

Feña14

Legend
Let's face it, womens tennis is basically just a filler till the men come on, time to get food, drinks, visit the shop, outside courts and the little exhibitions etc..

The quality just isn't as good, even having two matches on show courts forced down my throat is too much for me personally.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's face it, womens tennis is basically just a filler till the men come on, time to get food, drinks, visit the shop, outside courts and the little exhibitions etc..

The quality just isn't as good, even having two matches on show courts forced down my throat is too much for me personally.
The main event was and will always be men tennis.

Women's final is always scheduled on Saturday, and the men's final is scheduled on Sunday(prime time).
 

Kalin

Legend
The problem with the women is that while they sometimes have riveting encounters you at the same time never know when you'll get a complete dud of a match so tournaments must be very wary of wasting prime time on them. Also, many of the great women's matches are great because of the drama and the personalities; not necessarily because of the level of tennis. And in any case, whenever such a match is on the horizon (Serena-Masha, for example) it always gets good billing as it should.

It has to be noted that Wozzy is seldom in danger of producing a match with an abundance of drama or quality so she's best kept at courts which numbers have 2, or even better 3, digits in them.

Not that the men don't serve duds as well but when a men's match is expected to be tight and exciting, it usually is. Even a relatively stale encounter between the top guys is bound to produce some quality moments.

And then, of course, you have Roger Federer who can turn a routine 6-2,6-4,6-3 victory into a riveting spectacle. None of the women can do that unless they serve Serena a few stiff drinks before each match.
 
You want equal billing then start playing like the men. Don't hear the men moaning about getting the same money for doing more work. If you go out in the first round for instance you get 29k but the guy could lose in 5 sets & be out there for 3 hours & the woman could lose in 2 sets & be out there for 40 minutes. If Woz had managed to get through to the last eight then she like those who actually did would be getting all the billing today wouldn't she?
 

ScottleeSV

Professional
Although the men's matches will always and should always get more main court action under the current system, I don't see why the show courts can't start at the same time as the outside courts for most of the tournament. Then you could squeeze another woman's match in etc.

Not that that would get Wozniacki on centre anyway, but I'm sure she means women in general.

Once Wozza finally drops from the top 32, maybe she'll draw Williams in round 1 and get to play centre that way. More than one way to skin a cat.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Men's matches = more money.
More money = better courts and times.
It's a business, and you would all run it the same way.
 

MarcusInKensington

Hall of Fame
If the bulk of women's matches weren't one sided, two set, moonballing borefests they might get a bit more show court exposure.

Certain players will always get a show court (Kvitova, Williams, Sharapova), as love them or hate them, they are fascinating to watch. Wozzy is coma inducing, and one of the worst women's players to watch in the history of tennis.

Let's face it, men's tennis is the biggest draw, and what most people want to see. Women's 1/4 finals day is the only Wimbledon ballot ticket I have even not bothered to buy. They have managed to wangle totally underserved equal prize money, now they should just shut up, get on with what they've got, and do something about making their game a bit more appealing to the general public rather than continuing to give us the same turgid crap that Wozniacki is one of the most guilty for continually serving up to the paying public.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
Yesterday was a very hetic day with alot of big names. I believe even Djoker the no.1 seed gave way to Fed's and Murray's matches. Correct me if my memory is incorrect.
 
K

King Fed WW

Guest
How about we separate the men's tournament and the women's. Hold the women's in August.

Lets them sell their own tickets and negotiate their own TV deals separately.

Prize money will be decided by how much revenue each tournament makes.Maybe even do this for all the slams,

That way the women can get all the show courts they want

Would Caroline be happy with that situation?




For those who are not the sharpest, I am joking and making a point how the women do very well off the back of the men.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
To be honest, the women at Wimbledon should be thankful that they can piggyback off the success of the men. If there was a separate "Women's Wimbledon" held,for example, the week after the men's tournament, it would get far less coverage and viewers. So, Wozniacki acting as if things are biased against the women is hilarious.

UK 2014 finals viewing figures:
Men's final - 10 million viewers (peak)
Women's final - 3.1 million viewers (peak)

It is perfectly fair to give the men's singles more time on the show courts - more people want to watch it.
 

SQA333

Hall of Fame
Umm... it has always been like this???? Due to the late start on Centre Court/Court 1.

Caroline should focus on her tennis instead. Or get her bestie Williams to get on their case for her.
 
She is not a star. She is a washed up former #1 (most of which her time at was dubious and suspect at best), who is no longer a real contender, and never was an interesting game or personality to begin with. So of course she is not put on a show court.

I agree her ego needs to be in check. I think her newfound chickmance with Serena is mostly a way to keep herself in the limelight now that Rory ditched her.
 

cluckcluck

Hall of Fame
Let's be honest here; Caro has no ground to stand on when complaining.

She's earning the same amount of money for half the amount of tennis that the men play.
She's entitled to a break between sets when it gets too hot, the men play on.
I believe she is also allowed on court coaching (not entirely sure if Wimbledon allows this, correct me if I'm wrong).

Those 2 or 3 advantages trump having to play on an outside court.
 

Smasher08

Legend
You want equal billing then start playing like the men. Don't hear the men moaning about getting the same money for doing more work. If you go out in the first round for instance you get 29k but the guy could lose in 5 sets & be out there for 3 hours & the woman could lose in 2 sets & be out there for 40 minutes. If Woz had managed to get through to the last eight then she like those who actually did would be getting all the billing today wouldn't she?
No reason the women can't play Bo5 from at least the round of 16 onwards. If more courts at SW19 get lights, no reason women's slams can't be Bo5 all the way through.
 
K

King Fed WW

Guest
If women's slams moved to 5 sets then you would have to pay them less imo.

It would make the women's games less entertaining and therefore draw less revenue.

Tennis players aren't paid by the hour.

The argument women shouldn't get equal pay is they don't generate the same revenue, ticket sales, TV etc. However it is not as simple as that.

For me I think it is worthwhile to give equal pay.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
If women's slams moved to 5 sets then you would have to pay them less imo.

It would make the women's games less entertaining and therefore draw less revenue.

Tennis players aren't paid by the hour.

The argument women shouldn't get equal pay is they don't generate the same revenue, ticket sales, TV etc. However it is not as simple as that.

For me I think it is worthwhile to give equal pay.
I refer you to Venus Williams brave open letter to Wimbledon, which addresses and defeats all the actual arguments you put forth.
 
K

King Fed WW

Guest
I refer you to Venus Williams brave open letter to Wimbledon, which addresses and defeats all the actual arguments you put forth.
I didn't put forward any argument. I just refuted the 5 set argument and stated a better argument for those who were against equal pay. I also highlighted it isn't as simple as that. Meaning there was far more to it than it seems.

Tickets for the men's final are more expensive than the womens, but as I said it is more complex than that.

I also clearly stated that I am for equal pay.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
I didn't put forward any argument. I just refuted the 5 set argument and stated a better argument for those who were against equal pay. I also highlighted it isn't as simple as that. Meaning there was far more to it than it seems.

Tickets for the men's final are more expensive than the womens, but as I said it is more complex than that.

I also clearly stated that I am for equal pay.
I understand that. But this counter-argument that women do not generate the same revenue as men is flawed and difficult to grasp. As Venus Williams writes...

Of course, one can never distinguish the exact value brought by each sex in a combined men’s and women’s championship, so any attempt to place a lesser value on the women’s contribution is an exercise in pure subjectivity.
 

Tiger8

Semi-Pro
I understand that. But this counter-argument that women do not generate the same revenue as men is flawed and difficult to grasp. As Venus Williams writes...

Of course, one can never distinguish the exact value brought by each sex in a combined men’s and women’s championship, so any attempt to place a lesser value on the women’s contribution is an exercise in pure subjectivity.
I don't understand that quote, how can you not distinguish the value? I think there's a reason why Men's Finals tickets prices are usually much more than Women's Finals. As others have said, let the women have their own tournament at a different time then the men's, and see how much revenue they'll earn..
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
I understand that. But this counter-argument that women do not generate the same revenue as men is flawed and difficult to grasp. As Venus Williams writes...

Of course, one can never distinguish the exact value brought by each sex in a combined men’s and women’s championship, so any attempt to place a lesser value on the women’s contribution is an exercise in pure subjectivity.
Using that logic though, why are doubles players/juniors/wheelchair players paid less?
 

Djokodal Fan

Hall of Fame
She should get off her Bum outings in each slam and try to make it for the QF (heck 1 QF in last 14 slams)

She should be happy to be paid her prize money off the tickets being sold on Big courts coming from Showmen like Djoker, Fed, Murray Rafa and others.

She should shut her mouth and work on her game. Cannot even make QF on such weak era on women's side.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
How about we separate the men's tournament and the women's. Hold the women's in August.

Lets them sell their own tickets and negotiate their own TV deals separately.

Prize money will be decided by how much revenue each tournament makes.Maybe even do this for all the slams,

That way the women can get all the show courts they want

Would Caroline be happy with that situation?




For those who are not the sharpest, I am joking and making a point how the women do very well off the back of the men.
Winner!

This is classic 'give them an inch and they (try to) take a mile.' The women are getting much more - money and time on the big courts - than they deserve.
 

decrepitude

Rookie
Let's face it, womens tennis is basically just a filler till the men come on, time to get food, drinks, visit the shop, outside courts and the little exhibitions etc..

The quality just isn't as good, even having two matches on show courts forced down my throat is too much for me personally.
I totally agree - and I'm female.
 

Feña14

Legend
I totally agree - and I'm female.
Yeah, the men are the very best players on the planet. As tennis fans we appreciate the quality, even if you're not a fan of a player it's hard not to be in awe of the level they produce. Murray has alot of haters for instance, but those returns at Karlovic's feet and 7-8 lobs yesterday were flat out insane. They get top billing and totally deserve it, it's a spectacle.

The best women maximise their talent and put a hell of a lot of work in, it's just never going to be the same quality.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
If you look at Wozniacki's twitter account it is littered with promotional posts for make-up and other sponsors etc - generally overt promotion the likes of which you hardly ever see male players doing. I wonder if perhaps she thinks tournaments are venues primarily for playing tennis or for promotional opportunities for her and her sponsors?
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
What I was thinking...even if Wimbledon officials decided to put more women on Centre Court, it would not help her. The only way she'd get to play there is if she met Serena (or someone of her stature) in the R32 or R16.
 

Kalin

Legend
"Only nine of the 24 matches scheduled on Centre Court in the first seven days were from the women’s draw."
Sounds bad but an 'even' split would have been 12 matches vs. 12. So, to even it up, 3 extra women's matches would have had to be added and 3 men's dropped.

Would be interesting to see if there were 3 women's matches that were played not on Centre Court that ended up at least equally competitive/interesting than the three 'worst' men's matches that were. Anyone?
 

KtM

Rookie
One problem is you don't see women spending as much leisure income and leisure time on sports as men do. Why does Gisele Bundchen way way out earn her husband Tom Brady? Is society sexist towards Tom Brady just because he's male? Is the cosmetics industry sexist towards males because the top earning female supermodels earn way way way more on average than the top male models?

Of course not, the female consumer base for cosmetics generate more income than males do for the cosmetic industry, just like a far larger amount of money and leisure time is spent by males on most sports than women.
Why when it comes to analysing tennis matches and following players do we see the majority of these in depth huge tennis fans tend to be male?

Its always about how much money a sport generates. Thats why the top 100 Soccer players earn way more on average than the top 100 tennis players. There just is alot fewer tennis consumers and the amount of money they bring in is less. Same with WNBA or womens soccer or women's snowboarding, or downhill skiing.
 
Last edited:

vandre

Hall of Fame
Sounds bad but an 'even' split would have been 12 matches vs. 12. So, to even it up, 3 extra women's matches would have had to be added and 3 men's dropped.

Would be interesting to see if there were 3 women's matches that were played not on Centre Court that ended up at least equally competitive/interesting than the three 'worst' men's matches that were. Anyone?
i've been prowling around www.wimbledon.org just to check that very thing out. i've been looking at the matches in blocks just to keep from rescheduling the entire tournament.

here are the men's matches played on center court in the first round:

djokovic/ kohlschreiber
wawrinka/ sousa
federer/ dzumhur
murray/ kukushkin

(btw, there were just as many first round men's matches on center court as there were women's first round matches)

the second round men's matches on center court were:

djokovic/ nieminen
cilic/ berankis
giraldo/nishikori (walkover; does anyone know if they put another match on center court instead of this one?)
federer/ querry
brown/ nadal

which of those would serena like to boot to an outer court? i bet she'd pick cilic/ berankis and nishikori/ giraldo but i personally wouldn't do it because that is the reigning uso men's champ (cilic) and the ru (kei) who seem to be two stars on the rise; however, if you vote to move the cilic match you can replace a tight five setter with heather watson's straight set win over daniela hantuchova or pova's 3 & 1 drubbing of richel hogenkamp? if you move nishikori's match, you can see venus beat putintseva 6 and 4 or mattek-sands beat ivanovic 3&4. again, can anyone tell me if they put another match on center court since giraldo won by way of walkover?


if you would like, you can trade fed/ querry for kvitova's 2 & 0 win over nara. any takers?

center court's 3rd round men's matches were:

gasquet/ dimitrov
djokovic/ tomic
federer/ groth
murray/seppi
simon/ monfils

according to the schedule on wimbledon.org i don't see any other women's singles matches taking place on any court during that block of time, so i guess you're stuck with that one...
you can swap djokovic/ tomic for 'pova beating begu 4 & 3, safarova's 3 set win over sloane stephens, bencic beating mattek-sands in 2 close ones or coco vandeweghe's 2 & 0 pummeling of stosur.
you can trade fed/groth for wozzy's 2 &2 win over giorgi, muguruza's 3 setter with kerber, niculescu's 3, 5 win over pliskova or potapova's 5, 3 win over di lorenzo .
you can trade murray/ seppi for govortsova's 6 &3 win over rybarikova.
if you want to bump simon/ monfils off center court, please seek medical attention!

the men's round of 16 center court matches were

murray/ karlovic
federer/ bautista agut

that's it. if you boot murray/ karlovic you can have your choice of muguruza/ wozzy, radwanska/ jankovic, azarenka/ bencic (all straight setters) or bacsinszky's 3 set win over niculescu.
i don't see any women's singles matches in the same block of time as the fed match. go to wimbledon.org and check the order of play for yourself. if you find one, tell me whether you'd swap the fed match for it!

after than point, the men and women play on different days so i'm not going to continue.

is the issue this "antiquated dinosaur (sic)" of a tournament or is the issue the lack of "stars" on the wta tour at the moment (beyond the 'rena and 'pova show).

as long was we're playing "what if", how many matches would bouchard and halep have played on center court had they not lost in the first round?

isn't court one a showcourt too?
 
Last edited:

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Serena has also come out to back her bestie Wozniacki and question the scheduling
http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis/wimbledon-2015-serena-williams-caroline-wozniacki-lead-calls-to-end-bias-standards/story-fnu2pjj2-1227436040664


"Only nine of the 24 matches scheduled on Centre Court in the first seven days were from the women’s draw."
The men's game is simply more popular. She's got no point at all here.

Compare the debenture finals ticket prices:

Ladies' final - £2120
Men's final - £6720
(source: https://www.wimbledondebentureholders.com/)

The women's game is probably over-represented on the show courts, once you correct for its relative popularity, to be honest.
 

Kalin

Legend
OP, please change title of thread to:
"Bitter Virgins Living in Mom's Basement: Post Your Anti-Female Drivel Here"
CF, we are tennis fans. I've been watching and playing the game for 40 years. I know what games are good and which are not and what is worth watching... or at least I can have an opinion and so can everyone else.

If you think Wozniacki had a point please kindly post an argument for it. Lame insults won't cut it.

Kevin Curren, of whom you claim to be a fan, played a fast, aggressive, entertaining game. That's the game that deserves to be on a show court. Of all people, you should know that.
 

Kalin

Legend
i've been prowling around www.wimbledon.org just to check that very thing out. i've been looking at the matches in blocks just to keep from rescheduling the entire tournament...
Excellent job, Vandre... seems to prove Woz was wrong.

Yes, good trash talking, one has to admit. Maybe she can ask to be let to play in the Ashes series? The Aussies surely could use some old-fashioned 'mental disintegration' right now.

The about quote from Woz shows how out of touch and bitter she is. She refuses to realise that her time of glory (however short that was) has long passed and the only way to turn it around is by playing better tennis and winning tournaments, not by talking smack.
 

v-verb

Hall of Fame
I believe in equality. If the women want equal big courts time and equal money they should play equal matches to the men. Best of 5 in Grand Slams, etc. The fact they get equal $ now for playing less is ludicrous.

I like Woz but in this case she should shut it
 

CurrenFan

Rookie
CF, we are tennis fans. I've been watching and playing the game for 40 years. I know what games are good and which are not and what is worth watching... or at least I can have an opinion and so can everyone else.

If you think Wozniacki had a point please kindly post an argument for it. Lame insults won't cut it.

Kevin Curren, of whom you claim to be a fan, played a fast, aggressive, entertaining game. That's the game that deserves to be on a show court. Of all people, you should know that.
I get tired of seeing the same nonsense on every tennis, golf or sports message board from guys bashing women's sports. Yes, it's true, really fit professional male athletes are faster and more powerful than really fit professional female athletes. Gee, are you proud you made this discovery? That doesn't mean that the women's game isn't worth watching. I don't have time to look up statistics but I am sure the tennis that the ATP plays does not differ significantly from that played by the WTA in stats like unforced errors, double faults and is probably pretty similar in winners - I'll give you that your average men's match will almost certainly feature quite a few more aces, but that leads to a less exciting match. Women understand the game of tennis just as well as men, they employ strategy just as well as men and they craft points every bit as well as men do.

The problem that I think a lot of the chauvinistic male tennis fans have is that they have this inaccurate amalgamated and stereotyped view of women's tennis that every match looks like a pair of underpowered players like Sara Errani wafting balls across the net to Aga Radwanska, both of whom might be able to outrun each other's second serves, accompanied by the courtside screaming created by Sharapova or Azarenka. They also have this view that provided she's not too much of a headcase in a given fortnight, that there's little point to watching women's tennis since Serena will overpower everyone else and win the championship; ironically, I bet most of those same guys probably would argue that Graf, not Serena, is the WTA GOAT, and will continue to do so even if Serena's GS total surpasses Court's. They seem to forget that recent years have shown us that early round matches at the slams are not a foregone conclusion even for men as accomplished as Nadal or Federer.

Are you likely to get a bit more exciting match, everyone in good health and playing well, watching Federer play Nishikori or Monfils play Wawrinka? Probably - the very best and fittest men do tend to have a few more exciting points. But I'd much rather watch Simona Halep play Gabrine Mugaruza or Ivanovic play Azarenka (with the volume muted) than Isner play Kevin Anderson or Raonic play Karlovic. And in her prime, I'd rather have watched Martina Hingis play than any man in history, her points were so well planned and executed so precisely and accurately.

Here's how you know that the explanations that the macho-in-their-own-minds types give are bogus: all of them would claim they'd rather watch men's tennis from any period than the WTA of today. Go look up some so-called classic men's matches from the 70's and the dawn of the graphite racquet era. The tennis being played in those matches was lackadaisical - even a Borg-Connors GS match looked like the guys were mailing it in at about 60-70% effort on the vast majority of the points. Today's WTA players, with a few exceptions, are more fit than the guys were back then and give more effort than the male heroes of yesteryear, on the whole. Yes, Jimmy did make some impressive scrambles, but on most points he looks like a modern pro just starting to warm up or finishing up a practice session. Sneer all you want at Marion Bartoli's physique or luck of the draw in more than one tournament, she still played a lot of exciting shots.

Unfortunately, the one fact that is not made up is that based on actual spectator popularity, there is no doubt that more people watch the men's singles games than the women's. Largely, this is because of two factors, neither of which have to do with the quality of the tennis being played:

a) Chauvinistic men feel that the men's game is superior and are the ones buying the tickets or who have ESPN semi-permanently set onto their TVs.

b) Women are, on average, rather pathetic supporters of women's sports. Out of the past dozen or so women's Div. I college volleyball, basketball or hockey games I've attended, there were visibly more males than females in the stands in all of them. Male golf fans outnumbered female fans at least 2:1, maybe 3:1 at the US Women's Open I attended a few years ago. Most women spend no time watching sports other than gymnastics, ice skating, or diving, unless it's a few minutes of the Superbowl or Olympics. The biggest problem with women's sports in 2015 isn't inequality compared to male sports, it's apathy by females of all ages who would rather be chatting over coffee, going to "hot yoga" classes, watching reality TV, or taking their daughters to dance or singing lessons than watching or participating in sports.

But we also have at least a 20:1, maybe 50:1 television coverage of singles to doubles matches despite the fact that a lot more people play doubles than singles, and there are a billion or two soccer fans who would announce that a 0-0 tie that took the better part of 2 hours of nothing occurring is "Brilliant!!!!" so not all that happens in sports in general or tennis in particular makes any logical sense.

The bottom line is that there are good matches and bad matches in both men's and women's tennis. I firmly believe that the majority of men badmouthing women's sports, including tennis, have mommy issues, dating issues or other non-sports-related issues involving women that fuel their biases more than the actual disparity between the males and females playing the sport. And sadly, these chauvinistic attitudes drive away females from sports resulting in fewer women participating and a lower overall level of competition in women's sports.
 
Last edited:

Kalin

Legend
I get tired of seeing the same nonsense on every tennis, golf or sports message board from guys bashing women's sports. Yes, it's true, really fit professional male athletes are faster and more powerful than really fit professional female athletes. Gee, are you proud you made this discovery? That doesn't mean that the women's game isn't worth watching. I don't have time to look up statistics but I am sure the tennis that the ATP plays does not differ significantly from that played by the WTA in stats like unforced errors, double faults and is probably pretty similar in winners...
...
Here's how you know that the explanations that the macho-in-their-own-minds types give are bogus: all of them would claim they'd rather watch men's tennis from any period than the WTA of today...
...
Unfortunately, the one fact that is not made up is that based on actual spectator popularity, there is no doubt that more people watch the men's singles games than the women's. Largely, this is because of two factors, neither of which have to do with the quality of the tennis being played:

a) Chauvinistic men feel that the men's game is superior and are the ones buying the tickets or who have ESPN semi-permanently set onto their TVs.

b) Women are, on average, rather pathetic supporters of women's sports...

But we also have at least a 20:1, maybe 50:1 television coverage of singles to doubles matches despite the fact that a lot more people play doubles than singles, and there are a billion or two soccer fans who would announce that a 0-0 tie that took the better part of 2 hours of nothing occurring is "Brilliant!!!!" so not all that happens in sports in general or tennis in particular makes any logical sense.

The bottom line is that there are good matches and bad matches in both men's and women's tennis. I firmly believe that the majority of men badmouthing women's sports, including tennis, have mommy issues, dating issues or other non-sports-related issues involving women that fuel their biases more than the actual disparity between the males and females playing the sport. And sadly, these chauvinistic attitudes drive away females from sports resulting in fewer women participating and a lower overall level of competition in women's sports.
CF, you mean well (I hope) but you can't stay away from insulting other people based on your own insecurities. This is not cool. Mommy issues? Somebody here does have issues, that's for sure.

Our issue is that we prefer watching what we like and not watching what we don't like. You yourself admit that the biggest problem of women's sports popularity is that women themselves shun it while often watching men's sports. Ever wondered why?

By your logic, a straight-to-video B-movie deserves the same attention and exposure (and should sell the same number of tickets) as an Oscar-nominated picture (and yes, I know the Oscars aren't the definitive judge of quality but they're a good benchmark) because, to paraphrase you, the movies are very similar - they all have actors, they all feature dialogue and they all have a dramatic ending.

Also, showing your ignorance of soccer, of all sports, doesn't really recommend you as a sound judge of sports in general, sorry :(

And finally, defending women's sports is fine; I love watching women's gymnastics, figure skating and women's volleyball. But please choose a more defensible target than Wozniacki- one of the most vacuous, attention-seeking and overexposed personalities in all sports.
 
Top