WTA Statement on Roland Garros Scheduling

#2
Sorry Stevie.

You have 52 grand slam championships among 2 men's semifinal matches. The top 3 men's players of all time + one of the top clay courters in the lasr 4 years (who also happened to be the #4 seed).

0 combined slam wins among the final 4 women.

It's pretty obvious.
 

hipolymer

Professional
#10
There is zero comparison to be made between the value of the respective semifinals

The gap is so wide it cant be accurately explained in current scientific terms

Forgetting that the mens semifinals was the original ticket of the day
That may be all and well and good and all but have you considered the fact that you're a sexist?
check urprivilege
 

Bukowski

Professional
#11
Wow.
Sometimes i get so used to the PC disingenuous PR statements from the players (regarding opinions on WTA/ATP) that i forget there are deep disagreements over fundamental concepts that prop up the tours from a spectator view.

I personally change the channel when WTA matches are being shown, so i really wish arguments on things like this were more front and center for the sport..
 
#12
I am positive he has accepted this as a obligation by signing his contract and the paycheck he gets makes sure he'll fulfill it.

We are pretty much bound to have this 'equal outcomes' civilization's suicide attempt until it finaly succeeds.
 
#20
Sorry Stevie.

You have 52 grand slam championships among 2 men's semifinal matches. The top 3 men's players of all time + one of the top clay courters in the lasr 4 years (who also happened to be the #4 seed).

0 combined slam wins among the final 4 women.

It's pretty obvious.
0 combined Slam finals among the final 4 women

If Serena and Sharapova were in the semis with a couple of randoms on the men's side, the scheduling would be different
 
#23
Honestly, Lenglen is a great court, not one player would have a problem with being put out there. I guess the ticket holders get screwed. However, it would actually be more fair to have the men play second at the same time on different courts.

Can you imagine the backlash if Rafa wins in straights and Djoker/Thiem get rained out a set in?
 
#24
Honestly, Lenglen is a great court, not one player would have a problem with being put out there. I guess the ticket holders get screwed. However, it would actually be more fair to have the men play second at the same time on different courts.

Can you imagine the backlash if Rafa wins in straights and Djoker/Thiem get rained out a set in?
Weather is one thing. This year it pinched the women.

But controlling where players go is entirely within their control

The course of action that pisses off the most customers would be moving the mens matches from their predetermined locations.
 
#28
I guess i'm in the minority, but I actually think womens tennis is better to watch. There's far better quality points and nobody is really dominating at the moment.
Back in the days when the men's tour was more equal than the women's, common discourse was that strength in depth was a good thing. Now that the women are more equal, it's all about how important it is to have dominant players. This is basically motivated reasoning.
 
#29
Play is scheduled for 12.50 at Court Chatrier and 11.00 at Lenglen and Court 1.

Could've at least put them on Chatrier and Lenglen at 11.00. Chatrier followed by the 2 men's semi's.
If you are going to move the women off Chatrier, then why not at least start the first men's semi at 11:00?

There is nearly zero chance the second semi will even start tomorrow with the schedule as it is.

:unsure::unsure::unsure::unsure:
 
#30
Seriously every single problem would be solved by night sessions + roof
If they had that, then what they should do tomorrow is play all four semis on Chatrier starting at 11 and finishing whenever. [Note: even with a roof, they could be in this situation if there had been much heavy rain early in the week, because a roof or two can't avoid backlogs except in the final stages when all matches are scheduled on the main court].
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
#32
Play is scheduled for 12.50 at Court Chatrier and 11.00 at Lenglen and Court 1.

Could've at least put them on Chatrier and Lenglen at 11.00. Chatrier followed by the 2 men's semi's.
Simon's public statement would have been more compelling had he suggested this schedule as a sensible alternative. Drive home the point that the problem is not that the men have been placed on PC instead of the women, but that no one is on PC during the women's matches. Why does any semifinal have to be played on Court 1?
 
#33
I don't disagree with the French Open, but seriously, how could the CEO of the WTA say anything but what he said? It's a non-story. The big ticket is the men. The women don't have the market to command PC. Tennis is a sport of sponsors, after all, and they come up with all the money. I'm sure they had a say. Of course the WTA is ticked off, though.
 
#34
Back in the days when the men's tour was more equal than the women's, common discourse was that strength in depth was a good thing. Now that the women are more equal, it's all about how important it is to have dominant players. This is basically motivated reasoning.
There's a shortage of quality matches in late rounds... for either tour to be fair, but the men's winners are better at least. Parity isn't quite delivering quality to the WTA like in 2000s. I'm always happy to see an epic match whoever plays, think Halep-Kerber last AO or Sevastova-Mertens this RG, that was the sсhit. At the same time, Tsurenko-Krunic had a similarly epic scoreline but was in fact a terrible errorfest - quality matters.
 
#37
Simon's public statement would have been more compelling had he suggested this schedule as a sensible alternative. Drive home the point that the problem is not that the men have been placed on PC instead of the women, but that no one is on PC during the women's matches. Why does any semifinal have to be played on Court 1?
I mean, their justification would no doubt be that, with rain due most of the day, if they don't start the men's semis as soon as they can, they risk them not finishing, and starting at a women's semi at 11 might mean it not being done by 1. But that rings hollow when they could just, you know, schedule the men's semi for 11, especially as the starting time tomorrow is in fact purely notional, given that there's likely to be no play possible until 2 or 3 or even possibly later.
 
#39
There's a shortage of quality matches in late rounds... for either tour to be fair, but the men's winners are better at least. Parity isn't quite delivering quality to the WTA like in 2000s. I'm always happy to see an epic match whoever plays, think Halep-Kerber last AO or Sevastova-Mertens this RG, that was the sсhit. At the same time, Tsurenko-Krunic had a similarly epic scoreline but was in fact a terrible errorfest - quality matters.
I want to note that what I said above doesn't mean that it's impossible to argue that the women's tour used to not be equal enough and is now too equal. I myself am partial to the view that there's a sweet spot in between where the men's tour has been for most of the last 15 years and where the women's tour has been for most of the part five years or so. All I was pointing out is that much of the discussion isn't really based on argument but just excuses for preferring men's tennis come what may.

To my mind, the women's tour is indeed not in the sweet spot right now, but certainly has hit it at various points, most notably between 1998 and 2003 but also at least close to it between 1990 and 1993 - one could argue that if it weren't for the long shadow cast by the Seles stabbing, women's tennis would have been in the sweet spot for most of the time from 1990 until 2004 or so.
 
#44
I'm sympathetic to this kind of thing and don't like the sexist dismissal of the women's game (even though I myself don't watch it nearly as much as I do the men), but in this case I don't know what alternative there is. Fed-Nadal is never gonna be on anything except the biggest stadium a tournament has. And the other men's semi is between a past champion/the current world number one and the only guy to make the semifinals here four years running. The women's lineup, in this particular instance, just doesn't compare. If Serena or Sharapova or defending champ Halep or number one Osaka were playing, that would be different. Both women's matches could end up being excellent, of course, but I see the worry that two clear blockbuster men's matches shouldn't be overshadowed by relatively unknown women.

If one of the men's semis was Anderson-Carreño Busta again, then yeah, put that on court 20 or something, but this is one instance where neither men's semi could really, in my opinion, justifiably be moved away from the main court, based on what the alternatives are.
 
#46
I want to note that what I said above doesn't mean that it's impossible to argue that the women's tour used to not be equal enough and is now too equal. I myself am partial to the view that there's a sweet spot in between where the men's tour has been for most of the last 15 years and where the women's tour has been for most of the part five years or so. All I was pointing out is that much of the discussion isn't really based on argument but just excuses for preferring men's tennis come what may.

To my mind, the women's tour is indeed not in the sweet spot right now, but certainly has hit it at various points, most notably between 1998 and 2003 but also at least close to it between 1990 and 1993 - one could argue that if it weren't for the long shadow cast by the Seles stabbing, women's tennis would have been in the sweet spot for most of the time from 1990 until 2004 or so.
1998-2003 seems the only period when the WTA tour was actually more exciting than the ATP, being the former's golden age in terms of competitiveness while the latter was entering an interregnum phase between Sampras and Federer.

The top of the women's game has just been far too inconsistent, with all of Halep, Muguruza, Kerber etc regularly suffering embarrassing losses with plainly awful tennis. Hoping Osaka proves to be true ATG material, off clay so far.
 
#47
I want to note that what I said above doesn't mean that it's impossible to argue that the women's tour used to not be equal enough and is now too equal. I myself am partial to the view that there's a sweet spot in between where the men's tour has been for most of the last 15 years and where the women's tour has been for most of the part five years or so. All I was pointing out is that much of the discussion isn't really based on argument but just excuses for preferring men's tennis come what may.

To my mind, the women's tour is indeed not in the sweet spot right now, but certainly has hit it at various points, most notably between 1998 and 2003 but also at least close to it between 1990 and 1993 - one could argue that if it weren't for the long shadow cast by the Seles stabbing, women's tennis would have been in the sweet spot for most of the time from 1990 until 2004 or so.
In my mind Evert/Navratilova was also a sweet spot. That's when I used to watch a LOT of women's tennis.

For me Lendl/Wilander was the men's low point!
 
#48
They should have put one WTA match on Chartrier, how they fooked up is starting the first semi at 12.50 (what an odd time to start, just round it up to 13.00 ffs) with NO matches on Chatrier happening before that. Even if the Fedal match started at 1.30 it wouldn't kill anyone.
 
#49
Considering the top 4 men seeds made it to their semifinals.... The best the women could do is get the number 8 and 20 something seed with 2 other unseeded players in the semis. Pathetic WTA.
 
#50
I do want to add, though, that the US Open has for several years routinely scheduled three women's matches per day on the main court, and only two men's matches. That is also problematic.
I would assume that's a time issue. They can reasonably plan to fit 3 women's BO3 and 2 men's BO5 in the schedule, but not the other way around without forcing the last match either into the wee hours or the next day.
 
Top