Equality And Prizemoney In Tennis
Immediately after the euphoria of the longest Grand Slam singles final in tennis history in Melbourne, Australia, the debate and discussion surrounding equality and prizemoney in tennis was once again being talked about. “Equal pay for equal play” I heard many people saying, another comment I heard was that “men and women are wired genetically different though so it’s fair”, it’s quite concievable that many people could easily sit in both camps on this issue.
There are many questions to ponder regarding this subject though, some of which include the following….
Should the women be paid equal prizemoney for doing “arguably” less work over the two week period of a Grand Slam?
Should the women be forced to play the best of five sets in Grand Slam tournaments?
Should the men revert to playing the best of three sets in Grand Slams?
I’d like to take a look at these questions and give my views on each one.
On the first question, “Should the women be paid equal prizemoney for doing “arguably” less work over the two week period of a Grand Slam?
If you look purely at the facts based on output you would initially have to think that, no, they shouldn’t be paid prizemoney equal to that of the men, however the women would argue that they train just as hard as the men for the Grand Slams and it’s not their fault that some matches are over in less than one hour.
The women’s final was over after 1 hour 22 minutes in Melbourne compared to the epic 5 hour 53 minute marathon of the more »
Two Different Champions, Two Different Stories
You couldn’t have had two different finals. On the one hand there was the straight sets demolition of a former champion by a 22 year Belarusian who 11 months ago was about to throw in the towel. On the other hand, there was a just-under six hour epic battle in which the winner was hardly definite even on championship point.
Not to say that one was definitely better than the other. They are two different tournaments, four different players, and two very different stories. Djokovic was the man to beat; Azarenka was the challenger to Maria’s crown. You can’t really compare the two.
The first, then. Victoria Azarenka had come so close to completely giving up tennis, and she went onto the court on Saturday as the second favourite to Maria Sharapova’s more experienced game. What happened afterwards was a surprise for everyone on the court, including Sharapova.
It wasn’t just that Maria lost and Victoria won. Victoria destroyed her opponent, blasting through any sort of game plan Sharapova might had had – and if she did have one, it was hardly one worthy of a final – to win the final on a 6-3 6-0 scoreline. She might have had the experience, but Sharapova didn’t have the game and when it all fell to pieces, Azarekna just had to keep her head and drive through to the final point.
Even though it must have seen cut and dry from the end of the first set, Azarenka still couldn’t believe her win when it happened. The look of disbelief she gave to her team in the player’s box more »
Written by:Murray’s chance slips through his grasp yet again
Another Grand Slam, another bitter disappointment for Murray as he gets so close, yet leaves still so far from gaining an Open title. Pat Cash rightly said that Murray was going to have to play the tennis of his life to get past the world number 1 on the form he is currently in. And Murray played a near-perfect match. But despite general opinion, I wouldn’t really class that as Murray’s best game ever. Going down in the third set 6-1 was definitely uncharacteristic. Murray may lose games, but he fights for every point with all the power he has. Although that was certainly true of many games in this match, it was hardly a consistent performance.
Not that you can blame the guy. At the other end of the court prowls a man who last year won 3 of the 4 grand slam titles, and won 43 matches in a row. Never mind that Djokovic seems to have lost his fear, that mental block that used to make him choke at the moment of success. With his ability to shrug off the pressure, it was a wonder the game got to four sets.
Murray had his chances to take the game by the scruff of the neck. By evening the scoreline out, there was a level playing field going into the deciding set. However, there needn’t be. Murray seemed so fixed on the furthest points – the fifth set – that he seemed to forget about some of the ones before that. The fourth set only took twenty five minutes. 6-1 isn’t just bad for the overall scoreline, it’s a serious confidence boost to an opponent. The last thing you want to more »
Written by:Roger and Rafa
It wouldn’t be a Grand Slam final without a Roger and Rafa showdown. Not a good one, anyway. That’s my opinion, and it was obviously the opinion of all those bums on seats at the Rod Laver Arena.
Well, the two greats in the modern game didn’t disappoint. For three hours and 42 minutes, the two players battled it out to get to the final of this year’s Australian Open. But unlike many of their former clashes, there was a slightly bizarre note to this particular match. Bizarre because – in what seemed to be an attempt to disarm Nadal – Federer hit 63 unforced errors. About half of those were on his usually exquisite forehand.
It’s like seeing a lion with a claw ripped out. Federer without his wonderful forehand. But it just shows Federer’s talents that he can still force Nadal to have to come from a set down to win. Whilst on one side of the net, Federer was struggling with his forehand, Nadal seemed to be trying to use his own forehand over his trusty backhand.
This match wasn’t the sort of epic that we have seen before between Roger and Rafa in the past. But Nadal having to come back from a set down, after being moments away from pulling out of the tournament just before it began, is another fairytale to add to the list. He was calm when he needed to be, he was explosive when it was required. And when it came to the final game, Federer sealed his own defeat. Het nets a forehand, sends one long, then even a backhand misfires, and soon he was hitting his 36thmore »
Written by:Is Sharapova regaining her former glory?
Maria Sharapova was the name on everyone’s lips when she emerged as a contender back in Wimbledon. She was the third youngest woman to win that Wimbledon title, and she did so playing Serena Williams who was arguably at the top of her game. She was young, beautiful, and the papers had got hold of her life story: a girl who had arrived in the US to advance her tennis career with her father and no ability to speak English. She charmed and delighted everyone by beating the favourite and bringing about a huge upset.
Since then her media spotlight has been constant, but her performance and fitness has been up and down. The fluctuations mean that although she has secured two more Grand Slam titles since her first in Wimbledon, there have been dark moments in between.
Last year, she was runner up to Petra Kvitova at Wimbledon. And after she secured her place in this year’s Australian Open, it seems she may be currently on a high.
In today’s women’s semi-final, Sharapova had a chance to enact some revenge on Kvitova. Not that Petra went down easily. The match lasted a long two hours, with the finally scoreline 6-3 3-6 6-4 not really doing justice to the battle. Looking at the serving statistics you’d have every right to be confused at the final scoreline. Sharapova committed 10 double faults and this nearly lost her the game, with Kvitova using those little wobbles to her advantage and pushing the game into the third set. In fact it seemed like Kvitova had the steadier head more »
Written by: