RJA wrote:

---

PaulM wrote:

---

Yes. Serena was awesome. Incredible tennis.

Interesting that the womens quarter finals were cumulatively longer than the men's quarter finals, but the usual equal pay lobby (not here I might add) didnt seem to notice.... We can all pick matches and events to suit our own agenda, but sometimes you just have to acknowledge you are witnessing one of the greatest to ever play the game.

---

Well I am part of the anti "equal pay" lobby but the times of individual matches are beside the point. It is fundamentally unfair that women get paid the same for paying the best of three sets while men play the best of five sets. It is many things but it most certainly isn't equal.

---

I stuggle slightly with the idea that you can argue its the number of sets that matters (best of 3 vs best of 5), and separate that entirely from the length of the matches (maybe just because it seems to me the two are often linked, although it's possible for a 2 set womens match to last longer than a 3 set mens match as we have seen frequently). I also find it difficult to accept the assumption so commonly put out there that long matches are good matches. Just because�a final goes 5 sets doesn't mean it's a classic.�

But then 3 of the 4 womens QF were 3 sets, and all the men's were won in 3 sets. So should there be�equal pay for those 3 women then? But Kirilenko should get less because she only played 2 sets?

Why should men get more because potentially they might have to play two more sets, even if they don't? Why should a man who loses 62 62 61 in 1hr 45 in the first round be paid more than a women who loses 64 in the third in 3 hours? (I use the first round�because at that stage every�player is equal in terms of tennis played�- I appreciate that as you go deeper men will almost always have played more sets of tennis). But then if you take that argument to its logical conclusion (the men play more sets so should get paid more) maybe it should be a sliding scale by sets won and lost?

So a women who loses in straight sets gets less than a man/women who loses in 3, who get less than a man who loses in 4, who get less than a man who loses in 5. But then what about the man who loses 76 76 75 in a very long 3 setter compared against the man who loses 61 26 62 63 in much�less time?�Maybe it should be based on games?

For me, it becomes absurd to link prize money to length of matches/time on court because it's so variable. The idea that men get paid more because they play more tennis in a Grand Slam isn't always true in the early rounds, and you are effectively giving them the notional benefit of tennis that might never exist. Best of 5 matches often go long because players selectively tank sets as well.

Maybe for next year the Slams should announce a minutely rate of pay - that's nice and equal....

For me, I'd like to see best of 3 with an advantage set until the QF. 5 sets protects the big players because they can have a bad day in the first couple of rounds but still come through in 5. Best of 3 they need to be on it from the get go. Best of 5 you can effectively write off the first hour - so what if the world #101 wins the first set against a top 10 player, I'll come back at the start of the third when it might be starting to get interesting. However in a 3 set match it's very different. I don't think anybody felt shortchanged at the Olympics when they played best of 3 up to the semis.

Bringing in the best of 5 at the business end of Slams would I think be a nice change-up. I also don't see why the women couldn't come in at best of 5 in the semis/finals. Maybe they could trial it at the Premier 5's, I know some of the WTA are actually up for that.

I agree with Ratty that it is an argument that can never be won. Everyone can pick and choose stats and matches to make their point. The fact is that it's here to stay, but it's a fun discussion to have!

TV audiences vary by country and who is playing, so it would be difficult to base it on that (for example when Li Na made the RG Final the global audience figure for the women's was way ahead of the men's due to the interest from Asia and China in particular).

Figures in the US also tend to be more popular for the women's final when Serena is competing, but in the UK and Europe generally the men's finals will almost always have higher viewings (I think the last time the men's was less popular on TV here in the UK was in the period after Tim had retired but before the big rise of Federer)

Ratty wrote:

---

at men's tennis is much "better" than women's tennis, actually I'd rather watch Azarenka v Kirilenko than (say) Berdych v Almagro; or even - dare I say it - ANOTHER interminable Djokovic/Nadal slugfest.

There may be, er, some "unpure" reasons for my preference, but hey, that's the way the world works people ... 

... although of course men's matches do tend to draw bigger crowds - but I don't know about TV audiences, which is presumably where the real money comes in.  

---

 Shouldn't that be 'impure' ?