Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open, Women's Main Draw - Melbourne, Australia - Outdoor, Hard

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open, Women's Main Draw - Melbourne, Australia - Outdoor, Hard

christ · Futures level

Coup Droit wrote:
It's a fair point but I don't see that we have an obligation to help doubles players earn a living IF spectators etc would rather see singles players. ...

What spectators would rather see is not relevant in the male/ female "equal pay" debate, so why would it be relevant here?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
It's a fair point but I don't see that we have an obligation to help doubles players earn a living IF spectators etc would rather see singles players. ...
What spectators would rather see is not relevant in the male/ female "equal pay" debate, so why would it be relevant here?

It's a good point, christ smile

But if one looks under the Equality Act 2010, gender is a protected category. As such, discrimination on the grounds of gender (in the cases where the EA applies) is illegal. Even if not a tennis event, it shows general public feeling and the overarching principles. Nowhere, however, is singles/doubles tennis player status a protected category. Now maybe it should be.......but I'd say not.

PS I know I'm in the minority and don't agree with the WTA/ATP, as in I wouldn't give the doubles players so much prize money (unless someone can show me stats that say people love it) - I'd rather than money went down the line to singles

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 17th of January 2022 02:12:18 PM

christ · Futures level

I think that the tournaments and governing bodies are in the business of building tennis wherever it can, including encouraging new players and paying good ones. As such they have to balance what the public wants to see with their obligation to encourage the players. On top of this is the law.

If equal gender payments is about ensuring that they abide by gender discrimination, then why are the wheelchair players not paid the same (under disability legislation)? Or juniors/ seniors under age legislation? Personally I see it as greasing the squeaky wheel.

I think that they have a difficult job to do, where they want to provide the sport that spectators want to see, while paying whoever they need to whatever they have to in order to ensure that most of the players turn up to maximise their profits so they can pay to further their objectives.

So: have they decided that letting the singles players play in doubles (to the detriment of dedicated doubles players) is better for their tournament than blocking them from doing that? If so, I think I happen to agree; but I am equally sure that doubles fans (and dedicated doubles players) don't!

I seem to recall from those long ago days of yore when I was in my youth that tournaments didn't really have dedicated doubles players, they had ad hoc pairs made from whichever singles players wanted to play additional games. If this is the case then perhaps the dedicated doubles players (and their spectators) should be grateful that they get any look in at all?

markymc1983 · Club Coach

As a doubles 'specialist' Tara is not even ranked in the top 100 which weakens the argument for her. Maybe if a player ranked I the top 50 couldn't get a spot in a grand slam I would have greater sympathy

dodrade · Futures qualifying

JonH comes home wrote:
Harriet on Rod Laver tomorrow and Emma on Margaret Court. Big profile matches for both

I'm more optimistic than some about Emma's chances. She's had another week's training, seems to be in a positive relaxed mood and attention/expectations have been lowered after last week's result. The Rybakina match was brutal but she can only improve on that performance and it's anyone's guess how Stephens will do.

Even Harriet I think could do better than expected against Iga.

flamingowings · All-time great

Harriet's match has started and she is on the board.

flamingowings · All-time great

Harriet has a break *3-2 bit can she hold onto it... deuce

flamingowings · All-time great

She lost the break and the set 3-6

Strongbow · All-time great

Drat cry - time for bed.

flamingowings · All-time great

2nd set bagel-watch. C'mon Harriet!

flamingowings · All-time great

L128: Tough ask.
(Q) Harriet Dart WR 125 LOST TO (7) Iga Swiatek (POL) WR 8
3-6 0-6

Peter too · Tennis legend

Harriet went 3-1 up then Iga closed it out by winning 11 games on the trot.

-- Edited by Peter too on Tuesday 18th of January 2022 04:24:52 AM

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Heather set up and 3-2 on serve in a very even match from what Ive seen (got her on IPad) and watching Andy same time. Her opponent has a very similar game.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Heather broken for the first time.

6-3 3-4*

So close to call this nothing between them here.