I miss Dominic Thiem.
1 Like
First one to chug down a cup of BOVRIL wins
2 Likes
TEAM
1 Like
■■■■ the tennis. I’m down for a BOVRIL chugging tournament.
Doubles are even?
Berrettini has that look of being a barista in Italy
Haven’t followed NFL since high-school, but it’s a stupid first to score wins set-up from memory, right?
1 Like
That’s because it’s rare to be getting a game interesting enough.
A 3 setter is over before you blink, the games often feel like watching a social match versus what the men serve up.
I’m just talking about the end product.
Thank god we have Ash. Because otherwise no one watchers really watches the womens finals do they?
It’s just not at the same level. But all things said and done it still takes the talent and countless hours practicing to climb to the top of the sport.
And I don’t begrudge the best in the world taking home big dollars.
Coin toss and if you score on first possession it’s all over with the other side not even getting a chance
Pegula picked up $538k for losing to Ash tonight but that’s only chicken feed when you are worth $6bn 
what even is your point?
Just that you get a lot more value out of a mens match than a womens and hence it’s a more valuable product.
It’s a bit of a troll perhaps, but I just think you gotta have the product to match the dollars.
It’s the same rationale for pay in womens AFL, Football(Soccer),Basketball etc etc.
Tennis is one of those sports that’s just decided to pay the same. Does it get the eyeballs?
It just needs the great rivalries that the mens have had. It’s been a while.
Lets go Matteo
No aussies in the mens so I’m cheering for Italy haha
this is why we love you
7 Likes
I think you really need to ask whether any of it matters?
If they get paid the same, great. Im sure they put in the same effort, resources and energy as the men to travel and do what they need to do to compete.
Its such a non-issue, im bemused it occupies your mind so much.
just get rid of the tiebreaker in the third set of womens tennis and have it old rules where had to win by a game…will make the good matches longer, but won’t change ordinary matches.
2 Likes
it’s a competition, not a product
players aren’t going out there to provide value for money to advertisers and spectators. they are out there to win matches.
What’s happened to our other favourite Frenchman Jo-Wilfred Tsonga?
injured, dropped off the rankings cliff.
1 Like
No - that is a false equivalency
View the Slam as what it is - a tournament, with parallel prize pools. One happens to have more matches than the other. It is not like comparing completely separate leagues in completely separate sports.
You are labouring under the archaic mentality of ‘man play more so man make more money’. Players are paid on a per match basis, not per hour on the court.
Further, your idea of assigning product value is a stupid, simplistic one. What do you mean you get ‘more value’ from a men’s match? Are matches better value just because you sit your ■■■ in a seat for a longer time? Does the quality of the match not matter? Does Rafa or Fed thumping a wildcard 6-1,6-0,6-1 mean their match is inherently more valuable than any one women’s game? If I’m watching a men’s match and one player retires from injury after a set, is that match now worth less?