McEnroe is a closet 606v2 reader

“How about making the size of the rackets smaller, reduce the sweet spot so you can’t get away with mis-hitting shots 17 feet behind the baseline. We need to encourage serve-and-volley. Court surfaces have been homogenised. There is an argument that Wimbledon is slower than the French [Open]..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/tennis/article3794367.ece (paywall).

Some will say that Mac is just trying to stir up a little controversy but I can't believe that!

But, but....tennis is perfect the way it is. There's no need for such drastic changes. The money's rolling in. The experts say everything is great (unless they don't, like Mac, in which case, they're throwbacks to a bygone age and other experts probably say everything is great, and they're right 'cos they're experts)

Any chance this article can be cut and paste?! I'm a cheap skate you see lol

If not I'll have to go and buy the paper! Yes....I'm a dinosaur.

Just for you Johny:

We are talking game-changing with John McEnroe, an audience with perhaps the greatest game-changer of all. The subjects range from his assertion that serve-and-volley will come back into vogue, on reducing the size of the rackets and their sweet spot, too, but most Johnny Mac-ish of all, the complete elimination of line judges and their replacement by Hawk-Eye.

It is a few days after Ernests Gulbis, of Latvia, said that the top four in the men’s game — a position to which he aspires but is some way from reaching — are boring. It is the kind of conversation piece that engages McEnroe much more than time that might be spent exploring the virtues of the Rafael Nadal forehand.

“It doesn’t mean the players have to reveal their innermost secrets,” said the American, 54, who will once more be in the BBC commentary box at Wimbledon this year. “Over the course of the last five years, I think players have become aware and in certain ways been encouraged to express themselves more. [Roger] Federer cried [after the Australian Open final of 2010], and all of a sudden this is like major news because you don’t see much of anything else.


“When [Andy] Murray did it at Wimbledon last year, it was the same sort of thing. People could relate to him as a human being a lot more easily. I don’t suggest that we should start crying all the time. If your personality means that’s just not the way you do it and you’ve had the type of success that these players have had, it’s not like you can say, ‘Hey, listen, man, can you just let it go a little more?’ It just doesn’t work that way.

“In some ways, it was a unique time in the sport when I was coming up. There just seemed to be a lot of people that had personality.”
The subject matter brings the seven-times grand-slam singles champion round to his mischievous thought about the abolition of line judges. “We want to see an edge that’s lacking, so why not eliminate linesmen,” he said.

“You just have an umpire, the two players and Hawk-Eye. There’s a call to be made, there are a number of challenges and players have to make the call for themselves. Can you imagine the friction developing? The devil in me thinks it would be brilliant. A player may think he’s been screwed by his opponent. You want edge. You’ve got it!
“I am worried [about the lack of edge]. In the US, we have the same problem as when I came into it. You want the best athletes and want kids to have more opportunities to play, but it is an expensive game.

“Having Serena [Williams, the champion] doing what she’s doing and we have 14 women in the draw in Wimbledon, we’ve got some good things going there, but it is not good enough for America. It’s not easy, but, as each year goes by, tennis is becoming slightly more marginal. They look at these guys and say, ‘Wow, the way they hit the ball, it is unbelievable,’ but what they do doesn’t get into their soul as it would if we had a really successful group of American men — and they had a great spirit about them.”

As for technical changes? “How about making the size of the rackets smaller, reduce the sweet spot so you can’t get away with mis-hitting shots 17 feet behind the baseline. We need to encourage serve-and-volley. Court surfaces have been homogenised. There is an argument that Wimbledon is slower than the French [Open]. If you had said 30 years ago I would be saying that, you would have put me in a funny farm.

“It should change because one of the problems in our sport is that we don’t change anything. We sit there doing the same damn things over and over and wonder why we are getting worse ratings than poker.”

Always like listening to Mac - he has always spoken from the heart. 

Now we know a lot of posters here have brought up the same topics and I think near enough everyone here has said they'd like to see an increase in faster courts. However, as I have said elsewhere, it is up to the upper echelons to make those changes and there is no sign of it yet. I may be totally wrong here but I wouldn't bet against changes once the likes of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have exited the stage or in other words retired. At the moment their involvement ensures gripping slam finals and great quality but the evidence is pretty clear that the next generation are not going to be able to replace them and so that is when I think the powers that be will look to shake things up.

Thanks Turron

Couldn't agree more about the change in Wimbo and RG. And reducing the area of the sweet spot. Similair thing has happened in cricket. Where bat design and manufacture has evolved to the extent where a batsman can edge a bowler for 6. 

Yes, that might be exciting for the 'fans' and 'spectators'. But is that really what the game is about? Where mishits (and by proxy - lack of skill) are rewarded? What that does is level the playing field (in terms of ability) more. It brings the better players level down by increasing the chances of lesser mortals.

It's interesting his comment about doing away with line judges. However I think they bring their bit to the game. And can certainly bring 'edge' with them. Just ask Serena Williams.

Good to see Mac waking up and smelling the caffeine some of us have been preaching for ages now re: tech...just needs ITF to see sense now

Don't agree about line judges though...I don't see tennis as quite the "hustle" sport Mac does.

I'm also in favour of women/men playing same length matches at slams - even if it needs a Champions TB when 2 sets all.

I think his line judge remarks though were much more tongue-in-cheek. He still loves to play up to the bad boy image and whenever anyone brings up 'that incident' ('You cannot be serious') a cheeky grin always comes over his face.I'd take his remarks about line judges as a bid to maintain that image.

As for women playing the best of five sets physically it is possible. However, logistically I cannot see how it is workable without extending each slam. I mean look at the furore it caused when women's matches were put on court before Rafa and it disrupted the schedule and we are only playing the best of three. Go to best of five for women and you are quite possibly adding one hour on to each of the women's matches played and possibly more and that will cause major disruption to schedules as they currently are.

Yes it would cause logistical headaches but then we come back to the pay argument - why should women earn £1.5m, the same as the men, for winning Wimbledon when playing much less court-time? They are fit enough to last 5 sets...the pace isn't the same as the mens game...and we see women routinely run marathons in sub 2hr 25m times (400 women have done so) so there is no physiological basis for just playing 3 sets at slams.

Well that is the quandary. It is now too late to cut back women's earnings now yet it would just cause too big a logistical problem for it to happen - unless you extend slams.

Ok...another idea. Up to QF mens and women's matches are all Bo3 format, then switch to Bo5 at QFs onwards.

I'm all for equality. Equal amount of sets potentially played = equal pay.

The other issue with men playing Bo5 in slams is the physical impact that has on entering doubles. We are seeing less and less top men's singles players compete at doubles (Men's or Mixed). Maybe they're too tired, need to save energy for the singles, or minimise injury risk given how taxing men's singles over 5 sets is these days.

This is a double edged sword. The women are not physically taxed in slams - infact they must love slams - same format, day off between matches, huge pay - so they can enter more doubles formats too.

Infact, it wouldn't surprise me if the top women's players probably more than their counterpart men because they can enter more events due to less physical grinding. Also, on the mens side we see doubles specialists becoming a more viable career choice because the singles guys cant do it any longer. The doubles guys get a better sniff at winning with less top singles guys around. Plus given doubles is less taxing the doubles guys have a longer career than the singles guys too (albeit with less prize money to aim for), e.g. Daniel Nestor - must be 60 now? Just saying.

Yes logistically that would be do-able but for varying reasons I am not too keen on that.

You run a far higher risk of getting your top players eliminated early ie Federer would have lost to Bennetteau in three last year and am sure there are many such incidences. Not keen on that to be honest.

Yes but Benneteau hasn't done anything in Masters format (Bo3)...Federer has 22 Masters. I don't think its a problem...the best guys tend to win out. Given matches are longer now anyway due to more rallying it makes sense to save some time anyway earlier on. In these modern times playing 2-3 five setters earlier in the event basically writes off your chances of going deep, the physical strain is too much. So go either Bo3 until QFs, or 5 sets throughout with long TB at 2-2.

Well it really depends on where you stand on it. I'd be loathe to go best of three for men for any part of a slam.

It's like all this sort of stuff, you spend years saying it and being called an idiot, and then it becomes mainstream and "everyone" has been saying it.

It's like the financial crisis of 2008 that "nobody" saw coming. I did, I bored my friends with it and wrote to the government to raise some of the problems (both of that and the unbalanced economic dependence on services and finance). Doesn't stop people blaming it on America and bankers when that's total b*llocks.

lydian wrote:Yes but Benneteau hasn't done anything in Masters format (Bo3)...Federer has 22 Masters. I don't think its a problem...the best guys tend to win out. Given matches are longer now anyway due to more rallying it makes sense to save some time anyway earlier on. In these modern times playing 2-3 five setters earlier in the event basically writes off your chances of going deep, the physical strain is too much. So go either Bo3 until QFs, or 5 sets throughout with long TB at 2-2.

NNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lydian wrote:I'm all for equality. Equal amount of sets potentially played = equal pay.

I disagree on this. It's not a case of sets played as this is prize money, not pay.

The only consideration of what is fair should be are the women generating as much money for the organisers as the men?

Put another way, if the women's event were held on another week, would it generate about the same revenue as the men.

If so, they deserve the same prize money.

If not, there's no persuasive argument to me that prize money should be equal.

I agree about the popularity angle but I still don't agree on the equal pay for less tennis point given they should be capable of playing for longer these days. However, I'll wager the men on average are much fitter than the women compared to their gender at large - because they have to be to survive in slam formats.
 
Anyway, over eating my sandwich at lunch I compiled this table (yeah I know...) comparing earnings for men and women based on their overall singles rankings but for YTD prize money. Something to have a gander at. You can see the top singles women players earn more from doubles than men...interesting to see these kind of stats and the amounts of money these top "guys" are making.

lydian wrote:Ok...another idea. Up to QF mens and women's matches are all Bo3 format, then switch to Bo5 at QFs onwards.

They used to play 5-setters, but then stopped.

lydian wrote:I'm all for equality. Equal amount of sets potentially played = equal pay.

Not sure the previous observation leads to this conclusion. Should a retirement from a match reduce the prize money for that round for the retiring player?

Let us leave the Hourly Wages v Prize Money for another thread.

Back to the OP...

McEnroe is a bit disingenuous in his droppings. Grass season comes around and he starts talking about S&V, but sitting in the commentary box at RG, his tune is completely different.

He has a tendency to pronounce GOATs at the drop of a hat and provide superlatives when none is suitable.

Can someone get Borg in the commentary box, please?

lydian wrote:I agree about the popularity angle but I still don't agree on the equal pay for less tennis point given they should be capable of playing for longer these days. However, I'll wager the men on average are much fitter than the women compared to their gender at large - because they have to be to survive in slam formats.

I have two objections to this.

1) Time on court is never rewarded. A player who wins a slam without dropping a set gets the same money as one who plays 5 sets in every round. The size of the prize pot stems ultimately from the profit an event makes.

2) Does anyone really want to see 5 sets of WTA? Two more sets of shrieking, pushing and celebrating every single point? I certainly don't!

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:I agree about the popularity angle but I still don't agree on the equal pay for less tennis point given they should be capable of playing for longer these days. However, I'll wager the men on average are much fitter than the women compared to their gender at large - because they have to be to survive in slam formats.

I have two objections to this.

1) Time on court is never rewarded. A player who wins a slam without dropping a set gets the same money as one who plays 5 sets in every round. The size of the prize pot stems ultimately from the profit an event makes.

2) Does anyone really want to see 5 sets of WTA? Two more sets of shrieking, pushing and celebrating every single point? I certainly don't!

5 sets of Azapova!! Who wouldn't want to watch that?

With apologies to laverfan, there's such an easy way to assess the vlue generated by the womens game.

Here's what the free market says;

http://www.wimbledondebentureholders.com/buy-wimbledon-tickets/wimbledon-centre-court-tickets

If you look closely, you'll see that ladies final day commands 30% of the price of Gentlemans final. In fact it commands less income than almost any day where a Man match is scheduled to appear (Day 1 (which features the Mens Champion in round 1 commands 97% od the price of the ladies final).

The cheapest day on offer is ladies quarters, where there's no prospect of a mans match.

Ladies semis commands 23% of mens semis, and ladies quarters gets 31%.


The rough rule of thumb seems to be that the men are worth (as shown by the market value of tickets) about 3-4 times the ladies.

In my position that determines the price and the prize money, but then I'm not twisted up with trying to please people on spurious grounds.

BB, good figures, and my sentiments exactly.

I suspect that if TV rights were thrown into the mix, the difference would be even more stark.

With due respect BB, this is about a prize, not wages. The Ancient Greek Olympians got just a wreath and accolades, which is not the case now. This is pure capitalism at work. A case of Supply and Demand or what the market will bear, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of any specific ticket.

All joint events should not have gender discrimination, that is all that is expected. If they are separate events, the prize money is purely based on what the players' presence attract.

I wonder why Beijing is making prominent announcements for Nadal's presence at the next event?

You are a business person, and you understand the costing v pricing differences, and profit margins, etc.

I agree 5 sets of women's tennis - with or without grunting - would be largely unbearable viewing.
The women's game is so lopsided slams may as well be 32 player draws anyway - or 1 match of Serena vs Random #100 player.

Good figures indeed BB...so from my point of view there are 2 reasons for current inequality.
To complete the earnings picture...here's YTD leaders...this isn't singles ranking, just money rankings.
 
Right...I've definitely got better things to be doing...




On this basis the top 20 men earners earnt around 12% more than the women collectively.

I wonder how much money Serena would be sitting with if equal prize money at the majors was about since she started. The money is skewed because of the Masters events. Those are all televised (and even some 500s and 250s) yet I rarely see a fully televised women's event. In fact, Eastbourne this week is the only one I think I've seen!! There's not true equality in the sport. Not by a long shot.

Yes but why aren't they televised as much

laverfan wrote:With due respect BB, this is about a prize, not wages. The Ancient Greek Olympians got just a wreath and accolades, which is not the case now. This is pure capitalism at work. A case of Supply and Demand or what the market will bear, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of any specific ticket.

All joint events should not have gender discrimination, that is all that is expected. If they are separate events, the prize money is purely based on what the players' presence attract.

I wonder why Beijing is making prominent announcements for Nadal's presence at the next event?

You are a business person, and you understand the costing v pricing differences, and profit margins, etc.

Well, yes it's prize money but prizes are awarded for what? If not the value we all place on the event, what else?

At a joint event it gets harder to work out who attracts what, but those tickets pretty much tell us based on the separate days and if their instrinsic value is not measured by the value people place on them, what else is it?

Well prize money isn't always worked out on how much energy is put in. Look at horse racing - the biggest test of jumping and stamina is the Grand National but I am certain the Derby has way more prize money.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well prize money isn't always worked out on how much energy is put in. Look at horse racing - the biggest test of jumping and stamina is the Grand National but I am certain the Derby has way more prize money.

I agree completely. I'm sure the over 75's West Harlech ladies Golf Tournament sees them bust a gut but I just can't bring myself to endorse US Open prize money level. I don't know how to defend that but it's my guts, you know?

It's exactly the same with Wimbledon.

The ticket prices are one barometer of the popularity of a match or a type of event. Prize money is not based on just gate receipts, unlike the days or yore (like Laver and Pancho getting a percentage of gate receipts).

The bean counters of any marketing juggernaut study a statistical model of a business, decide what parameters are correlated to maximising earnings from a commercial event and then value it.

Thinks of buying antiques. One person's trash, literally, is another person's treasure. There have been paintings by Dutch masters, for example, which stayed in attics in Amsterdam for decades, which became prized possessions after WW II.

What is the intrinsic value of a Mozart opera in his own handwriting, vs one containing the notes transcribed by some obscure printer in Germany or Austria?

Even Real Estate loses it's value, when crime goes up in a neighbourhood, correct? What is the relative value of 2 square miles of land in New York City vs Paktika province in Afghanistan or Burkina Faso or Mali or Brasilian Favelas?

Here is an example of change in value due to many circumstances - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-brazilian-favela-queen-recalls-life-in-rio-drug-trade-a-891072.html

laverfan wrote:The ticket prices are one barometer of the popularity of a match or a type of event. Prize money is not based on just gate receipts, unlike the days or yore (like Laver and Pancho getting a percentage of gate receipts).

The bean counters of any marketing juggernaut study a statistical model of a business, decide what parameters are correlated to maximising earnings from a commercial event and then value it.

Thinks of buying antiques. One person's trash, literally, is another person's treasure. There have been paintings by Dutch masters, for example, which stayed in attics in Amsterdam for decades, which became prized possessions after WW II.

What is the intrinsic value of a Mozart opera in his own handwriting, vs one containing the notes transcribed by some obscure printer in Germany or Austria?

Even Real Estate loses it's value, when crime goes up in a neighbourhood, correct? What is the relative value of 2 square miles of land in New York City vs Paktika province in Afghanistan or Burkina Faso or Mali or Brasilian Favelas?

Here is an example of change in value due to many circumstances - http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-brazilian-favela-queen-recalls-life-in-rio-drug-trade-a-891072.html

There's only one way to value something - ask people what they're prepared to pay for it. You don't need bean counters to do that, you just ask them. Do you think people would pay £6.5k to watch the ladies final? I'll tell you, if they would, that would be the price.

Value can change of course, for reasons including those you mention. It doesn't make that the wrong basis of valuation.

Currently, prize money is largely based on political considerations. They probably decide it's worth paying to avoid the broader cost of disapproval and adverse publicity (in other words, blackmail).

Yes but at that West Harlech event the men and women both play 18 holes, not men 18 and women 12. In the marathon men don't run 26 miles and women 15.

Prize money should be somewhat commensurate with popularity of each draw, but IMO both sexes should play for equal potential sets. Longer womens matches might drive better fitness leading to better quality matches. There's no way Kvitova is particularly fit with that paunch around her waist - the game isn't pushing them hard enough.

lydian wrote:Yes but at that West Harlech event the men and women both play 18 holes, not men 18 and women 12. In the marathon men don't run 26 miles and women 15.

Prize money should be somewhat commensurate with popularity of each draw, but IMO both sexes should play for equal potential sets. Longer womens matches might drive better fitness leading to better quality matches. There's no way Kvitova is particularly fit with that paunch around her waist - the game isn't pushing them hard enough.

Why? If people will pay the same price top watch 1 set of ladies as 5 sets of men's, then they have the same value.

Fact is that people have been shown they will pay about 28% of the price to watch women's tennis as men's. That wouldn't change if they played to 3, 4, or 15 sets.

laverfan wrote: Prize money is not based on just gate receipts,

We know that on the gate receipts 'component' of prize money calculation, the men generate more than the ladies. BB's figures prove this completely.

What are the other factors that go into prize money and in which of those do the ladies make up the shortfall in the gate receipts they generate?

Yes but its a potentially circular argument. Women's tennis isn't seen as competitive or stirring as men's with no "5 set thrillers". Perhaps if the women were fitter in general and matches were more absorbing people may wish to pay more to watch them.

lydian wrote:Yes but at that West Harlech event the men and women both play 18 holes, not men 18 and women 12.

But they tee (and pee) at different locations, correct? Remember Anika Sorenstam?

lydian wrote: In the marathon men don't run 26 miles and women 15.

Various sports do separate point systems for the same sport, due to gender variations.

lydian wrote:Prize money should be somewhat commensurate with popularity of each draw, but IMO both sexes should play for equal potential sets.

Popularity != Number of sets, as aptly pointed by shrieking/grunting, etc.

lydian wrote:Longer womens matches might drive better fitness leading to better quality matches. There's no way Kvitova is particularly fit with that paunch around her waist - the game isn't pushing them hard enough.

This not about making women and men serve in Seal Team 6, or is it? Fitness levels are sport specific. This gender split is rather misleading in this debate about equal prize money.

@BB... Political correctness is an important aspect of the statistical model that I was alluding to.

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote: Prize money is not based on just gate receipts,

We know that on the gate receipts 'component' of prize money calculation, the men generate more than the ladies. BB's figures prove this completely.

What are the other factors that go into prize money and in which of those do the ladies make up the shortfall in the gate receipts they generate?

We have smoother legs and mammary glands that men do not have.

lydian wrote:Yes but its a potentially circular argument. Women's tennis isn't seen as competitive or stirring as men's with no "5 set thrillers". Perhaps if the women were fitter in general and matches were more absorbing people may wish to pay more to watch them.

You may well be right, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it doesn't, in my book, mean equal sets = equal money.

There is another way of looking at it, and that is that they are worth the same money BECAUSE they get the same money. In the case of the women they "deserve" the same money because their tennis is valued at about 28% of the guys, and there's a further value equal to around 72% of the guys fees placed on them not damaging the brand value by creating a furore and making the brand look bad.

In the case of the men, they have no ability to exert that source of income so just have to rely on people wanting to watch them play tennis. Poor saps!

lydian wrote:Yes but its a potentially circular argument. Women's tennis isn't seen as competitive or stirring as men's with no "5 set thrillers". Perhaps if the women were fitter in general and matches were more absorbing people may wish to pay more to watch them.

I am sorry, Lyd. Sabatini playing a five setter was fitter than say Wozniacki?

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote: Prize money is not based on just gate receipts,

We know that on the gate receipts 'component' of prize money calculation, the men generate more than the ladies. BB's figures prove this completely.

What are the other factors that go into prize money and in which of those do the ladies make up the shortfall in the gate receipts they generate?

We have smoother legs and mammary glands that men do not have.

They should give us more of that then and increase the ticket prices!

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote: Prize money is not based on just gate receipts,

We know that on the gate receipts 'component' of prize money calculation, the men generate more than the ladies. BB's figures prove this completely.

What are the other factors that go into prize money and in which of those do the ladies make up the shortfall in the gate receipts they generate?

We have smoother legs and mammary glands that men do not have.

They should give us more of that then and increase the ticket prices!

They can't give us much more without playing after the watershed.

bogbrush wrote:They can't give us much more without playing after the watershed.

That works for me! Ivanovic v Kirilenko would usurp Federer v Nadal as the big draw. You wouldn't even have to stop for rain as the audience would insist they stay out.

Not sure why I'm being such a pig today. I should probably go and lay in dark room for a while.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:They can't give us much more without playing after the watershed.

That works for me! Ivanovic v Kirilenko would usurp Federer v Nadal as the big draw. You wouldn't even have to stop for rain as the audience would insist they stay out.

Is this why Wimbledon insist on all-white attire?

HM Murdoch wrote:Not sure why I'm being such a pig today. I should probably go and lay in dark room for a while.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:They can't give us much more without playing after the watershed.

That works for me! Ivanovic v Kirilenko would usurp Federer v Nadal as the big draw. You wouldn't even have to stop for rain as the audience would insist they stay out.

Is this why Wimbledon insist on all-white attire?

I wrote that and then chickened out and deleted it! Glad I can rely on you, BB.

I also devised a tie break process that is both brilliant and a shameful indictment of me as a human being...

Tennis is now being turned into a a wet-t-shirt contest?

laverfan wrote:Tennis is now being turned into a a wet-t-shirt contest?

Exactly where have you been since Chrissie Evert started playing?

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:They can't give us much more without playing after the watershed.

That works for me! Ivanovic v Kirilenko would usurp Federer v Nadal as the big draw. You wouldn't even have to stop for rain as the audience would insist they stay out.

Is this why Wimbledon insist on all-white attire?

I wrote that and then chickened out and deleted it! Glad I can rely on you, BB.

I also devised a tie break process that is both brilliant and a shameful indictment of me as a human being...

Perhaps worthy of a pm?

Going back to an earlier BB post, yes the intrinsic brand equity of tennis as a whole may be important to slams and one sex may "subsidise" the other to protect slams' overall value/saleability given they are governed by cross-gender ITF. However, the odd situation in tennis is that under the ITF the main men's and women's professional tours are run separately - ATP & WTA. This arguably hurts tennis as a whole. There are good reasons for ATP & WTA merging - ensures leading male and female players attend the same event increasing gate receipts, giving more opportunity for cross-over PR events and expanded draws to include mixed doubles, etc. However, vested interests will prevent it happening.

Otherwise, the increasing problem for the WTA is that Eurosport, Sky, ESPN, etc, have a choice of which event to buy media rights for each week - and it isn't the WTA they generally plump for. I can only presume that for WTA players to earn similar amounts cf. men, the tournaments must be giving a bigger share of TV/gate money to the players.

Pfft! Back in the day I would have chosen to watch five sets of Women's tennis and restricted the men to three. Providing the men played out on court 13 and I didn't have to watch. Sampras and all that "how fast can I serve stuff" Zzzzz....

Who knows what will be more entertaining in the future.