Not proud to be an American tennis fan

I don't get into nationalism and generally shy away from over generalizations but after spending my entire US open fast forwarding terrible WTA tennis again the silly triumphalism and nationalism of the US sports fan becomes quite apparent. It is almost like there is no ATP tour, as far as US TV goes. Why? Is it the dazzling quality of the attack minded WTA that attracts the US TV viewing audience. No its the fact that like some infantile jock sniffers we have to witness American players winning and dominating to care about a sport. With a large number of good young female players, the WTA is getting the lion's share of the broadcasting window. And as a fan that would rather watch baby seals be clubbed to death than your average WTA tennis match this USO has been the complete pits of the world. The number 1 thing holding tennis back at this stage in the states is the complete lack of even a single watchable and dominant US male player. Our broadcast window basically involves all williams all the time, with hardly a second of the men's tour being broadcast. This reminds of the lame US worship of the women's world cup. For years we heard about how soccer was too boring, too slow, and you couldn't use your hands and that is why Americans did not like it. Then we see the dullest spectacle of a 0-0 shoot out against China spark adoration and interest in the dull game of soccer, why? Well because Americans won and got to waive the flag. How absolutely sad that the best footballers and tennis players in the world get little to no coverage because they don't hold the right passport. What a load of crap my fellow Americans, we hate football/soccer and won't cover men's tennis because no American is winning. But we will get interested in watching the lower level and much duller version of the sports played by women as long as we can win. Well we are officially the rich little bumhole in the neighborhood who will take his toys home and won't play unless he is allowed to win, congratulations.

As an aside... now you know why women get equal pay!

They don't deserve equal pay for less ratings, every tournament I have ever been at when the women's match comes on center court that is the time everyone goes and gets a drink. Not that I need much of an excuse but when they put the WTA nets up you can find me at the bar and judging by the line a lot of other real fans don't care as much either. When the women's game across the board attracts as much attention as the men then they deserve equal pay. This weird state of affairs has nothing to do with any intrinsic value of women's tennis and the lame patriotism of American sports fans. This has more to do with the US broadcasters and the odd state of affairs in terms of men's tennis in the states.

They get equal pay for less sets, so they actually get more pay pro rata.

Good grief! You are quite right to feel less proud. Maybe what you should be feeling is  ashamed. The right course of action would be to crawl back under a rock

lydian wrote:They get equal pay for less sets, so they actually get more pay pro rata.

You only get one life. Therefore you can only spend one lifetime training for this difficult sport. I hope your not suggesting that a women's lifetime dedication is worth less than a mans.

I'm sure you don't really believe tennis should be payed on a pro rata basis?

Sharapova's legs >>>>> ATP Tennis.

Maria Kirilenko >>>>>> ATP tennis. 

That's all.

mthierry wrote:Sharapova's legs >>>>> ATP Tennis.

Maria Kirilenko >>>>>> ATP tennis. 

That's all.

I here mention that there are sites online where you can watch all the T and A humanly imaginable. Don't get me wrong some of the women are really as dedicated as the men people like Graf, Everett, and Navaratilova come to mind. But I watch tennis for the quality of competition, the girl being nice to look at lasts all of 10 seconds and I am not that poon deprived or needy. Not saying that you are, it just is not the reason I can get into a tennis match. And I find it pathetic that US fans claim that tennis is boring or football/soccer is boring only to get excited about supposedly boring sports when our girl's team wins.

No HE, but lets say the men's and women's events were played in separate stadium on opposite sides of town. Do you think the women's game would pay the same then?

On the previous point, why not let the men play Bo3 sets in slams to earn the same money? They're having to bust a gut for longer to earn the same. The training all your life point isn't relevant.

socal1976 wrote:

mthierry wrote:Sharapova's legs >>>>> ATP Tennis.

Maria Kirilenko >>>>>> ATP tennis. 

That's all.

I here mention that there are sites online where you can watch all the T and A humanly imaginable. Don't get me wrong some of the women are really as dedicated as the men people like Graf, Everett, and Navaratilova come to mind. But I watch tennis for the quality of competition, the girl being nice to look at lasts all of 10 seconds and I am not that poon deprived or needy. Not saying that you are, it just is not the reason I can get into a tennis match. And I find it pathetic that US fans claim that tennis is boring or football/soccer is boring only to get excited about supposedly boring sports when our girl's team wins.

You sound so serious. 
People like what they like. Idon't watch WTA tennis except the occasional slam match but I'm not fussed about what others enjoy seeing in their own tennis viewing. The argument about quality of competition is subjective. I know people who enjoy the WTA a lot more than the ATP. And it's not because of the eye candy either.

lydian wrote:No HE, but lets say the men's and women's events were played in separate stadium on opposite sides of town. Do you think the women's game would pay the same then?

On the previous point, why not let the men play Bo3 sets in slams to earn the same money? They're having to bust a gut for longer to earn the same. The training all your life point isn't relevant.

I wouldn't be surprised if Masha's dad would be spotted in a Fedal match instead of his daughter's match vs Serena . , even the die hard supporter of Women's tennis would find it too hard to skip some of ATP's action if both happen on either side of the park with the same ticket value.

We are slowly marching towards the world were Men is getting deprived of equality.

On the side note yes Maria Kirlenko is super hot, cute and beautiful and would love to see her in action than watch some hot chick in the theaters.

I think it should go back to the way it was before anyone complained.

Have the women earn about 10% less than the men, not a really significant amount but just enough so that they know exactly what their place is.

djlovesyou wrote:....but just enough so that they know exactly what their place is.

In the kitchen, surely?  

Personally, I'm in favour of true equality. Merge the two tours, double the prize money on offer and everyone can then compete on an equal basis.

invisiblecoolers. Of course both Masha and Serena's Mum and Dad would choose to watch Fedal over their daughters. That's nothing to do with sexism it's just common sense. I have it on good authority that Djokovic's Dad has also exchanged his ticket for his son's quarter for the Fedal one too. He's planning to tell Novak he has a headache. But Sharapova and Serena beat the majority of mens matches in terms of entertainment. That's not just my opinion it's based on the number of people that want to watch their matches. Everyone can stomp their feet as much as they want but the numbers don't lie.

If there are any 606v2 posters not living in the dark ages there is a good article on this topic in The Times today by Simon Barnes.

So what you are saying is that the tennis produced by the two most successful male players of the last few years is so much better than their female counterparts that even the ladies' parents should watch the mens match? Way to back up your equal pay argument there!

The US broadcasters very rarely wash themselves in the glory pit

The coverage of the Olympics was terrible and biased

The Coverage of the para olympics was..............well they went home

Presumably the US TV stations are showing the women's matches in order to maximise their revenue? I.e. they expect more people to watch the women's matches than the men's?
That may be because the women they are showing are American, and they haven't got any American men to show, but it's an indicator of where they think the revenue for them lies this week at the US Open - with the women.

you still have Isner and Sock in the 3rd round , assume USTV would still show those players live?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:....but just enough so that they know exactly what their place is.

In the kitchen, surely?  

Hardly, every woman I have dated for years I have been the better cook than, so the kitchen is out that leaves one room that you can't really do without them.

I find Serena completely uninteresting and off putting as a person, there is something so phony and angry about her at the same time. Sharapova is pretty and very talented, I have watched some women's tennis and even enjoyed it on occassion. Its very rare, and again this post is only indirectly about woman's pay at slams. The US broadcasters and namely ESPN and the other networks just do a terrible job of covering events and usually find away to show you poorer and less interesting product although the their job is the opposite. I will never get over how for example they push things like lumberjack contests, skinny japanese guys eating hot dogs, and fat 11 year olds playing baseball. If they captured hitler and Dr. Mengle they should force them to watch 12 years play each other in baseball. But hey like others have pointed out some people like this mindless trash, you can't legislate taste but for the love of god.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:....but just enough so that they know exactly what their place is.

In the kitchen, surely?  

Hardly, every woman I have dated for years I have been the better cook than, so the kitchen is out that leaves one room that you can't really do without them.

Right then, it's everyone over to socal's for dinner!

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:....but just enough so that they know exactly what their place is.

In the kitchen, surely?  

Hardly, every woman I have dated for years I have been the better cook than, so the kitchen is out that leaves one room that you can't really do without them.

Yeah, I hate cleaning the bathroom too...  

JuliusHMarx wrote:Presumably the US TV stations are showing the women's matches in order to maximise their revenue? I.e. they expect more people to watch the women's matches than the men's?
That may be because the women they are showing are American, and they haven't got any American men to show, but it's an indicator of where they think the revenue for them lies this week at the US Open - with the women.

I am not sure about it, Sock is a big talking point among the locals, Isner a great guy and a never say die player but somehow his tennis doesn't attract many fans eventhough he is the no.1 local player but he still has some fan base, so far the league stage of the slam is so boring, we had great first few rounds in the other slams, like Wawrinka, Chardy rise in AO, Monfils, Gulbis, Robredo in FO, Darcis, Sergy, Jerry and Del Po rise in Wimbledon, but USO so far is boring as the top dogs marching without much of a fight from the lower ranked counter parts.

So yes for the moment the WTA competition levels of the underdogs are better than ATP in this slam and may be thats the reason USTA gets more coverage of ladies tennis.

lydian wrote:No HE, but lets say the men's and women's events were played in separate stadium on opposite sides of town. Do you think the women's game would pay the same then?

On the previous point, why not let the men play Bo3 sets in slams to earn the same money? They're having to bust a gut for longer to earn the same. The training all your life point isn't relevant.

Thats bordering on sexism, not intentional I'm sure, but why should a woman be relegated to a back street stadium as historically, opposites sides of town are up and down or rich and poor and the men will always play in the prestigious part of a city. In answer to your last point, the WTA have said that they don't mind and would like to play 5 sets in slams. Do you think women are not able to last 5 sets Lydian ? as a curious aside.

Meanwhile.......Lets not forget that its not pay peeps, its prizemoney, and as such does not guarantee payment/wages/salary if you don't win, as HE says, a womans career in tennis is just as justifiably important as a mans career given the intensity and dedication needed to succeed, but in the end, its not up to us to bemoan the amount of prizemoney at stake, thats down to the organisers and if they really felt the WTA was not worth the money, believe me, what with media interference, sponsorship contracts and TV air time, they'd be paid a pittance if they could get away with it.

I also agree with socals point about false impartiality and broadcasting bias. We get it here a lot on the news and in the political hot bed of hidden agendas and mis-representations of facts in the papers. Its all to do with feeding the masses with sugar sweet and bitter pill feeds so we remain pliable and content that important people know what they're doing.

Personally, I'm sick of turning on the TV to another *** fat ***** Wedding or *** Brother or "a day in the life of a pond skimmer" more colloquially known as "voyeuristic sit on your 4rse and see if your life is as exciting as everybody elses"

JubbaIsle wrote:Meanwhile.......Lets not forget that its not pay peeps, its prizemoney

Exactly. So the only measure of what is 'fair' is the % of money generated that gets awarded as prize money.

If the men's and women's events generate the same amount of money for the organisers, then it is right that they get the same prize money. BO5 v BO3 doesn't come into it.

If however, one tour is generating more money but getting the same prize money, then that is clearly unfair. Why do they get a lesser share of what they generate?

Lydian's point about separate events is nothing to do with location. It's a about whether the women would generate as much as the men if their event was held separately.

HM Murdoch wrote:

If the men's and women's events generate the same amount of money for the organisers, then it is right that they get the same prize money. BO5 v BO3 doesn't come into it.

If however, one tour is generating more money but getting the same prize money, then that is clearly unfair. Why do they get a lesser share of what they generate?

Lydian's point about separate events is nothing to do with location. It's a about whether the women would generate as much as the men if their event was held separately.

The big money in tennis is generated by the stars whether they be male or female. The big stars are Federer, Nadal, Sharapova and Serena. They are the only players who guarantee big crowds even in early rounds. Their presence can make a tournament and they can earn more just to show up than they do in prize money. In some ways all the other players are piggy backing off them. You don't have to wonder if the rest of the tour would make or indeed have made as much money without them because they wouldn't. They are the ones who have made this age "golden" and the others are just sharing the spoils...

So if some male player doesn't get prime time TV or a chance to play on the big stadium because of Serena he should be grateful. She is having to earn the money by entertaining millions and he gets to have a share. Even if he only has to entertain his coach, his mum and the spectators that couldn't get tickets for the main court.

Got any statistics to back that up Hawkeye? I'd be fairly certain that if you stuck Serena v Maria on one court and Djokovic v Del Potro on another then most tennis fans would be watching the men's match.

Jubba, you jump to too many extrapolations in what I'm saying. HMM and BS state what I'm saying. Its got nothing to do with sexism in terms of bias but the innate difference between the popularity of sports played by the sexes. But there are 2 points here relating to the pay discussion... fitness and popularity

Of course women can last 5 sets when they can run marathons in 2:30, that's my point! Why make the men play that long for 1.5m winners cheque when the women don't have to. Plus a 6-1 6-1 50min women's final is poor value for money. The current short format in womens tennis results in loads of women who are nowhere near as fit as their male counterparts. Poor women's matches and finals is another reason why popularity suffers. Too many women just cant cut it on fitness and strength terms against those nearer the top of the game. The gap isn't the same on the mens side.

On the popularity front, equality is all well and good but the reality is that just about every sport you can think of has more following for the male competitors than the women. Part of this is that in my opinion more men than women follow and play sport...I don't have stats on that but I see it everywhere inc. junior tennis events I attend weekly!

What nonsense HE!

"So if some male player doesn't get prime time tv or the chance to play on the big stadium because of Serena he should be grateful.".... Wonder what you're alluding to here?

Djokovic and Murray "piggy-backed" to the most watched US open final in 5 years last September! Not a Serena, Maria, Rafa or Roger in sight.

Roger and Rafa are legends. Tennis as a sport has been so much richer because of them. Most people respect that, but you seem to want it to go further... You want everyone else to bow down and worship them! Even their rivals!

But I thank you... I do like to start my Saturdays with a healthy portion of nonsense. You have helped immensely.

In terms of entertainment, it's not as clear cut as men v women. I'd rather watch Serena, Maria, Aggie or Sabine than Granollers, Simone, Raonic or Nishikori.

I'd say though that the top men can provide a level of entertainment higher than the top women. The extra strength, speed and power means the game can go places it simply can't go between the women.

I find a good women's match exciting. I find a good men's match thrilling.

Born Slippy wrote:Got any statistics to back that up Hawkeye? I'd be fairly certain that if you stuck Serena v Maria on one court and Djokovic v Del Potro on another then most tennis fans would be watching the men's match.

Rubish! If both these matches were played at the same time Serena v Maria would get the prime spot and for good reasons. You may not agree and I'm not saying Djokovic v Del Potro isn't a good match up but that's how it is.

As for evidence it's all there for everyone to see. Who gets top billing, who has the big sponsorship deals, who makes more off court than on court, who is most talked about throughout the world, who are the names that not just crazy tennis fans like us but the general public associate with tennis? And why does the number one male player in the world feel the need to do dance routines after his matches in an effort to keep up?

We may not talk about it here but one of the most anticipated matches of the US Open will take place in the Womens quarter finals. Only Fedal would take court preference over that...

what match is that, HE? No sarcasm, I just have no idea what the womens draw looks like

Serena Williams V Sloane Stephens

Oh... thanks CC. But then Id imagine Hewitt vs Tomic would also get Rod Laver in Australia, while Monfils vs Stephane Robert would get Chartier... All of these probably have the *In the event a Fedal match doesnt run concurrently footnote. Nationalism sells.

kingraf wrote:Oh... thanks CC.  But then Id imagine Hewitt vs Tomic would also get Rod Laver in Australia, while Monfils vs Stephane Robert would get Chartier... All of these probably have the *In the event a Fedal match doesnt run concurrently footnote. Nationalism sells.

Actually eeventhough I agree Nationalism sells, but I find it akward how people could enjoy two players of the same nation competing against each other in early rounds? I certainly didn't know whom to support when Posp and Raonic faced each other in Montreal, I generally avoid those kinda matches, I would rather watch one of these take another opponent rather than take on same country men, it certainly doesn't bring any pleasure for me.

My view is Blake- Djoko, Isner -Djoko would attract more US crowd than Blake -Isner match.

invisiblecoolers wrote:My view is Blake- Djoko, Isner -Djoko would attract more US crowd than Blake -Isner match.

I doubt that is true.

I personally feel the same as you - I like it best when one of my favorites plays against someone I do not like so much (hence I like having Rafa around even though I am not a fan, to say the least ).

But, even though I do not remember any hard data, I think I have seen fair number of statistics across various sports that suggest that typically the home crowd likes watching two home players (or home teams) play.

My thoughts on the "equal pay" in tennis:

1. Men's and women's tennis are two separate products and there is no reason for them to pay the same.  If women and men played in the same competition and the winner's check was "$2 million if a man wins, and $1 million if a woman wins", that would be unequal pay.

2. Either men's or women's tennis can in principle be the better paying one, depending on the popularity of the respective products.  Considerations such as the number of sets played or effort put into becoming a top player are irrelevant.

3.   As it happens, men's tennis is (currently) more popular.  However, the difference is relatively small so that - if paid purely on economic considerations - slams would pay men more than women, but not so much more as to make the two numbers orders of magnitude different.  This would result in the perception of "unequal pay" and given our society's view on such things, it is ultimately simpler for the organizers to pay men and women the same rather than to try to pay them based purely on the economics of the sport.

Note that tennis is a rare sport where this issue even comes up.

First, there are not many sports where men and women play in co-ed events (albeit in separate competitions).  

Also, in the vast majority of the sports, the difference between the popularity in the men's and women's games is such that paying both genders same is out of the question.  The aforementioned Forbes list of top 100 grossing athletes has 6 tennis players - three men and three women.  This also indicates that in tennis there is relative parity in the earnings potential between men and women.  Outside tennis, it is not so.  There is not a single female non-tennis athlete on that list - all 94 non-tennis athletes are male.

I agree with points 1 and 2 SB. It does send a good political message which I'm glad tennis can do but there is no inherent reason why the ladies tour should get the same pay. The whole situation is inherently unequal as they are segregated into separate tours!

I think what annoys me though about the "equality" arguments which were ran by the likes of Venus was that they were self-servingly about money. As far as I can see, the fact the men play 5 sets and the ladies only 3 is just, if not more, sexist. What's the basis for it? Is it that the poor ladies aren't thought capable of playing 5 sets? Alternatively, is it because the men's product is regarded as better and therefore crowds want to see more? Both those reasons are inherently sexist and I can't think of any other reason for it. If the ladies were truly concerned about equality then they would be up in arms about it. Instead, they are perfectly content to pick up the money and also be able to play in the doubles to get even more cash.

lydian wrote:Jubba, you jump to too many extrapolations in what I'm saying. HMM and BS state what I'm saying. Its got nothing to do with sexism in terms of bias but the innate difference between the popularity of sports played by the sexes. But there are 2 points here relating to the pay discussion... fitness and popularity !

Sorry,was drawn towards the "opposite" sides string.

The analogy is moot but fair as a comparison, but you'd be asking to split the punters between their choices and some are not either men or women fanatical watchers. Most like to see both sexes play during a tournament. If you did go that way, I'd say that you'd get a slight bias towards the men if it came down to who want to get the best out out of their experience watching an Open tournie.

My wife only watches Nadal if he's on, but prefers to see Robson, Serena or Azarenka, to name a few women players, instead. but not all, as she hates the screaming lol.

So for us, wife to womens tournie and me to the mens. But I'd hate to make the choice because I know some mens matches are very tedious and some women's games are thrilling, esp watching Robson and Watson play.

Maybe someone could put up a poll to see what the trend would be, although men outweigh the women on here, so a fair degree of stat manipulaton would be needed.

Im not actually fussed with the equal pay issue. The main reason is... they havent taken mens prize money to give to the women. The men are still receiving inflation-smashing hikes in earnings. Complaining about the women, from a purely financial POV, sounds like a moan in the "why should they also get rich from this?" sense.

Im probably a bigger fan of female sport than most, I've watched all of Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce's races this year, and I make an effort to watch the WNBA, and female college NCAA. Saying the women deserve less because they are on court less is ridiculous, I think Bolt comfortably out-earns Steohen Kiprotich, and Bolt's career time on track probably doesnt equal one racetime Kiprotich has run...

I have no problem with the women not being able to match the men physically, its the skillset divide that does me in. The slice seems to have been beaten out of these girls, while any tour that can count Serena Williams' two handed hammer impersonation as its best volley has serious problems. Ten minutes into his quest for a second USO, Nadal hit a overhead which I gurantee wont be seen on the WTA highlight package from 2000-2013.

My only other issue is that winning a Female Slam is physiologically easier than winning a Tier I. Serena played six games in seven days to win Charleston, but will only play one more in fourteen to win here. To me it makes the jump in winning Italia, to winning, say, Wimbledon, a mental one.

kingraf wrote:

Im probably a bigger fan of female sport than most, I've watched all of Shelly Ann Fraser-Pryce's races this year, and I make an effort to watch the WNBA, and female college NCAA. Saying the women deserve less because they are on court less is ridiculous, I think Bolt comfortably out-earns Steohen Kiprotich, and Bolt's career time on track probably doesnt equal one racetime Kiprotich has run...

Interesting as Usain Bolt gets the same prize for winning a diamond league race (or any race) as the winner of the shot putt or 5000m (of either gender).

Surely people should be incredibly angry about this, as it's Bolt who brings in a massive chunk of the interest into athletics?

Oh wait, he earns his money through endorsements as do the tennis players, these endorsements and appearance fees are what make the popular players/athletes rich, not the prize-money (I notice people still insist on saying 'pay', because it's a more emotive word when it comes to inequality.)

hawkeye wrote:
We may not talk about it here but one of the most anticipated matches of the US Open will take place in the Womens quarter finals. Only Fedal would take court preference over that...

Genuinely have no idea what match you are referring to. As far as I can see, the best women's QF is likely to be Li Na v Radwanska. The other projected matches all look incredibly one-sided and dull. I suspect if we held a poll all four men's projected QFs would be regarded as more interesting.[/quote]

Born Slippy wrote:

Genuinely have no idea what match you are referring to. As far as I can see, the best women's QF is likely to be Li Na v Radwanska. The other projected matches all look incredibly one-sided and dull. I suspect if we held a poll all four men's projected QFs would be regarded as more interesting.

[/quote]
Are you suggesting that most matches involving 'the big four' in the men's draw aren't one sided and dull up to about the quarter final stage?

Nope, personally I think it's laughable that Novak is the night match on Ashe tomorrow. I'd be gutted if I'd paid to watch that. Jankovic v Li Na on the other hand should be a good match.

However, I'd suggest that the average men's match tends to be of higher quality and more competitive. I'd also suggest that the average men's match throughout the tournament generates more overall interest than the female equivalent.

As I've said above, I think it's a good political statement to have equal prize money and your sarcastic post above was correct - paying the ladies a fraction less than the men did have the look of keeping "them in their place". My only real issue is with those who suggest that women should be "paid" equally as a matter of right (in tennis I hasten to add rather than generally in the workplace where there is no debate).

Born Slippy wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
We may not talk about it here but one of the most anticipated matches of the US Open will take place in the Womens quarter finals. Only Fedal would take court preference over that...

Genuinely have no idea what match you are referring to. As far as I can see, the best women's QF is likely to be Li Na v Radwanska. The other projected matches all look incredibly one-sided and dull. I suspect if we held a poll all four men's projected QFs would be regarded as more interesting.

Do you really not know which match I'm referring to? If not I'll give you a little test. Try and find out and also try and figure out why this match is so anticipated. I'll give you a clue people don't want to watch it to see who will hit the ball hardest and they won't care that it will be the best of three sets.

Williams vs Stephens is a R16 tie, I just found out

hawkeye wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
We may not talk about it here but one of the most anticipated matches of the US Open will take place in the Womens quarter finals. Only Fedal would take court preference over that...

Genuinely have no idea what match you are referring to. As far as I can see, the best women's QF is likely to be Li Na v Radwanska. The other projected matches all look incredibly one-sided and dull. I suspect if we held a poll all four men's projected QFs would be regarded as more interesting.

Do you really not know which match I'm referring to? If not I'll give you a little test. Try and find out and also try and figure out why this match is so anticipated. I'll give you a clue people don't want to watch it to see who will hit the ball hardest and they won't care that it will be the best of three sets.

The only match you can possibly be referring to is Serena v Stephens. However, that isn't a QF. If you are actually referring to a QF I remain completely perplexed.

Serena v Stephens is an interesting match. WN1 v rising star, two Americans and they've had a nice cat fight. Of course, the reality is that unless Serena gets injured again she will crush Stephens, who simply isn't close to her level yet. That said, an equivalent men's match, let's say Sampras v an upcoming Roddick a few years back would be a bigger draw.

^ You are correct it is a fourth round match. I'll give you extra points for spotting it despite me thinking it was a quarter  Now I understand that you weren't just being dismissive of women's tennis as I thought so sorry for the miss-understanding.

I never watched Men's tennis during the Sampras years it was way too Zzzzz so I don't know if the example you gave about him playing Roddick really took place. If it did then yes it would be the equivalent. But I'm afraid that despite understanding the interest it's not something I personally would have chosen to watch... Zzzzz.... I hope that's not being too sexist to admit this?

hawkeye wrote:so sorry for the miss-understanding.

Surely you meant Ms-understanding?