Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Us Open Final To Be Broadcast Live On Channel 4
https:/
Assuming Emma and Leylah play anything close to how they have through this fortnight, this could be a classic! Not to be missed.
Assuming Emma and Leylah play anything close to how they have through this fortnight, this could be a classic! Not to be missed.
Answers
Ken
By the way, 'Emma' this, and 'Emma' that. Yet always 'Fernandez'. Can't even be bothered to show a great player the respect she deserves
Leylah was not great in the way that she complained to the referee about the injury stoppage and I believe used it as an excuse to try and unsettle Emma
No need to be so vocal directly in front of your opponent
It was pure gamesmanship and her sucking up to the US crowd did not detract from that
By the way, 'Emma' this, and 'Emma' that. Yet always 'Fernandez'. Can't even be bothered to show a great player the respect she deserves
Leylah was not great in the way that she complained to the referee about the injury stoppage and I believe used it as an excuse to try and unsettle Emma
No need to be so vocal directly in front of your opponent
It was pure gamesmanship and her sucking up to the US crowd did not detract from that
Does the fact that Ms Raducanu progressed to the title with such apparent ease highlight the paucity of talent in women's tennis at present? I mean how can these so called top flight players take not even a single set from her - it beggars belief.
And for a woman getting the same pay as a man for an easy two set win against a possible 5 set grinder in the men's game is not equality for women - it's inequality for men!
And for a woman getting the same pay as a man for an easy two set win against a possible 5 set grinder in the men's game is not equality for women - it's inequality for men!
//And for a woman getting the same pay as a man..//
You've started me off, dave!
The equality in prize money in tennis is one of the great travesties of our time. I have the match Stats for Wimbledon going back a number of years. Men consistently play between 60% and 70% of the games and sets and occupy the courts, on average, for getting on for 50% longer than the women. Whilst you get some good ladies' matches (and last night's was one of them) generally the standard of play is simply not in the same league. I've heard the argument that the ladies train and practice just as hard and that may well be true. But the same can be said of many players at every level. The crowd and the TV pay to see the matches, not the training.
There is a simple way to deal with it. The Men's and Ladies' competitions should be held in separate weeks and the prize money determined by the number of bums on seats and how much the TV companies are prepared to pay.
That said, last night saw an excellent match (I returned home halfway through the first set) and congratulations to both players for putting on s fine show.
You've started me off, dave!
The equality in prize money in tennis is one of the great travesties of our time. I have the match Stats for Wimbledon going back a number of years. Men consistently play between 60% and 70% of the games and sets and occupy the courts, on average, for getting on for 50% longer than the women. Whilst you get some good ladies' matches (and last night's was one of them) generally the standard of play is simply not in the same league. I've heard the argument that the ladies train and practice just as hard and that may well be true. But the same can be said of many players at every level. The crowd and the TV pay to see the matches, not the training.
There is a simple way to deal with it. The Men's and Ladies' competitions should be held in separate weeks and the prize money determined by the number of bums on seats and how much the TV companies are prepared to pay.
That said, last night saw an excellent match (I returned home halfway through the first set) and congratulations to both players for putting on s fine show.
Davebro, the highest positioned player Emma Raducanu beat on her way to the title was 12th ranked Belinda Bencic. The rest were ranked in the 40s and below. Leylah Fernandez was the player who was knocking top seeds out; Osaka (3), Svitolina (5) and Sabalenka (2).
I have read that winning the US Open would elevate Raducanu from 322 at the beginning of the year all the way up to 23. No doubt Fernandez has also jumped from her pre-tournament 73.
I have read that winning the US Open would elevate Raducanu from 322 at the beginning of the year all the way up to 23. No doubt Fernandez has also jumped from her pre-tournament 73.
ael, i hope he doesn't lose the first two sets tonight. I have a free fiver on him to win 3-2 @ 5/1, but i doubt even the best player in the world could come back from 2 down against someone of Daniil Medvedev's undoubted ability. I hope it goes; 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2 then a 6-0 closing set for the Djokoman :-))
The flaw in the equal-pay argument is to think that players are (a) "paid" at all -- it's prize money, not a salary, and (b) to think of sets as the important unit. They are not. The unit that matters is only the match. Raducanu has won the same number of matches as tonight's men's Slam winner. Three more, in fact.
If sets were the unit of pay, then prize money should also be made non-equal between men who win in straights, as opposed to those who come through an actual five-setter. But, of course, that argument will never gain traction, because it's stupid. It's equally wrong, then, to reward certain people more money just because they can play a hypothetically longer match, whether they do or not.
Now, having said that, I'd not mind seeing five-setter matches between women. It's happened before, there's no physical barrier. Arguably the only thing missing from tonight's final was more of it, it was so high-quality and I'm sure many would have loved to see the players battling out for at least another set. One revamp that I think is worth considering for slams, especially since scheduling is probably one reason why matches are being made shorter across the board, would be to have first-week matches all reduced to best-of-three, and second-week matches (4R and later) all extended to best-of-five. That way, you address the scheduling problem in the first week, when you have to fit 200-odd matches in across four days (even ignoring the doubles), but also keep the dynamic longer matches that have the potential to ebb and flow, and indeed expand it. In terms of quality, some of the matches in the women's draw, especially through Fernandez's run, were among the most thrilling I've seen in a long time.
If sets were the unit of pay, then prize money should also be made non-equal between men who win in straights, as opposed to those who come through an actual five-setter. But, of course, that argument will never gain traction, because it's stupid. It's equally wrong, then, to reward certain people more money just because they can play a hypothetically longer match, whether they do or not.
Now, having said that, I'd not mind seeing five-setter matches between women. It's happened before, there's no physical barrier. Arguably the only thing missing from tonight's final was more of it, it was so high-quality and I'm sure many would have loved to see the players battling out for at least another set. One revamp that I think is worth considering for slams, especially since scheduling is probably one reason why matches are being made shorter across the board, would be to have first-week matches all reduced to best-of-three, and second-week matches (4R and later) all extended to best-of-five. That way, you address the scheduling problem in the first week, when you have to fit 200-odd matches in across four days (even ignoring the doubles), but also keep the dynamic longer matches that have the potential to ebb and flow, and indeed expand it. In terms of quality, some of the matches in the women's draw, especially through Fernandez's run, were among the most thrilling I've seen in a long time.
// Ken, I believe Leylah is up into the top 20 now. A win would've put her in the top 10. The new rankings are out tomorrow.//
Leylah will be 28th tomorrow, in fact, and Emma Raducanu 23rd.
Although the link below is not official, it allows you to track rankings, probably easier than through the WTA/ATP sites, before they are published. Also has useful info about players' schedules, their performance in titles, and the coming changes to their ranking over the next five weeks (assuming no points gained), so that you can see what a player has to defend. And, it has links to highlights of many recent matches.
https:/
Leylah will be 28th tomorrow, in fact, and Emma Raducanu 23rd.
Although the link below is not official, it allows you to track rankings, probably easier than through the WTA/ATP sites, before they are published. Also has useful info about players' schedules, their performance in titles, and the coming changes to their ranking over the next five weeks (assuming no points gained), so that you can see what a player has to defend. And, it has links to highlights of many recent matches.
https:/
No worries! I've been tracking things via that site for maybe as long as ten years. Certainly since around 2012. As to Emma, I've kept an eye on her performance and ranking potential since Wimbledon, although of course what happened this fortnight was beyond anything I could possibly have expected. I was so excited just over a week ago when I saw that she was one match win away from breaking the Top 100, so frustrated when I saw that even reaching the semi wasn't enough to break the Top 50, and just staggered that she broke both of those milestones in a matter of days.
She got to a live ranking of 100, incidentally, after the Sorribes Tormo match. That one was particularly memorable. I had already been pleased to see Emma make it to the 3R to back up her Wimbledon run, and decided that it was going to be too tense to watch that match knowing what was at stake. So I put the Nishikori-Djokovic match on, then flicked over to check Emma's score after the first set with some trepidation, and was completely stunned to see she'd won it 6-0.
She got to a live ranking of 100, incidentally, after the Sorribes Tormo match. That one was particularly memorable. I had already been pleased to see Emma make it to the 3R to back up her Wimbledon run, and decided that it was going to be too tense to watch that match knowing what was at stake. So I put the Nishikori-Djokovic match on, then flicked over to check Emma's score after the first set with some trepidation, and was completely stunned to see she'd won it 6-0.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Business & Finance1 min ago
Radio Times Wordfinder Week 51
Crosswords8 mins ago
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.