Author Topic: Aberdeen Women  (Read 1217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Panda

  • Bench Warmer
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Rating: 8
Re: Aberdeen Women
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2020, 08:52:36 PM »
Eughhch. Who the fuck wants to read about their regimes when they're raining?


Yeh, it's more a conversation for grown ups rather than the likes of yourself.

Offline Tyrant

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9675
  • Rating: 119
Re: Aberdeen Women
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2020, 12:13:39 PM »
Interesting. That assumes that you pay people for time on court, which is quite a bizarre criteria. Would a big-hitter be downgraded because they win their points in one shot rather than a 20 point rally? Should a person who loses in 3 sets be paid the same as a woman for that particular game? Has length of game got anything to do with quality or entertainment? Given that average point time in the men's and women's game is broadly similar, do they move to a pay-per-point scheme? Or do they judge the entire game on its merit?

Correct. Agreed. Which is why I said absolutely nothing of the sort. ???


Also, women that play tennis do so as a full time job in the same way as a man does. I don't imagine that Andy Murray works any harder than Serena Williams just because one has to play a 5 setter as opposed to 3). The overwhelming point about tennis is that Grand Slam events are single tournaments for both men and women, they are not separate entities with separate audiences. In that regard, the "office" equivalent from your example is the tournament with the paying company being the LTA or whoever. Thus, there is a fairly good argument for pay to be the same (or based on some other criteria if that's your thing).

He 100% absolutely does work harder than any female on the circuit. I'd bet my house on that. But again that's not the point I'm making.

Where do we start with "But to pay female tennis players the same as male tennis players just isn't a fair reflection of the money in the game"? Is that true? Would Serena Williams be more of a draw than Thomas Berdych? Is it split evenly across Male/Female lines rather than top of each gender being the draw? Even Graff v Navratilova would have been a bigger draw than a hell of a lot of mens games at the time, so it's nae a modern thing either. Furthermore, how does that transpose to other sports? Should the huns and tims be given massively bigger shares of TV money because they are the bigger draw? I don't think you or I would argue for that. The point being that they're part of the same organisation or league, so each needs the other to continue that league or host a tournament (indeed, if you don't want pay-parity, then tennis should split into gender-specific tournaments). You have to also bear in mind that significant money is available to players outwith prize funds in tennis just as it is with teams in football. If a sponsor wants to pay the huns more money or Federer more money then they're absolutely within their rights to do so (unless yer faking it like Man City).


You could compare male and female rivalries all day but again that'd be missing the point. What I'm talking about is the money drawn by the WTA compared to the money drawn by the ATP. (The former being Women's tennis and the latter being Men's.) I don't have exact figures and although what the ladies are drawing has certainly increased (very much helped by the fact that Grand Slam tournaments have been paying equal prize money for years) what the men draw is still significantly higher. Why that is is a matter of opinion. Mine being that what the elite men serve up is significantly better than what the elite women do. And as such I can completely appreciate the argument of "fair" pay not necessarily being split 50/50 between men and women.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 7049
  • Rating: -199
Re: Aberdeen Women
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2020, 12:42:20 AM »
Watching USA v England just now and it's so bad and this is the best the women's game has to offer?

I guess the only attraction might be who are the least shit?

Terrible standard on show in the first women's game I've ever started watching. Half an hour in, I'll stay to HT but fucked wasting any more time on this. The She Believes cup? What the fuck's that about? Believe what?
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise