Radacanu
- Thread starter Jake
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Stunning - great talent and attitude
PerryGunn
Established Member
I still think it's wrong that the ladies get the same prize money as the men - not because of any sexist cr@p but because they only play 3 set matches.
It's a bit like being paid the same as a full timer when you only work 3 days a week.
Great match though and I look forward to seeing how she fares in future tournaments
RobinBHM
Established Member
I tend to think that the prize money is the reward for all the years of dedication, training, playing, practicing etc etc.
Abother way to look at is this: Tennis is an entertainment, that’s where the prize money comes from. If you go the cinema, whether the film is 2 hours long or 3 hours long, the price is the same.
entertainment isn’t valued by time
Richard_C
Established Member
On that basis, you might want to pay less for a 6-1 6-1 than a long tiebreak followed by a 7-5. Isner at Wimbledon in 2010 should have been paid a fortune.
If you listen to Handel 's messiah, there is a very prominent Timpani part, but only in the last 10 minutes. Would you pay the timpanist less than, say, the violas? Would you pay your dentist or a surgeon more because they are ham-fisted and take ages or would you pay a premium to the really good one who does it in half the time? Is a painting worth more because it took longer to paint? Would you pay winning F1 drivers less than others because, by definition, they are working for less time? Or a golfer who gets round in 67.much quicker than a 75.
(On court time is only a fraction of total tournament time anyway.)
I can see the argument, but it's results and audience that matter.
PerryGunn
Established Member
I'd be just as happy if the men got equality by only having to play 3 sets at the Slams - men and women only play 3 sets at other tournaments, it's just the 4 biggies that make them play 5 set matches
Cozzer
Established Member
Might as well start engraving that "Sports Personality of the Year" award now.
Well deserved, of course, but what a tedious programme that's become over the years....
Well deserved, of course, but what a tedious programme that's become over the years....
clogs
just can't decide
did I miss something.....?
oh, ball games again....
oh, ball games again....
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
You missed a young woman, a rank outsider just 3 months after finishing her 'A' levels, pull off perhaps the most improbable outcome to a sports tournament ever. Astonishing.
They pay the violas?
It's not a reward for endurance as it's a truism that males on the whole have more physical endurance than their female counterparts, it's about skill, which Emma has in spades.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Radacanu is now the hottest thing in tennis.
A remarkable win and she is rather attractive….I hope the new stress she will be under doesn’t ruin her career.
A remarkable win and she is rather attractive….I hope the new stress she will be under doesn’t ruin her career.
StephenArfer
Established Member
I'm not a tennis fan per se, but I admire sportsmen and women generally for their skill, motivation and tenacity. So, whilst I started to watch the Raducanu/Fernandez game from the start, it's unprecedented for me to watch a match all the way through. I usually get a general impression leave it and return to watch highlights later. Their match was so intense from the start that I couldn't get up or switch over. There was some bewildering play on both ends and nail-biting suspense towards the end when Raducanu dropped match points - Twice I think? I'm glad it ended in straight sets as I don't think my heart would stand it going the whole way.
I don't begrudge the womens' equality in tennis at all. Surely prize money (earnings) should be proportionate to the promoters benefit from entrance fees, media distribution and general public interest? I can't see that the men's tennis in recent years has overshadowed women's competition in these respects and certainly this match indicates exactly the opposite.
Don't get me started on premier league earnings!
I don't begrudge the womens' equality in tennis at all. Surely prize money (earnings) should be proportionate to the promoters benefit from entrance fees, media distribution and general public interest? I can't see that the men's tennis in recent years has overshadowed women's competition in these respects and certainly this match indicates exactly the opposite.
Don't get me started on premier league earnings!
I don't think it matters whether you like tennis, or even sport in general. It's always a pleasure to watch someone who is exceptionally good at what they do, whatever it may be.
Cozzer
Established Member
Oh, go on!
Have a rant! Let it go!
A few weeks ago it was revealed that "my" team - recently relegated to what's regarded as the third tier following the most miserable, inept season going - had a few players on...
27 grand a week.
Not Premier. Not even Championship. Currently mid-table of the next level down.
27 thousand pounds a week, whether they play or not.
Bloody ridiculous.
