h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Om a slightly lighter note than rcent threads,

Should the Men at Wimbledon this year play "best of three sets" instead of five?

After all, if you looked at simply the number of sets needed to win a match, then the Ladies are going to get 50% more cash than the Men.

A simplistic view perhaps, but a comment on the two amounts of effort required. Just think of it, no more boring 4 and 5 set marathons. the chance to shorten the whole tournament, or at least get more matches finished between the showers.

Novo

they aren't paid for the effort though, are they? They are paid for the number of bums on seats they bring in and the advertising revenue they bring in.

So there's no reason not to pay women the same.

Anyway, I notice it's usually men saying that women should now play best of 5 - it hurts when pay parity doesn't suit, doesn't it?

"They are paid for the number of bums on seats they bring in and the advertising revenue they bring in."

Mens tennis is far more watched so is that is the reason they should get paid more.

I don't know the figures, and frankly I care less (since I subscribe to the "overpaid primadonna" school of thought when it comes to sports stars) but I wonder why there is so much fuss about this?

I keep hearing and seeing so many arguments about it, and for me it boils down to people being peeved that women are (at last) getting a fair crack at the money whip.

*ducks and *

Hello Sho

Perhaps you didn't spot the tongue in cheek symbol at the end of my post?

Even so, a fair crack of the money whip 'ought' to mean an equivalence of some factor, be it bums on seats, advertising or whatever, not the same prize for 66% of the work required?

Novo

sorry, I didn't notice

to be honest, I think players ought to be paid according to the number of points they win. With players like Sharapova having $1000 deducted for every loud grunt

If they were to be paid according to the number of sets, that would mean an ace player despatching an oponent in only 3 sets would earn less than a pair more evenly matched who run to 5 sets. I've noticed that the end scores often don't reflect the length & intensity of the fight for each point.

There's no really fair system. I do like the idea of deductions for grunts though!

maybe they should be paid by set then?
or length of time (oh no! then we'd get those bloomin' baseline ralleys that Tracy Austin and Chris Evert used to do. Good for insomnia but not much else

Novo

Just as a matter of interest do you pay more money to see a three hour bum-number like Lord of the Rings at the cinema than you do to see a really good 2 hour movie like Hot Fuzz?

I mean really I could care less about this as tennis is only slightly less inducing than golf, but I can't think of a good reason why Wimbledon should be the only tournament not to pay equally.

I don't see any reason why everyone shouldn't play equal numbers of sets.

How often do 5-set matches actually change lead in the final 2 sets?
If it's a significant amount of the time, would that mean that best-of-5 is actually a more accurate measure of relative quality than best-of-3?
If it's only very rare, why should anyone bother playing 5 sets?

Best of 5 was unofficially tested for womens and basically found that it produced a bigger difference between the very top and the rest as most women couldn't cope with the extra sets. Making the matches shorter would work for mens but I think at least that is would take some of the intrest away.

Hi Blues,

Actually Yes............because the The Lord of The Rings was a Trilogy, which meant I had to go three times. Same thing happened with Star Wars, except here were four than !

Novo

Sigsfried said //Best of 5 was unofficially tested for womens and basically found that it produced a bigger difference between the very top and the rest as most women couldn't cope with the extra sets //

Ah, that explains it. I always wondered why the women got away with only playing three sets.