In the moments after Novak Djokovic crumpled to the ground, fists clenched and screaming to no one in particular, my first thought was that this was the greatest tennis match in history. I wasn’t alone.
Oh, how do you expect me to go on a proper shopping spree with a measly million bucks? Pic: Getty Images.
But my thoughts quickly turned to why the women’s game doesn’t produce epics like that. This is not to say that the women’s tennis is of poorer quality, or can’t produce incredible matches. It’s doesn’t mean women are weaker and can’t play gripping tennis. The best female tennis players in the world train just as hard and are as dedicated to their sport as any men. But their matches just don’t last as long.
Kim Clijsters’ three set win over Li Na in the fourth round was one of the best games of the last year. The shot-making and tension rivalled almost any match in the men’s draw. Yet as tightly contested as that match was, it still lasted only two hours and 23 minutes. The first two sets of the men’s final alone went for longer.
After matches like the one we witnessed in the men’s final, where two rivals battled each other to a standstill for six hours, it’s hard not to get caught up in the drama of it all. But what’s easy to overlook is that the Serb will be paid the exact same amount as Belarusian Victoria Azarenka, winner of the women’s singles title.
Along with the title of Australian Open champion they both receive the same $2.3 million dollar purse. Nadal and Djokovic’s final lasted five hours 52 minutes, Sharapova and Azarenka’s went for just under one and a half. There’s something wrong here.
Maria Sharapova receiving the same prize money as Rafael Nadal is almost a travesty. To think that a man who ran until his body nearly gave out at 2 o’clock in the morning will be rewarded with the same $1.15 million cheque as a former world number one who could only manage to win three games should make anyone cringe.
The Australian Open prides itself on the fact that it’s the richest Grand Slam, that its prize money is unrivalled in the sport and that the women’s tournament and the men’s tournament have equal prize money. Yet why should that final point be something we should hang our hats on.
The idea that everyone, regardless of gender, race or any other defining feature, should receive equal pay for equal isn’t up for debate. But to claim that the women’s tournament is equal in work to the men’s is easily dismissed.
A women’s match can’t last longer than three sets. A men’s match can’t be any shorter. Yet they’re both treated as requiring equal reward for effort. Certainly, most matches aren’t six hour epics. But just a quick glance at the 2012 tournament shows how far apart the workload was in the two draws.
Djokovic’s seven matches at Melbourne Park totalled 20 hours and 51 minutes, while runner-up Nadal was out there even longer. The Spaniard spent an incredible 22 hours and 26 minutes baking on Rod Laver Arena. Compare that to Azarenka’s 10 hours 24 minutes and Sharapova’s 10 hours 45 minutes and you can see just how much more work the men have to do over the two weeks.
The easiest way to solve this problem would be to just extend women’s Grand Slam matches to five sets. The matches still probably wouldn’t last as long but both Champions would have to win the same number of sets to claim the trophy.
Unfortunately this would create a new problem – women’s tennis isn’t as deep as the men’s game. The top contenders barely get troubled before the fourth round. The early rounds of the women’s tournament are already filled with enough one sided affairs to put even the most ardent fan to sleep.
This year there were 40 sets in the first round of the women’s tournament where one player won one or zero games. In the men’s tournament there were 41, but far more sets were played. Another 6-love smashing on a hapless teenager isn’t exactly going to create fan interest and it’s certainly not going to get the TV networks clamouring for a piece of the pie.
The solution? Simple. Women’s matches should be five sets, but the tournament size should be cut. The field should be reduced to 96 entrants, with the top 32 seeds all given a bye into the second round. You can even leave the prize money equal. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the status quo.
It may mean a few less Aussies get a chance to test themselves in a Grand Slam at a young age but it would mean better games earlier and for longer. Isn’t that what we all want?
Twitter: @markgottliebfox
NUP, I DON'T AGREE: Nicole Pratt argues the opposite on Fox Sports
http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/majors/stalwart-nicole-pratt-calls-for-ten...
No comments:
Post a Comment