Wimbledon 2017

Joe_ Public

Chivito550 wrote: »

Your second point has been dealt with by another poster so I won't repeat that. But on your first point. The women's world record for the 1500m (3:50.07) would be a good comparison to Serena (the greatest female tennis player in history). Well the 1000th fastest man last year over 1500m in the world was comfortably faster (3:48.36) than the fastest female mark in history. It honestly is no different in tennis. The sport just isn't measured by the clock so it allows people to bury their heads in the sand and talk nonsense based on no actual facts.

Sure, it's quite obvious female athletes can't compete with men, we probably don't need a barrage of statistics to arrive at that conclusion. I don't see why tennis has to be directly comparable, though. Actually, if you think about what McEnroe said, he implied that Williams would actually be capable of beating guys ranked around the 700s and lower, though whether she could will only ever be conjecture. I doubt there's much of an appetite to find out.

She did, of course, take on a male player a few years ago, who I think was ranked one hundred and something. She lost comfortably but wasn't trounced, so I dont see any reason why a guy 500 places lower down would do it. I doubt many of us are familiar with the standard of the ATP tour down in the 700s anyway, so we are really just making assumptions either way.

Chivito550

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sure, it's quite obvious female athletes can't compete with men, we probably don't need a barrage of statistics to arrive at that conclusion. I don't see why tennis has to be directly comparable, though. Actually, if you think about what McEnroe said, he implied that Williams would actually be capable of beating guys ranked around the 700s and lower, though whether she could will only ever be conjecture. I doubt there's much of an appetite to find out.

She did, of course, take on a male player a few years ago, who I think was ranked one hundred and something. She lost comfortably but wasn't trounced, so I dont see any reason why a guy 500 places lower down would do it. I doubt many of us are familiar with the standard of the ATP tour down in the 700s anyway, so we are really just making assumptions either way.

1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters Edit
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[51] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager".[52][53] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[54] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two beers. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[55] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun".[56] Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

Joe_ Public

Not bad for two teenagers against a hardened and decent pro I would say. Wouldn't be too hard on them for getting a bit carried away with themselves, the cockiness of youth and all that!

jr86

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not bad for two teenagers against a hardened and decent pro I would say. Wouldn't be too hard on them for getting a bit carried away with themselves, the cockiness of youth and all that!

Your man was smoking fags during each changeover!

RosyLily

Try keep on topic everyone. An issue like sexism and equality in sport probably deserves its own thread.

Thanks!

mickmackey1

I'm sure the likes of Naomi Campbell used get paid more iin her industry than the male equivalents, but you didn't hear the men droning on about it. FAKE TOPIC

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sure, it's quite obvious female athletes can't compete with men, we probably don't need a barrage of statistics to arrive at that conclusion. I don't see why tennis has to be directly comparable, though. Actually, if you think about what McEnroe said, he implied that Williams would actually be capable of beating guys ranked around the 700s and lower, though whether she could will only ever be conjecture. I doubt there's much of an appetite to find out.

She did, of course, take on a male player a few years ago, who I think was ranked one hundred and something. She lost comfortably but wasn't trounced, so I dont see any reason why a guy 500 places lower down would do it. I doubt many of us are familiar with the standard of the ATP tour down in the 700s anyway, so we are really just making assumptions either way.

Whatever about rankings If planet earth cannot find 700 males to beat the best women tennis players then planet earth is not recruiting enough males to play tennis...

NoviGlitzko

I love watching women's tennis and the support it gets over other female played sports is fantastic but I see the point of equal pay as a chance for using feminism to fatten their pocket (and it just had to be the Williams sisters harping on about it surprise, surprise). This isn't a workplace, it is about economics. They don't gather the same figures in viewers, ticket prices, and advertising money as the men, and they play less games, yet expect to pay the same. Nothing to do with sexism.

But then again I don't really care about this and if it keeps more people happy than not who am I to judge. Sorry to go off topic Rosy.

Thoughts on today's matches? I expect Cilic in 4 & Federer in 3 tight sets.

Halloween Jack

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I love watching women's tennis and the support it gets over other female played sports is fantastic but I see the point of equal pay as a chance for using feminism to fatten their pocket (and it just had to be the Williams sisters harping on about it surprise, surprise). This isn't a workplace, it is about economics. They don't gather the same figures in viewers, ticket prices, and advertising money as the men, and they play less games, yet expect to pay the same. Nothing to do with sexism.

But then again I don't really care about this and if it keeps more people happy than not who am I to judge. Sorry to go off topic Rosy.

Thoughts on today's matches? I expect Cilic in 4 & Federer in 3 tight sets.

The economics argument is a persuasive one for sure, I mean the reason tennis players earn vast multiples of what a squash player can earn is due to the fact that tennis brings a huge audience for tv networks sponsor etc.

Fed to win the title at a canter from here on...

lostcat

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Fed to win the title at a canter from here on...

likely, when he is playing this well only Djokovic seemed to be able to manhandle him..
still, if cillic wins easily today, I would only put the final 70/30 in favour of Federer.

I have nothing against the magnificence that is Federer playing tennis, but it is slightly disapointing from the fields point of view that no one is able to take a set off a 36 year old..

Dirty Dingus McGee

I'd like to see Querrey v Berdych in the final , it would be good to get a new grand slam winner, almost certainly not going to happen though.

I usually get sick of players continually winning in most sports but wouldn't begrudge Federer either as he's just so beautiful to watch that I think him winning all the time is actually good for the sport.

walshb

lostcat wrote: »

I have nothing against the magnificence that is Federer playing tennis, but it is slightly disapointing from the fields point of view that no one is able to take a set off a 36 year old..

But his age in this case really is just a number....Rogers brilliance was always much more to do with his tennis talent as opposed to his physical prime...

He is still playing superb tennis, as well as being a stunningly all round brilliant player.

I think Venus going well at her career stage is a bigger mystery...

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

But his age in this case really is just a number....Rogers brilliance was always much more to do with his tennis talent as opposed to his physical prime...

He is still playing superb tennis, as well as being a stunningly all round brilliant player.

I think Venus going well at her career stage is a bigger mystery...

Venus wasn't putting her heart and soul into tennis for the guts of 10 years. She suddenly has got motivated again, and having not exerted herself hugely in recent years, has a fresh body to work with in spite of her age.

That's my theory.

The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman

Venus has Sjogren's Syndrome though which definitely had an effect on her for a number of years.

Her success at the moment for me looks down to her power and her fitness, she slimmed down lost muscle mass but managed to retain most of her power and her speed.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Venus wasn't putting her heart and soul into tennis for the guts of 10 years. She suddenly has got motivated again, and having not exerted herself hugely in recent years, has a fresh body to work with in spite of her age.

That's my theory.

Agreed, I guess. Another great athlete who can play. Plus, the women's game for me is just so up and down that Venus, even at this late stage in her career has the movement and athleticism to compete. That is all that is needed really. Her tennis shots and use of the racket is still there.

lostcat

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I usually get sick of players continually winning in most sports but wouldn't begrudge Federer either as he's just so beautiful to watch that I think him winning all the time is actually good for the sport.

can't agree, I think people may have gotten rather tired of it ten years ago if Federer was basically winning everything, except Nadal came along. the rivalry between two compelling individuals was key in the rise in popularity of mens tennis at that time. this was added to in due course by Djokovic who even if most people don't especially like him, increased the competiton at the highest level for a few years.

competitive sport shouldn't be a procession, otherwise it loses what makes it compelling in the first place. can you really say that if Nadal and Djokovic hadnt developed as they have, that we would still be interested in Federer winning slam number 37 against whatshisface? I doubt it.

On the other hand, I don't watch much womens tennis as due to the inconsistency of the players I cant work out who is good from week to week.

if someone beats Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, its a benchmark. If someone beats Kerber/Radawanska/Whomever, i can't calibrate it and so lose interest.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

But his age in this case really is just a number....Rogers brilliance was always much more to do with his tennis talent as opposed to his physical prime...

He is still playing superb tennis, as well as being a stunningly all round brilliant player.

I think Venus going well at her career stage is a bigger mystery...

Think people downplay federer' physical gifts myself, hardly an injury until deep into his 30's while duking it out with 3 very physical back of the court sloggers who were all much younger. I mean remember the semi here last year and the absolute shock when his body failed him and he tumbled to the turf? There were reams of news print written about it

Dirty Dingus McGee

lostcat wrote: »

can't agree, I think people may have gotten rather tired of it ten years ago if Federer was basically winning everything, except Nadal came along. the rivalry between two compelling individuals was key in the rise in popularity of mens tennis at that time. this was added to in due course by Djokovic who even if most people don't especially like him, increased the competiton at the highest level for a few years.

competitive sport shouldn't be a procession, otherwise it loses what makes it compelling in the first place. can you really say that if Nadal and Djokovic hadnt developed as they have, that we would still be interested in Federer winning slam number 37 against whatshisface? I doubt it.

On the other hand, I don't watch much womens tennis as due to the inconsistency of the players I cant work out who is good from week to week.

if someone beats Federer/Nadal/Djokovic, its a benchmark. If someone beats Kerber/Radawanska/Whomever, i can't calibrate it and so lose interest.

I don't want it to be a procession for him either it's the fact that he's had genuine rivalry from 2 all time greats that makes him so unbelievably great and makes it so good that he is doing so well again.The rivalry between the big 3 has made the sport great over the last 10 years or so and I'd rather genuine great players were winning a large chunk of majors than seeing a bunch of players below that level win (as has happened in the womens game).Maybe my line winning all the time was overstating it but I like seeing him being in contention all the time and I think because he's so good to watch him winning is more tolerable than a less aesthetically pleasing player winning.

Hector Savage

Listening to Wimbledon radio, they are saying Williams skill is similar to Federer - now I hope they are being relative here to both their games and not literally comparing them - but with the ultra ultra PC world we live in who knows ?

walshb

Hector Savage wrote: »

Listening to Wimbledon radio, they are saying Williams skill is similar to Federer - now I hope they are being relative here to both their games and not literally comparing them - but with the ultra ultra PC world we live in who knows ?

I personally think Serena is poor to watch from a beautiful aspect...her success is mostly athleticism and power

Venus similar....

Skills with a racket and how they do it? Not for me..

Larbre34

Just cant be dealing with Inverdale.

MisterAnarchy

The first 3 sets of the first mens semi has lasted longer than both womens semi finals yesterday combined.
Pretty good match .

you'd have to fancy Federer in a tie-break due to his better all-around ability.

surely no way back for Berdych now. Unless Cilic comes up with something special it's another Wimbledon title for the collection.

Hector Savage

I feel sorry for Berdych, there is nothing he can do, Federer just too good - and he's not even playing his best!
He needs to bring his A game v Cilic.

Hector Savage

Is Rod Laver crying ? thats twice now it looks like hes been crying ... hay fever ?

mickmackey1

Surprised how much fear there seems to be of Cilic - I've seen him throw in numerous unforced errors at crucial stages which have cost him sets in this tournament. If he does the same against Rog, he's goosed. Yes we all know he can beat anyone with his absolute A game, but how likely is he to produce that in a Wimby final? He couldn't even beat the geriatric Lopez in the Queens final, and playing against Nishikori in a slam decider is a lot different from what he faces on Sunday imo.

NoviGlitzko

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Surprised how much fear there seems to be of Cilic - I've seen him throw in numerous unforced errors at crucial stages which have cost him sets in this tournament. If he does the same against Rog, he's goosed. Yes we all know he can beat anyone with his absolute A game, but how likely is he to produce that in a Wimby final? He couldn't even beat the geriatric Lopez in the Queens final, and playing against Nishikori in a slam decider is a lot different from what he faces on Sunday imo.

I think the final is going to 5 sets. I predicted a Cilic - Fec final when I seen the draw. He is the one player who offers the most threat to Roger out of everyone in Wimbly. I see Roger just edging it.

NoviGlitzko

Hahah did anyone catch this with Kim Clijsters? Brilliant

AllForIt

I can't see Cilic winning. Berydych didn't do too much wrong today and he was still beaten in 3 sets. I expect another 3-0 to the Fed or maybe 3-1 if Cilic wins a tie breaker.

Something I seen on Twitter today. M.Cilic is the first player in Wimbledon history to reach the final of Wimbledon who has only Roman Numerals in his name.