Williams v Williams

[poliphilo]

It wasn't a great match. Williams v Williams never is. There were very few exciting passages of play- and once Venus's game started to sag in the second set there was little doubt about the outcome.

Afterwards the BBC commentators were saying how much better it would be if the women's final ran to 5 sets. I agree. Five sets might have allowed Venus to pick up form- as she seemed to be doing towards the end of the match- and give her sister a run for her money and the spectators something to cheer about.  I can't conceive of an argument against this that isn't sexist, insulting and/or plain wrong. The women get the same prize money as the men; let them do the same amount of work.

Comments

[ingenious76.livejournal.com]

The women's game has been dull-as-ditchwater for years. 20 years ago, it was the Seles/Graf axis, with the odd flash from Sabatini or Sanchez; then it was Graf vs Everyone else as Seles was injured. Pierce promised much, delivered little; Capriati promised much, delivered little; Kournikova promised little and delivered even less. Hingis had a couple of years, then the Williams juggernaut kicked in ten years ago. Women's tennis has always been the Odd Three At The Top And the Rest. Which is why thery don't deserve equal money, as there are too many who cannot and too few who can.

Men's tennis is far more unpredictable than women's - the top four seeds are not always guaranteed a safe passage to the top.