Like I As I say, pointless. I wouldn't want to stand there trying to hit a ball as hard as they whack it, male or female.
I think there is a definite point to this. It proves yet again that men are stronger than women and always have a competitive advantage, which is something the trans lobby are constantly trying to deny. There is currently a male rugby player who is trying to overturn his ban on playing in a women's team, and the Washington Post today wrote a puff piece on a "trans woman" runner in the US. This runner ranked 900 as a male but after deciding he was a girl won championships. Of course it doesn't hurt women's tennis at all, women are not supposed to compete against men.
The whole situation in tennis is ridiculous. Women should not get the same prize money in tournaments where the men play 5 sets and the women only play 3. I have no problem with equal pay for equal work, but where else would women get as much for effectively working a 3 day week and men a 5 day week?
So we should pay them by the hour? People who get through all their matches in straight sets should get less than those who go to tiebreakers? The prize money is seen as a measure of how much the sport is valued, and to give less to women (as used to be the case) says that the women's sport is lesser than the men's. Of course a lot of people do believe that. Prizes are not the same thing as wages.
I'd take the opposite view the faster they get it over and done with the more they should get. Or receive a fee per match, but it reduces the more sets it requires. Football should be first goal wins.
Like in any sports it's the competitiveness that is important, so no matter what level we are talking about, we don't want to see a one sided match. Mens tennis in general seems to be far more competitive which is why people tend to prefer it. Both sexes play the same amount of sets for 44 weeks of the year, it's just the slams that differ.
Of the top ten highest paid female athletes, eight of them are tennis players. However, like the males, the bulk of those earnings comes from endorsements. Carlos Alcaraz total earnings for 2025 is estimated at $49million compared to Coco Gauff at $37million, I think both won 2 majors but Coco competed in 4 tournaments in 2025 compared to Carlos who competed in 9 tournaments. With elite tennis players, both sexes can earn huge amounts of money and will continue to do so many years after they retire.
Just let the women play best of 5 then the argument of equal pay would not come into it. Of course some men's matches may only go 3 sets but the potential is 5 at places like Wimbledon, (only tennis I tend to watch), so to use the old saying, let's have a level playing field.
They should make tennis best of 3 sets across the board, then it wouldn't go on for so long and they could get the annual TV-schedule-filling bore that is Wimbledon over with in fewer days. Or better still, sudden death one set per match
The Australian open has a one point slam. Each match lasts one point and the server is decided by rock, paper, scissors. It's open to amateur and professional players with a milion dollar prize. Would certainly speed things up.
And then football could adopt it. Game over after the first goal is scored. At least in tennis if you lose a match, that's it. No group stages. I would be happy to see the second serve go though. If you can't get the ball in play first try, you lose the point. And sit-downs only every 6 games.
Regarding football, something I only get interested in when its internationals, cant stand all this league stuff where nobody comes from anywhere near the club they are playing for and most are from other countries at very high price tags. The Off side rule, , surely the object of the game should be to score as many goals as possible in as many ways as possible, within bounds of course.
It would be over very quickly, who is going to pay to go and watch a tennis match that could be over in the matter of 15 minutes or less by playing just one set per match, its the tie breakers that can add considerable time to a match. It should be the first to 5 points in a tie break and then sudden death, none of this having to win by two clear points if your still tied. It's like having a penalty shoot out in football where a team has to win by two clear goals if both teams are tied 5-5.
