Wimbledon Tennis: Leveling the Playing Field

Once again, the posting for this week will involve other engaging blogs within the sports realm. I have composed comments in response to a pair of interesting blogs that I have discovered within the hidden internet. As I have previously mentioned, I wish to further engage myself within the blogosphere in order to gain some visibility and authority for my website. This week’s post pertains to the Wimbledon prize money which has finally been leveled for both male and female tennis players. The first post I commented on is from a reputable socio-political blog called "The Lede" by Tom Zeller Jr, a New York Times blogger. The second entry is by an established British political commentator, Iain Dale. My responses are posted below as well as the permanent links of the source post. I encourage you to peruse through these blogs because of their insightful and interesting nature.

Mr. Dale, while your post brings about valid points; I disagree with your stance. Women are finally being placed on a level playing field in tennis by receiving equal pay, and rightfully so. We are in the 21^st century, there should be no discrimination between men and women period. Match time aside, the amount of hours women spend preparing for Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam events is in all likelihood equal to men. Secondly, women’s tennis is definitely not dull. While indeed men’s tennis involves more power, the quality of their play is not necessarily superior. The entertainment value spectators’ gain from women’s tennis can be equal to, if not greater than men’s tennis. Many points in men’s matches are won all too quickly, through aces because of their commanding serves. Also, Roger Federer depicted on the right, performs at a caliber which is next to perfect. It does not take a rocket scientist to predict the winner of a match involving the Swiss champion. One the other hand, the women’s game has no one dominant player, which leaves the game interestingly unpredictable. Also, there tend to be more rallies in women’s games because of fewer aces. Although it is definitely enjoyable to watch an ace serve, when it starts to displace potential rallies (which often occurs in men’s tennis games) it becomes boring. Lastly, I am quite perturbed by your final comment “who on earth would want to watch a couple of women slugging a ball from baseline to baseline for an hour? It's about as exciting as watching paint dry.” This reflects a lack of comprehension and appreciation for women’s tennis in its entirety. I understand that a woman’s game may not be as powerful or fast paced to that of a man, yet ultimately, it boils down to the quality of the game. According to the Columbia University news service, “ratings for women’s matches are on par with men’s matches and rising faster. The men’s and women’s finals of this April’s Nasdaq 100 Open in Miami drew the same number of television viewers. But that represented a ratings increase of 50 percent over last year for the women’s match, and only a 25 percent increase over last year for the men’s final." Women's tennis can be a thrilling showcase of athletic adeptness and sheer talent. Television rating records have been broken especially with the likes of Maria Sharapova – the Russian Wimbledon champion at 17, with glamour girl looks to compliment her already superb tennis prowess. The William’s sisters are not to be condoned either. These robust siblings can serve and hit nearly as powerfully as some male players, with a serves speeding up to 130mph.

Permanent Link

I could not agree more with your post, Mr. Zeller. After 123 years, the indolent All England Club has finally arrived at decision, which should have been obvious to them many years ago. It is about time that the female Wimbledon champions receive the same pay as their male counterparts. The quality of the women’s game is just as good, if not better than the men’s because rallies are not frequently replaced by a powerful serve which often translates into an ace. Also, professional women’s tennis does not have a principal player who wins virtually every match. The men’s professional circuit however does have a player of such finesse and excellence – Roger Federer. The twenty five year old holds 46 singles titles and has won Wimbledon, the world's most prestigious tennis tournament three years consecutively since 2004. The only other player that actually has a chance of defeating the Swiss champion is Spanish sensation Raphael Nadal. However, Nadal (shown on the left) is only a threat on clay courts. On grass and hard surfaces, Federer is simply unstoppable. Moreover, female tennis players provide the same amount of input as male players into their games in terms of preparation which warrants equal prize money. Although their male counterparts play two sets more, the entertainment value women provide is undoubtedly no less than that of men. Besides, many female players in their less than conservative tennis attire are viewed as eye candy, further contributing to the entertainment aspect of the game. Lastly, we live in the twenty first century, a supposedly modern era. One would assume that by now a gender disparity would cease to exist.

Permanent Link