I don't think you can break it up like that, brings in a whole lot of other issues. Also where is the extra $ going to come from, the winning player or what? Know the AO could probably afford but what if there's an unprecedented amount of 5 setters?
Re the equal pay for men/women debate - if...
Rafa beats Roger at his peak but Roger is the more skilled tennis player sums it up for mine. As for Novak I reckon he'll be mentioned with these two in future discussions. It's sorta funny I reckon his best surface is clay and grass is his worse, yet has 2 (or 3 now?) wimbledons. Is a funny sport
That's not quite fair, Nadal's style is more intensive. Nadal has the wood over Federer but you'd probably argue Federer is the better player overall.
As for comparing Federer and Willliams that's just stupid. Obviously Federer would win in a match but you can't compare the competition.
I hate the low ranked Aussies on center court (earlier post of mine complained about Ebden v Pospisil) but they do it because probably attracts more people to the game in those early rounds.
I think Rafa has an extremely good case against Federer, Djokovic less so but maybe one day we could be talking about it. Don't even bother with Murray
Agree with the statement about even prize money for women/men, if women play best of 5 sets they deserve even prize money but not while the men...
Monfils is majorly overrated
Jim Courier's the best commentator on the CH7 team
CH7 and Aus Open schedulers give far to much bias to aussie players, Ebden V Pospisil on center court night session on day 2? And that little Aussie flag on the scorecard is unnecessary, either have both players...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.