Grand Slam Australian Open - Womens Final

Brady or Osaka

  • Brady in 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Brady in 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I would of pay to go to Men’s Final. Women’s is nearly always on 2 sets, waste of time and money.

That's why they give the mixed double match after this and if I'm not mistaken the ticket price for tonight is cheaper than sunday match.

It's the whole journey of the tournament not only the final. Naomi is very dominant against Jabeur, Hsieh, Muguruza and even Serena.

Not her fault that her opponent tonight is the 22nd seed not the top 10 seed.

Anyway congrats on the 2nd AO trophy Naomi Osaka 😊. Watching her few years back at show court 3 and her progress now is really amazing.
 
That's why they give the mixed double match after this and if I'm not mistaken the ticket price for tonight is cheaper than sunday match.

It's the whole journey of the tournament not only the final. Naomi is very dominant against Jabeur, Hsieh, Muguruza and even Serena.

Not her fault that her opponent tonight is the 22nd seed not the top 10 seed.

Anyway congrats on the 2nd AO trophy Naomi Osaka 😊. Watching her few years back at show court 3 and her progress now is really amazing.

I’m not talking about just this year though I mean overall the Woman’s Finals are always over rather quickly.
 
Last edited:
I’m not talking about just this year though I mean overall the Woman’s Finals are always over rather quickly.

I looked up wiki before and Naomi actually has 3 AO CS now! I said 2 but thought I think it’s 3 so went on a search and found she won 18’ and 19’ too.
3?

She's won 2 us open
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #95
Is prizemoney based on hours trained?
is it not based on time spent working? Aren't that what we talking about. 3 or 5 sets. 5 sets equal more money!!

Could it be based on other things? I don't know, popularity, eyes watching, sponsors? Could they be the most important factors here.
 
is it not based on time spent working? Aren't that what we talking about. 3 or 5 sets. 5 sets equal more money!!

Could it be based on other things? I don't know, popularity, eyes watching, sponsors? Could they be the most important factors here.
If it was really time spent working, then rankings and matches won in grand slam events would mean nothing. Does a less talented player ranked in the thousands deserve as much as a top 10 player if they train just as hard?

No way.
 
Back
Top