Very good headlines

John Isner beats Nicolas Mahut 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68 in Wimbledon epic

Not a typo.


People should read that article and remember it the next time people say that female tennis players should earn the same prize money in Grand Slam tournaments as males.

(For those who are unacquainted with professional tennis, men play best 3-out-of-5 set matches while women play best 2-out-of-3. This is only true for the four yearly Grand Slam tournaments.)

Horrors. Logic and common sense has already lost this fight.

This latter-day injustice screams out for remedy.

ck-- There's no reason a women's match at Wimbledon couldn't last just as long. Their third set could go to 201-203. Any match at Wimbledon (or the Australian Open or French Open, where they also don't play final set tie-breakers) could theoretically go on forever.

Steve R. is right, they aren't paid by the hour. At the same time, men's tennis almost without exception commands great viewership and ad revenues. The equal prize money thing is a little silly for that reason, not because of the length of the matches.


That's not entirely true. Only one women's match each year, the WTA year-end championship final, was best-of-five. That began in 1984 (the last best-of-five women's match before that was in 1901) and ended in 1998. In addition to Navratilova and Graf, Seles, Novotna, Sabatini, and Hingis won the title when the final was best-of-five. Also, I believe only one match (1990) in that time actually went to five sets (Seles over Sabatini).

Didn't that match start during last year's first round?

You watched that entire set?

Comments for this post are closed