Hi everyone. Please post today's match commentary and general tennis talk here.
Thanks to everyone who responded to yesterday's question of the day. It seemed popular enough that I thought we could try out opinions on another issue today. I'm thinking of something that bugs me considerably when I'm watching Grand Slams, particularly the US Open and the Australian Open, which both have night sessions beginning at 7.30 p.m. local time. My question is this: in terms of scheduling, are men and women treated even-handedly? It seems to me that equality is something that should be lived out; equal prize money should denote equal treatment in all areas. Yet I can't help thinking that those in the men's draw often end up losing out. On both Arthur Ashe Stadium and Rod Laver Arena, for example, the second night match is always a men's match, meaning that it will generally be the men, if anyone, who finish playing in the small hours of the morning, and need to deal with the after-effects. Since it's often the top-ranked players or local favourites who are scheduled for these marquee matches, organizers may even end up damaging the chances of those they most want to see return for another round (Hewitt-Baghdatis at the 2008 Australian Open, anyone?)
Am I alone in thinking that men and women should alternate going first during the night sessions? Oh, I know that their final occurs a day earlier, and this might sometimes mean that a long men's match would delay the start of play for the ladies, but doesn't this happen anyway, during day sessions? It's part and parcel of playing in a Grand Slam. I note that some women appear in both singles and doubles in a Slam, but that it's rare for the men to do so. Dealing with potential later nights might make it harder for some women to double up in events - but when they do, I note that their overall prize-money potential is actually greater than that of their male counterparts.
It's not just night sessions where this seeming inequity in scheduling crops up. Usually the first match on any show court at a Grand Slam, day sessions included, is a women's match. Where issues like rain delays come into the equation, this can make a big difference. I've dealt with some very disappointing rain delays at Wimbledon over the years, partly for this reason.
It's just my opinion, but I also think that always scheduling the women to play first isn't very fair to spectators. I can't speak for other Grand Slams, but it's a well-established fact that at Wimbledon and Roland Garros, in general, tickets for specific men's sessions command considerably higher prices than those for the equivalent women's sessions. Maybe organizers fear that if women play second during a night session, less spectators would stick around to see them? To which I'd reply that if this is so, why should the men be the ones paying the price? Or spectators, for that matter? In any event, maybe it wouldn't be so; many spectators enjoy the chance to see both sexes play.
I don't intend this post to be about "equal pay for equal work"; my own view on that front is pretty much that the profile of a Grand Slam event ultimately benefits greatly from having both men and women play there, and in that context it makes little sense to try and precisely weight one more than the other in terms of the overall desirability of a spectator attending a Slam - even though there may be a difference. In any event, people's perceptions of the men's versus the women's game, and the stars within each, can and do change over time.
Lastly, for those of you who haven't seen it in the Comments section, here's the list of tournament timechecks prepared by Master Ace for today's matches:
As always, enjoy today's tennis.
-- Rosangel Valenti