Three sets for men too. They have to give it there all in an all or nothing environment. The current set up is making them look weak, quitting even though it is a strain to play through pain.
It is interesting that tons of money doesn't seem to make sport that much better. Instead of playing for the shear pleasure and personal fulfillment of the sport many children now are being groomed by parents who can only think of the potential pay check. Money is stealing our joy of the game.
Why do so many comments in NYT articles read as if the writer never read the whole story? Do they subscribe to a Cliff Notes version I don't know about?
3
Looks like the women tennis has more strength, stamina, and courage. Perhaps give the men tennis nine months leave to recuperate?
With all these tournaments and all this prize money, we don't need tennis in the Olympics.
I've attended the Indian Wells tournament for 20 years, but this was my last year. Tennis has become a "sport" of celebrity and money. No longer an athletic competition. Kudos to Dolgopolov and others for going through the motions for a paycheck. Why shouldn't they? This is only part of the problem. There is also a ridiculous ranking system where players who haven't played a decent match in months are seeded into tournaments. It's like minor league baseball--most of the players are just foils for the stars. Go ahead and cash in anyway you can.
8
True! And as money is a great incentive in the USA it can be abused. If money was the main incentive, they'll not be offered more.
1
I played it as a kid. People make too much of tennis. It's just a game. And I've never watched it much as either an ametuer sport or a professional one. It's just a game. You hit the ball over the net. Anyone can play it, and some pwople are just faster than others. It's like golf. People hit the ball into the hole. Big deal. Who cares who's the "best?" It's just a dumb game - like tennis.
10
@RichD, Haha. So true. On the other hand, you play for a bit, against someone who slams the tennis ball past you faster than you can blink. Or watch someone tee off and then see the ball roll into the cup. You'll see the challenge--or maybe not.
Explain how a sport can have 4 majors where the women's matches are 3 sets and men play 5. In track and field, women run the same distances as men.
Women compete in the ironman triathalon and perform very well.
This story insinuates women tennis pros are tougher and play through pain better than men. In truth, the lack of conditioning of many women tennis pros is laughable. Some are overweight and others struggle with conditioning in matches that go three sets. If women want the same payday, they should play the same length matches.
Women compete in the ironman triathalon and perform very well.
This story insinuates women tennis pros are tougher and play through pain better than men. In truth, the lack of conditioning of many women tennis pros is laughable. Some are overweight and others struggle with conditioning in matches that go three sets. If women want the same payday, they should play the same length matches.
16
Women have asked to play five sets, and been denied. What are they meant to do?
It's worth noting too that the women have had far fewer retirements than the men, both at Wimbledon this year and in all other majors. I prefer best of three and think both sides should play best of three with no third set tiebreak. It would decrease injuries and increase excitement and tension.
It's worth noting too that the women have had far fewer retirements than the men, both at Wimbledon this year and in all other majors. I prefer best of three and think both sides should play best of three with no third set tiebreak. It would decrease injuries and increase excitement and tension.
4
No need to insult female tennis players. Where is the proof that many of them are "are overweight and struggling with conditioning?" You offer none. Serena Williams is now winning while pregnant, by the way, something no male athlete will ever pull off. #sexism
As for match length, everybody should play 3. As this story shows, 5 is a ridiculous number and many men can't handle it. Boring to watch, also.
As for match length, everybody should play 3. As this story shows, 5 is a ridiculous number and many men can't handle it. Boring to watch, also.
3
Please - Can anyone please explain to me a $201 million dollar basketball contract ? . . . . . Really -
Is any athlete worth that much money - especially it it translates that a "regular" working class family can no longer afford to go to a game - let alone be a season ticket holder.
TENNIS - Well - For me - This is a Quintessential One on One - Sport - Requiring the highest level of dedication and practice - mixed with extraordinary talent - coupled with desire and passion for excellence !
THIS is what has made me a lifelong tennis hack and admirer of the true greats.
I have been a dedicated fan since Rod Laver - - - PLEASE - - go Google what these Greats earned !
Yeah - I get it -
Younger and younger players are getting to "the bigs" and the career lifespan is continually being shortened . . .
SO - Grabbing a "Living Wage" after a Decade of Training and Preparation does sadly seem like a "career strategy" !
Salaries in Sports is closely tied to what total grosses are generated within any particular "sport" . . . and yes - TENNIS has been on a steady rise, there is no parity with the "bigs" - So - to "make a living" in Tennis - takes way more than just "being great" - A financial strategy is also required as well.
Understanding the disappointment of FANS who Wait and Pay "Better then Good Money" to see their Stars - are "and should" be disappointed by "premature medical scratches" - - - - BUT - the finances of the game pretty much "created" this situation . . . .
Is any athlete worth that much money - especially it it translates that a "regular" working class family can no longer afford to go to a game - let alone be a season ticket holder.
TENNIS - Well - For me - This is a Quintessential One on One - Sport - Requiring the highest level of dedication and practice - mixed with extraordinary talent - coupled with desire and passion for excellence !
THIS is what has made me a lifelong tennis hack and admirer of the true greats.
I have been a dedicated fan since Rod Laver - - - PLEASE - - go Google what these Greats earned !
Yeah - I get it -
Younger and younger players are getting to "the bigs" and the career lifespan is continually being shortened . . .
SO - Grabbing a "Living Wage" after a Decade of Training and Preparation does sadly seem like a "career strategy" !
Salaries in Sports is closely tied to what total grosses are generated within any particular "sport" . . . and yes - TENNIS has been on a steady rise, there is no parity with the "bigs" - So - to "make a living" in Tennis - takes way more than just "being great" - A financial strategy is also required as well.
Understanding the disappointment of FANS who Wait and Pay "Better then Good Money" to see their Stars - are "and should" be disappointed by "premature medical scratches" - - - - BUT - the finances of the game pretty much "created" this situation . . . .
13
I would like to see men's matches reduced to 3 sets for the majors. I know, crazy, right?
8
Or change the point structure where matches are shorter and more contested/engaging. I love tennis but don't want to give up 3-5 hours watching on my time off.
It won't happen because tennis is too steeped untradition, but if I were tennis czar, I'd adopt much of what World Team Tennis has done to spice up the sport for the average fan and get rid of lets and get rid of ad scoring except for tie breakers (receiver chooses side to receive serve at deuce). Pluses would include more breaks on serve and more contested and close matches. The downside would be more luck to winning in on a given day where the top five Men's players would not be as statistically dominant. More players would however be household names like in golf.
It won't happen because tennis is too steeped untradition, but if I were tennis czar, I'd adopt much of what World Team Tennis has done to spice up the sport for the average fan and get rid of lets and get rid of ad scoring except for tie breakers (receiver chooses side to receive serve at deuce). Pluses would include more breaks on serve and more contested and close matches. The downside would be more luck to winning in on a given day where the top five Men's players would not be as statistically dominant. More players would however be household names like in golf.
I've seen the hard to understand toughness of women. On a windless full moon night my wife and I cross country skied 1000 ft up a pass outside of Aspen, Colorado. She was 8 months and 24 days pregnant, The trek was her idea. I carried everything to help deliver the baby if need be, and a thermos of hot chocolate and food. The moonlight off the snow was nearly blinding as we skied down to Beaver Creek, and finally onto the flat, still a kilometer from town.
Unexpectedly the snow was nearly waist deep and heavy, what's called Colorado Concrete. Although a season of skiing had made us both strong, I reached a point where I didn't think I had the strength to raise my foot high enough, free of the snow, to go forward. My wife looked back, the moon illuminating her face so that I saw the ecstatic smile and glow in her eyes. She saw my face, concern replacing joy on hers, and asked if she could carry some of the weight in her little backpack.
In that bright bitter cold I saw the sweat on her face. I saw that yards back she had passed that point of painful exhaustion that gripped me, and that it hadn't been enough to spoil moment. She delivered our first baby two days later in the Aspen Valley Clinic.
Unexpectedly the snow was nearly waist deep and heavy, what's called Colorado Concrete. Although a season of skiing had made us both strong, I reached a point where I didn't think I had the strength to raise my foot high enough, free of the snow, to go forward. My wife looked back, the moon illuminating her face so that I saw the ecstatic smile and glow in her eyes. She saw my face, concern replacing joy on hers, and asked if she could carry some of the weight in her little backpack.
In that bright bitter cold I saw the sweat on her face. I saw that yards back she had passed that point of painful exhaustion that gripped me, and that it hadn't been enough to spoil moment. She delivered our first baby two days later in the Aspen Valley Clinic.
31
Suffering a serious injury on any surface deserves all sympathy, in any sport. But watch the Borg-Gerulaitis match from 1997 and try to tell me that players then did not play in tough conditions on less than perfect surfaces. This was one of the greatest games ever played and the grass was thin, to say the least. Too many players now will take any excuse, even the injury of another, to walk away with the $$$ to save energy - and potential humiliation against a superior player - to save energy for a tournament where they can make more $$$.
7
How can the Times turn every article into a politically correct statement? It makes as much sense to suggest that men withdraw more frequently because they play harder as it does to suggest that women are tougher or have a "different mentality"..
7
The gender disparity on in-match injury conduct is similar to that of international soccer.
7
If I am not mistaken, women's prizes tend to be lower, so a financial penalty on those who might withdraw seems justified given the data that a far smaller percentage of women withdraw. I am not advocating that players do serious damage to themselves, but lots of people don't get paid when they don't show up.
Nope. Not in the majors.
2
I second Ron. It happened since Venus Williams questioned the disparity in money prize.
1
How much do they get paid just for showing up? I could do that, couldn't you? Wave your racket a few times, claim 'injury', quit, pick up the $$$, and flee. Ahh, the good life!
4
Are you in the top 128 people in the WORLD at what you do? Didn't think so.
The money is so top heavy in tennis that even people that are that good need the prize money from first round loss to keep afloat financially.
The money is so top heavy in tennis that even people that are that good need the prize money from first round loss to keep afloat financially.
6
First you have to be good enough to be INVITED to show up.
2
How about a clause in the tickets that gives the purchaser a right to free, equivalent tickets for later rounds if their original ticket match suffers a withdrawal? I bet that stops the rash of quitting pretty fast!
5
It's not the tournament that quits, it's the player. The tournament would suffer, losing sales from those late-round tickets. Now, if the player had to buy those tickets for the fans, that would be something.
Tickets to major tennis tournaments are not sold on a per match basis. You buy a seat for a certain court for a certain day and see every match there that day. It can be a guessing game. You get a ticket for the second-to-last day and hope to see the women's final and both men's semis, but if there have been delays, then maybe you're seeing the last of the men's quarters. And of course, your favorite player might have lost by then.
If you want to see a specific player like Federer, you come for the first round, as this woman did, and hope for a somewhat entertaining match, which didn't happen. Then keep track of the schedule and try to get tickets the next match he plays.
Alternatively, you take your life savings and buy tickets for Centre Court Wimbledon for the fortnight. The top players always play there or at Court One.
Tickets to major tennis tournaments are not sold on a per match basis. You buy a seat for a certain court for a certain day and see every match there that day. It can be a guessing game. You get a ticket for the second-to-last day and hope to see the women's final and both men's semis, but if there have been delays, then maybe you're seeing the last of the men's quarters. And of course, your favorite player might have lost by then.
If you want to see a specific player like Federer, you come for the first round, as this woman did, and hope for a somewhat entertaining match, which didn't happen. Then keep track of the schedule and try to get tickets the next match he plays.
Alternatively, you take your life savings and buy tickets for Centre Court Wimbledon for the fortnight. The top players always play there or at Court One.
5
imagine that on the boxe matches of Tyson, would he have boxed for free because he knocked out his opponents in the first rounds?
1
Perhaps the moral of this story is that we should be telling the men to "Woman up!"
48
I do not know how the rankings are calculated. If currently they are based strictly upon wins/losses, perhaps they could be adjusted to include games and sets as well. Then, if a player withdraws, and he/she would be penalized in some way for games/sets not played as losses, there would be an incentive to not retire, and finish the match with maximum effort.
1
For a start, how about stopping calling it "retiring", which is sterile and exonerating, and starting calling it what it is. Quitting.
25
From the armchair expert commenters here it's easy to see that they don't know how gruelingly hard, long and expensive it is to get to the majors, and stay there. And, that these heartless and clueless kibitzers have never risked it all in a physically crushing sport.
You get injured, pull a muscle or tendon, injure a cartilege, and then you rest, tentatively start training, work back to top condition, enter competition again, and midway through the race, performance, routine, whatever, and then you feel the twinge of something giving. All out competition brought to bear on the previous injury just that tiny bit more strain that an uninjured muscle or tendon could have bore. But not the once injured working part of you that must make all of you a champion.
If you go one, the injury might become irreparable. If you stop to come back whole another day, you slacker critics out there bray and whistle.
You get injured, pull a muscle or tendon, injure a cartilege, and then you rest, tentatively start training, work back to top condition, enter competition again, and midway through the race, performance, routine, whatever, and then you feel the twinge of something giving. All out competition brought to bear on the previous injury just that tiny bit more strain that an uninjured muscle or tendon could have bore. But not the once injured working part of you that must make all of you a champion.
If you go one, the injury might become irreparable. If you stop to come back whole another day, you slacker critics out there bray and whistle.
10
Horrifying examples of terrible sportsMANship in what used to be the sport of good manners, breeding and CLASS.
Sickening, really.
Sickening, really.
So don't go. Don't pay $10,000, $15,000, even $20,000 to attend Wimbledon, what it actually costs when you break it down soup-to-nuts.
Add it up. It's shocking. Start with air, rail, and ground transportation. The hotel stay, usually several, for how many days? As many as a dozen expensive fancy, and rather fattening, restaurant meals. Court-side tickets. And all the taxes.
My God, the taxes.
Everything is taxed and taxed and taxed some more. Tax built into the price that must be paid, followed by more tax that also must be paid. And don't forget to add the income tax paid to finance this personal indulgence, this splurge. And don't foget all the foregone income.
All those costs, and all that physical exertion, just to get there for less than a single hour's enjoyment? What is the cost-per-minute of $10,000, say, divided by 30-minutes? Maybe you should recalculate that to the cost-per-second.
Pro-Tennis is entertainment, nothing more. What started out as an indulgence to occupy the French nobility and idle rich slowly evolved into a well-oiled money machine, now just another massive industry corrupted to the very marrow of its bones by Big-Big-Big-Big Money. But it's like Shakespeare said, "the play's the thing", and if the actors can quit mid-scene and walk offstage there's no play. The House goes dark. Turn up the lights! The production dissatisfies. Alas, Wimbledon theater-goers get no refunds.
So don't go. Stay home. Garden. Take up painting or sculpting. Relax.
Add it up. It's shocking. Start with air, rail, and ground transportation. The hotel stay, usually several, for how many days? As many as a dozen expensive fancy, and rather fattening, restaurant meals. Court-side tickets. And all the taxes.
My God, the taxes.
Everything is taxed and taxed and taxed some more. Tax built into the price that must be paid, followed by more tax that also must be paid. And don't forget to add the income tax paid to finance this personal indulgence, this splurge. And don't foget all the foregone income.
All those costs, and all that physical exertion, just to get there for less than a single hour's enjoyment? What is the cost-per-minute of $10,000, say, divided by 30-minutes? Maybe you should recalculate that to the cost-per-second.
Pro-Tennis is entertainment, nothing more. What started out as an indulgence to occupy the French nobility and idle rich slowly evolved into a well-oiled money machine, now just another massive industry corrupted to the very marrow of its bones by Big-Big-Big-Big Money. But it's like Shakespeare said, "the play's the thing", and if the actors can quit mid-scene and walk offstage there's no play. The House goes dark. Turn up the lights! The production dissatisfies. Alas, Wimbledon theater-goers get no refunds.
So don't go. Stay home. Garden. Take up painting or sculpting. Relax.
21
Just as a thought piece, I'd like to bring up the case of Johanna Konta, who suffered a neck/spine injury late last week which prevented her from winning Eastbourne (her home town) after beating young sensation French Open winner Ostapenko and World #1 Kerber with a two-hour break, and was forced to withdraw from what would likely have been a championship late last week. It was questionable whether she could even play, but she is now the most favored to win Wimbledon.
So, what would you do? Was she going to be able to play on Monday? She only really knew on Monday morning. Making a *rule* would have forced her to drop out of her meteoric and well-deserved rise.
OTOH, what about the tournament managers. Acceding to the demand for every higher prizes at the top (a worldwide epidemic) along with acknowledging that the lower level players are often strapped for support, and raising their prizes, leaves them between a rock and a hard place.
Like elections, there's too much money floating about. Personally, I don't think the top players need to see the escalating prize money, and the hardworking entry-level players need more help and respect. So before Murray, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal weigh in, my opinion they need to check their privilege. They don't need the extra money, and the escalating rewards for top sports figures are hurting all of us, especially in the form of ticket prices.
Don't be "evil".
So, what would you do? Was she going to be able to play on Monday? She only really knew on Monday morning. Making a *rule* would have forced her to drop out of her meteoric and well-deserved rise.
OTOH, what about the tournament managers. Acceding to the demand for every higher prizes at the top (a worldwide epidemic) along with acknowledging that the lower level players are often strapped for support, and raising their prizes, leaves them between a rock and a hard place.
Like elections, there's too much money floating about. Personally, I don't think the top players need to see the escalating prize money, and the hardworking entry-level players need more help and respect. So before Murray, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal weigh in, my opinion they need to check their privilege. They don't need the extra money, and the escalating rewards for top sports figures are hurting all of us, especially in the form of ticket prices.
Don't be "evil".
11
Today's tennis players are often spoiled brats. Before TV coverage, there was no resting between games and it was almost unheard of for a player to "retire." Cap the withdrawal money at $10,000 for Grand Slams and we'll see less injured players. Tennis has the same level of administrative purity as boxing--whoever heard of "wild cards" and deciding who has a "right" to play in qualifying rounds--just two examples inviting payoffs.
How to enjoy the U.S. Open: go to the outside courts during the early rounds where you'll see superb players watched by a few hundred real fans rather than the masses who go to the "it" place to be seen.
How to enjoy the U.S. Open: go to the outside courts during the early rounds where you'll see superb players watched by a few hundred real fans rather than the masses who go to the "it" place to be seen.
5
Does anyone know if spectators at Grand Slam events pay per match, or are they buying a seat on the Court for the entire day? If the latter, well then, they are getting to see some tennis, even if it's not the big name stars.
Glenn, When I went to the tournament in Indianapolis, it cost for the day session and the evening session. They clear the stands before the evening matches.
2
So, we should feel bad because Ms. Wong spent 30 hours traveling and I imagine thousands of dollars without the benefit of seeing Federer completely crush Dolgopolov? Definitely sounds like a first world problem.
“But yes, I think the girls are really, really tough. We still want to fight and just not give up.” --- Mandy Minella
Imagine if a male tennis player had said that. The comments would all be about misogyny.
“But yes, I think the girls are really, really tough. We still want to fight and just not give up.” --- Mandy Minella
Imagine if a male tennis player had said that. The comments would all be about misogyny.
5
If a male player said that, it would be a lie. As the story shows, men quit more often than women do, even for the same-length match. I'm wondering if everybody should play 3 sets. Fewer injuries, more excitement. Honestly, the really long matches are a yawn.
All we need now is a list of injuries that will be considered as criteria for whether or not someone has to play a scheduled match.
And since these are professional athletes who put in so many hours of workouts that they are always hurting -- we will need another list quantifying the degree of severity of their injuries.
People are paying good money to be entertained at Centre Court -- are we really so intent on fulfilling their wishes that we abuse the players who are doing the work?
I mean, people are disappointed if they don't get to see a star pitcher's scheduled start because he felt a twinge in his arm two days prior, but I don't recall anyone demanding that MLB do something about it. In fact, it's just the opposite -- no one wants to see a star pitcher suffer a career-ending injury because the team didn't take his pain seriously enough.
And since these are professional athletes who put in so many hours of workouts that they are always hurting -- we will need another list quantifying the degree of severity of their injuries.
People are paying good money to be entertained at Centre Court -- are we really so intent on fulfilling their wishes that we abuse the players who are doing the work?
I mean, people are disappointed if they don't get to see a star pitcher's scheduled start because he felt a twinge in his arm two days prior, but I don't recall anyone demanding that MLB do something about it. In fact, it's just the opposite -- no one wants to see a star pitcher suffer a career-ending injury because the team didn't take his pain seriously enough.
12
There's too many tournaments today. Used to be a privilege to play at Wimbledon when it was amateurs only.
1
I understand your point, but there it's like every star pitcher goes in, doesn't complain about his pain, pitches what he knows will be mediocre baseball, and then asks to be taken out after three innings, down some runs. Actually that would be worse in baseball because you're knowingly letting down the team. Here you're ONLY letting down the FANS.
1
I don't know a thing about tennis rules but it sounds as though a player can start even though he or she is injured or has a medical problem. How about requiring a medical evaluation a week before the match? You'd need an independent physician or physicians to do the evaluation. Those who could not pass regardless of other qualifications could not start and would perhaps get some compensation for being high in the rankings. Won't happen because I am sure everyone wants to see the stars play.
8
Maybe they should make the Slams best of three until the quarterfinals. I'm all for players finishing matches but if playing through an injury to finish a match is going to cause you to be out or unable to compete for 3-6 months then it changes the calculus of the match.
25
This would probably allow too many early round upsets of healthy star players.
1
Then play better. If 2 of 3 suffices af most tournaments it should be good enough for early rounds of majors.
But perhaps we'd create more stars that way? People who deserve to win.
1
Obviously they need extensive pre tournament screening as to both health issues and more basic mental approaches.
If a person enters, they must come prepared to play. Rewrite the rules as necessary and strengthen the tournament participation.
If a person enters, they must come prepared to play. Rewrite the rules as necessary and strengthen the tournament participation.
12
The money on offer means that there is no incentive to NOT go on court. In their defence, they also know that anything could happen - rain, the opponent getting injured...Surely for the Slams, they should allow an injured player to withdraw and get paid. There is enough money for that.
2
Perhaps paying for sets completed instead of for just starting early-round matches might help solve this problem. Why pay someone for a whole match if they are only out there for 15 minutes? Yes, injured players might suffer financially as well as physically, but if they are that injured should they be playing at all?
4
This is a frustrating trend but I think the article and most of the comments miss the mark. I'm guessing that some of these players who retire were injured before the match, are giving it a go, and decide it is not worth further injuring themselves, particularly since they are getting the full payday either way. So according to those who argue that you should only be fully paid if you resign due to injury, they would qualify for full payment, but I don't think this is what anyone is really aiming for.
There is no way to gauge whether someone is really injured or not, and how debilitating that injury is. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I don't think I've seen it thus far.
There is no way to gauge whether someone is really injured or not, and how debilitating that injury is. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I don't think I've seen it thus far.
6
These players display a real lack of integrity and dedication to the game, not to mention the fans and advertisers who pay mightily for the chance to watch a full professional match. But the match organizers could (and should) put a stop to this nonsense immediately. If a player does not finish the match (except for a bona fide medical reason as determined by the match physician), the player receives no prize money and is banned from playing for one year.
2
Yikes, that's a bit harsh. It's not like every injury can be diagnosed by a physician on the spot. Penalizing a professional a year's salary because a doctor didn't think his/her hamstring injury was debilitating is Draconian, to say the least. Is this really an epidemic? We're talking about less than 5% of the matches, according to the article. Plus, we're talking about first-round matches, which are almost always incredibly one sided, even when the lesser player is completely healthy. Is this really such a travesty?
4
Players doing this don't lack integrity, and they surely don't think about--or need to think about--fans and advertisers. At the end of the day, it is their body that helps them or hinders them from doing their job for themselves and their team, families, etc.
Many recreational players may go out after work despite a nagging injury because they say "what the heck, I'll give it a go." After evaluating that they don't want to be further injured, they leave the court. Pro players play for their livelihoods. This is similar to going into the office with a flu bug, realizing you are too sick to work, and leaving early. You got paid for the whole day, right?
Many recreational players may go out after work despite a nagging injury because they say "what the heck, I'll give it a go." After evaluating that they don't want to be further injured, they leave the court. Pro players play for their livelihoods. This is similar to going into the office with a flu bug, realizing you are too sick to work, and leaving early. You got paid for the whole day, right?
1
I would like to see articles about the women players-playing four months pregnant and seven months after having a first child. These stories were tucked in to this story about games that didn't finish. Those women's stories sound amazing and interesting.
74
Hmm. We don't get into why tennis players retire until after the 18th paragraph? For tennis heads who know the sport that would be OK, but for the rest of us it was frustrating.
10
Two years ago, I gave a talk at a mathematics conference about the 2012 Olympic Women's Badminton Scandal, where four women's doubles teams were throwing matches in the round-robin stage for better placement in the knock-out round.
Being a skeptic to a certain degree, I wonder if there is more to this story than is being reported. I hope not, but that would make for interesting research.
Being a skeptic to a certain degree, I wonder if there is more to this story than is being reported. I hope not, but that would make for interesting research.
2
An interesting question and relevant example, but what benefit would these individuals gain by withdrawing? Seems like it's purely a financial calculation to start and not finished, as the article suggests
1
Great tennis players who are not in the top 50 or 100 do not make enough money. The governing bodies need to get together and figure out how to provide more funds and assistance (i.e. booking of flights) to lower ranked players.
Klizan was clearly injured. He pulled out of a recent tournament. He probably needed the money. How can anyone blame him for gutting it out for a few sets for $45,000? It's like people complaining about executive pay from the country club lawn.
Klizan was clearly injured. He pulled out of a recent tournament. He probably needed the money. How can anyone blame him for gutting it out for a few sets for $45,000? It's like people complaining about executive pay from the country club lawn.
4
Since Klizan is actually no. 47 by last atp ranking http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles your second paragraph's rationale contradicts your first.
Either he is top50 ranked and doesn't need the money, or he needs money whatever the ranking is ( he lost recently on a ATP challenger tournament with a 200top ranked. He IS clearly not at his best )
You can't have it and its opposite both right. Not even on NYT.
Either he is top50 ranked and doesn't need the money, or he needs money whatever the ranking is ( he lost recently on a ATP challenger tournament with a 200top ranked. He IS clearly not at his best )
You can't have it and its opposite both right. Not even on NYT.
1
I don't follow tennis so I feel like this article could really use a sentence or paragraph on why a player would choose to retire mid-match. That missing bit of context is really infuriating to me.
9
They are injured.
4
Spectator sports are just another form of entertainment. If the entertainers don't show up or if they drop out before their performance is complete, the spectators deserve a refund and the entertainer shouldn't be paid. A tennis player who drops out in the middle of a game isn't filling his part of the bargain - I pay for you to entertain me. Professional athletes serve no other purpose.
3
I'm surprised that the grueling nature of the men's best-of-five matches wasn't mentioned. The most important matches of the year shouldn't be decided by endurance more than skill. These superb athletes shouldn't have to battle each other, often under the hot sun, for up to five hours to determine a winner.
3
C'mon. 3 out of 5 sets in the four majors and Davis cup is what it is all about. It is the test which best chooses the better player.
3
No stay, no pay.
5
Jack Kramer many years ago suggested "no" prize money for first round losers, and increase the prize money if you get to the second round. Tough rule, but may be worth a try at the majors...
3
Add to that a pre-first-round opt-out payment of 10K, and let any lucky losers in for a flat 10K if they finish the match.
Maybe humans sports should take a lesson from equestrian events. All horses are vet -checked before competing by a veterinarian at the event . If the horse is ill or shows lameness then the rider cannot compete. Simple solution .
I din't know tennis players now get paid even if they don't finish the match. Why wouldn't a player play 30 minutes in pain for 45K, who wouldn't?
I din't know tennis players now get paid even if they don't finish the match. Why wouldn't a player play 30 minutes in pain for 45K, who wouldn't?
4
Good point. Same thing with boxing as with horse racing. If a boxer fails the medical the day before the bout, he is not allowed to box until the injury heals or the condition is treated. Same should go for tennis.
2
"At Wimbledon, first-round losers receive £35,000, or roughly $45,000, but only if they take the court and begin the match. A decade ago, first-round losers walked away with £10,000."
It is rare to find a story so poorly edited as this one in the New York Times. But the fact is the lede -- quoted above -- appeared in paragraph 15. So readers had to stick for 14 paragraphs to even know what the heck the story was about. Weak. Don't assume, NYT. It is your job not to.
It is rare to find a story so poorly edited as this one in the New York Times. But the fact is the lede -- quoted above -- appeared in paragraph 15. So readers had to stick for 14 paragraphs to even know what the heck the story was about. Weak. Don't assume, NYT. It is your job not to.
29
It took me a while to understand why they are retiring. Could this have been explained up front?
11
Shouldn't be difficult to solve the problem. Prior to the match, simply require contestants to sign a statement affirming that they are healthy and fit to play. Then (unless they incur an injury or medical problem during play) they must complete the match in order to collect their paycheck.
3
How about applying real life rules to tennis? If you don't show up to work or quit during the day, you don't get paid. Watch how things would change. Quickly
3
And the flip-side -- workman's comp will cover every play who suffers a worse injury because he/she foolishly exacerbated a smaller one to please the crowd.
If it's career-ending, then the player gets a lifetime pension.
If it's career-ending, then the player gets a lifetime pension.
1
Why the word "retire" and not "quit"?
6
Good question. I assume it's "retire" because the player shows up, play, and then *during the play* he decides he can't continue ( the right analogy should be that of an army who retire when his force and lesser than the enemy because of bad strategy/preparation or, that's it, an accident occured. something unexpected).
"Quit" make me thinks about someone who shows up every day, then one day he doesn't at all. from the start, not *during* like in the precedent case.
Hope to have been of some help.
"Quit" make me thinks about someone who shows up every day, then one day he doesn't at all. from the start, not *during* like in the precedent case.
Hope to have been of some help.
1
Because it's British.
1
I wasn't aware of this problem in tennis: during the McEnroe/Borg/Connors era when I watched no match was ever ended early.
But the story really doesn't make clear the problem. The first half just talks about the players as if they are quitting, too lazy or embarrassed to complete the matches. The end of the story talks about injuries. So which is it?
But the story really doesn't make clear the problem. The first half just talks about the players as if they are quitting, too lazy or embarrassed to complete the matches. The end of the story talks about injuries. So which is it?
4
Imagine the uproar if a male player had said male players are tougher than the women. Outrageous that this blatant sexism is let to pass unchallenged.
15
"Outrageous"? Seriously?
Now that we've seen how ridiculous and petty your "challenge" sounds, I think it's clear why you're in a tiny minority on this subject.
Now that we've seen how ridiculous and petty your "challenge" sounds, I think it's clear why you're in a tiny minority on this subject.
2
The data supports that assertion. Men are over twice as likely to retire early.
3
The article about Mattek-Sands's brutal knee injury referred to poor court conditions. The players need to protect themselves--physically, and financially.
1
How is playing with an injury, which could be made much far worse by continuing, a sign of "toughness?" It would seem to be more like an indication of stupidity regardless of the gender of the player. And if an injured player continues a match, how is that of any interest to the spectator? The Australian fan may have just as well have watched her hero Federer play the ball boy or girl.
Perhaps that is the solution: have the ball boy or girl finish out the match for an injured player who has to retire.
Perhaps that is the solution: have the ball boy or girl finish out the match for an injured player who has to retire.
9
A summer past time sustained by marketing and fashion. Looking for real athletes who don't "retire" in the middle of the match? Try rugby!
The real difference is that men's and women's tennis is actually two different sports. The men are playing far above the women, on a level that's amazing, really. Add to that three out of five sets instead of 2 out of three and you have a large portion of your answer too, as to why male players are abandoning matches. And of course, the financial aspect is a huge dilemma.
12
Azarenka: "I think that women are pretty tough." I think so too. So why don't they play best of five sets at majors?
27
Too boring. IMHO.
Why would they want to? They get paid the same as men for 2 out of 3 sets.
Why would they want to? They get paid the same as men for 2 out of 3 sets.
3
Why don't the men play 3 sets? That is a better idea. Fewer injuries, more exciting matches.
You play a professional sport because you wish to be paid. You maximize your payout while avoiding further injury.You lengthen your career. Those are your priorities. Professional suicide doesn't pay well.
30
So Wimbledon has become a blackmail game.
Retirement or not, I'd like to understand why women play three set matches and men play five - yet women earn equal prize money.
8
Because until recently,women were not paid the same as men. In some tournaments men are still paid more.
2
"Retirement or not, I'd like to understand why women play three set matches and men play five - yet women earn equal prize money."
Women played 5 sets in the US National Championships (the precursor to the US Open) between 1891 and 1901. Tournament officials (all men) switched to three sets over the players' objections. A few years after Billy Jean King defeated Bobby Riggs (in a best of five format), the WTA voted for best of five in The US Open. Tournament officials said no. Then, between 1984 and 1998 the WTA Final (not a Slam) was best of five; when it was clear that the Slams weren't going to follow suit, it reverted to best of three. (In '94 the Australian Open was to have been best of five, but the organizers failed to consult the WT, which balked at the lack of process less than the idea itself.) Since then, the general feeling among female players has been One-Slam, All-Slams, as it is for men, who play best of five ONLY in the Slams (and Davis Cup). When men have four chances to make big bucks playing five set matches, and women have only one, only the very highest rated women will invest in the training needed to play the five-set game. It's a different game, as the men will attest. No one (I hope) is arguing anymore that the women aren't up to the task, but unless and until all the Slams adopt five sets for all, or a credible process for getting there, we're stuck with the current format.
Women played 5 sets in the US National Championships (the precursor to the US Open) between 1891 and 1901. Tournament officials (all men) switched to three sets over the players' objections. A few years after Billy Jean King defeated Bobby Riggs (in a best of five format), the WTA voted for best of five in The US Open. Tournament officials said no. Then, between 1984 and 1998 the WTA Final (not a Slam) was best of five; when it was clear that the Slams weren't going to follow suit, it reverted to best of three. (In '94 the Australian Open was to have been best of five, but the organizers failed to consult the WT, which balked at the lack of process less than the idea itself.) Since then, the general feeling among female players has been One-Slam, All-Slams, as it is for men, who play best of five ONLY in the Slams (and Davis Cup). When men have four chances to make big bucks playing five set matches, and women have only one, only the very highest rated women will invest in the training needed to play the five-set game. It's a different game, as the men will attest. No one (I hope) is arguing anymore that the women aren't up to the task, but unless and until all the Slams adopt five sets for all, or a credible process for getting there, we're stuck with the current format.
3
As for the compensation: The reason women earn equal prize money is that they fought for it and their arguments were persuasive. I'll leave aside the tennis aesthetics, and the fact that women's matches, being shorter, probably do generate less advertising and sales revenue. In the end, it comes down to fairness: it costs just as much to raise a competitive female player as it does to raise a competitive male player. Women don't get a break on expenses: tennis academy, airfare, hotels, equipment, clothing, coaches, physical therapists, and all the other outlays that are required, but not necessarily sufficient, for anyone, male or female, to make a living never mind a fortune playing tennis. The Slam organisers have apparently decided that telling advertisers that implicitly dissing their own product was a dumb business decision, one that cost them not a lot of money to correct.
Sounds sounds like a lot of these early-retiring guys need to "woman-up."
8
Cute one-liner. Or maybe the women should "man-up" and play best of 5 sets.
1
Wimps!!! Seriously, IF you can't play because you are injured, then don't play and rest up.
Man up and play, or rest up for another day.
Man up and play, or rest up for another day.
1
I think the point of the story is that the forfeiture of significant prize money if they don't step on to the court complicates the situation. Can't really blame someone who takes the court when not fully healthy in order to earn a third of what he/she will make the entire year. The optics would be better if the competitor hung in there a little longer but they are probably also a little leery of worsening their injury, for the sake of getting creamed by one of the best players in the world. Maybe there's some sort of insurance arrangement, where the player would get a significant portion of the purse even if he/she stepped aside to allow a healthy player to compete?
1
It's the Man Flu principle at play and it's just one more reason Serena IS the best tennis player of all time.
15
Define greatest player. Most accomplished over their career? Best player / most skilled to ever play the game in their prime? Best player player averaged over their career? Most dominant over their peers, irreflextive of competition? Most dominant/accomplished when considering level of competition?
It's a subjective question in any sport with no decisive answer, before bringing in the sex of he athletes. As an actual tennis fan and amature player who loves the sport, my advice to you social agenda fair weather fans is to keep the men's and women's game separate. Appreciate them both for what they are. They are completely separate leagues and kept separate for good reason. Get into a war of the sexes, and it will only hurt the sport and make fans choose sides instead of watching and cheering for them both.
It's a subjective question in any sport with no decisive answer, before bringing in the sex of he athletes. As an actual tennis fan and amature player who loves the sport, my advice to you social agenda fair weather fans is to keep the men's and women's game separate. Appreciate them both for what they are. They are completely separate leagues and kept separate for good reason. Get into a war of the sexes, and it will only hurt the sport and make fans choose sides instead of watching and cheering for them both.
Perhaps the ATP should consider additional penalties for those who retire during matches (barring injuries that occur while playing) that include a temporal ban .... let's say no professional tournaments for 3-4 months. That'll give these players something to think about when their mental toughness starts to get wobbly.
9
I remember a player called Manuel Orantes from decades ago. He was being slaughtered at one of the major tournaments but he refused to give up. A comeback seemed out of the question, yet somehow he did it, against all odds. He certainly never entertained giving up, and it was a breathtaking tennis.
This article is quite disturbing. If you don't finish your match, unless you are injured, you should not be paid. If you are playing in front of a ticket paying crowd, they deserve to see the best tennis one can play, even if that means losing.
This article is quite disturbing. If you don't finish your match, unless you are injured, you should not be paid. If you are playing in front of a ticket paying crowd, they deserve to see the best tennis one can play, even if that means losing.
20
"If you don't finish your match, unless you are injured, you should not be paid."
The point under discussion is a tad more subtle, because all of the individuals cited for retiring in a first-round match in fact WERE injured.
The problem is, they had sustained an injury BEFORE the match started. (In a previous tournament, during practice, an accident, etc.)
So the real question is: Going into the first round, if a player knows that s/he is injured and thus is unlikely to be able to complete that first match, is it fair (moral, just, nice ...) for that person to show up for only a few games in order to pick up the guaranteed $$$.
The point under discussion is a tad more subtle, because all of the individuals cited for retiring in a first-round match in fact WERE injured.
The problem is, they had sustained an injury BEFORE the match started. (In a previous tournament, during practice, an accident, etc.)
So the real question is: Going into the first round, if a player knows that s/he is injured and thus is unlikely to be able to complete that first match, is it fair (moral, just, nice ...) for that person to show up for only a few games in order to pick up the guaranteed $$$.
I love tennis. I love more to attend a game in person on the court side and watch the players in action and people's reactions to a great shot or miss. So when a game is done due to player withdraw in the early games, I must say what the heck is going on. It is a big disappointment for the fans. Something has to be done to remedy the situation. My suggestion would be to find a next-in-line "qualified player" to replace the withdrew player only in the early rounds (first or 2nd round). Let him or her to play (of course on another date) until the game is decided by actual results. At least, another player will have to chance to play in a major event. And the fan who holds the ticket will see a full game.
1
These tennis tournaments won't be too happy when networks stop covering the games because of the aborted matches. Maybe that punch to their wallets will get them to be stricter with players just phoning it in.
5
This article does not indicate why all of these players retired except for Dogolopolov. It's hard to pass judgment on them if you don't know the reason.
3
I recall a story about Rod Laver who was playing in a semi-final, and winning. But on match point, he defaulted. He said that his back was killing him, and he knew he would not be able to play in the final the next day. He said that the tournament, and the fans, deserved to see a final.
Quite a contrast to the stories in this article.
Quite a contrast to the stories in this article.
11
The solution is a simple one - if you don't finish a match you don't get paid. What's happening now totally disregards the fan, who lays out his/her hard earned cash expecting to see professional tennis players working not retiring.
24
It looks like Serena would definitely be better ranked than 700 on the men's circuit. She never gives up.
50
I don't even think Serena would agree with you. She is awesome but good men college players can beat Serena. Johnny Mac took a heap of criticism, but he knows what he is talking about. And, make her play 5 sets? C'mon, you can't be serious!
It doesn't matter what Serena would be ranked on the Men's circuit. They're separate leagues and should be treated separately because the draw to watching the Men's and women's games are different. Appreciate Men's and women's tennis for what they are. Pitting them against each other discredits everyone and detracts from them building off of one another.
People who don't follow tennis are so stuck on the number McEnroe (a true tennis analyst) gave, but it could very well be accurate -- it just doesn't matter. Tennis is the most popular individual sport in the world with the most individual sport participants. The 700 ranked male player playing Challenger Tournaments, if he grew up in your town or in your state or in your country perhap, would have been a phenom growing up and won every tennis tournament within reach. If you're the 700th best football, hockey or basketball player, you're either playing in the NBA, NHL or NBA or you are or will be signed and have an exclusive contract with one of the pro teams, on their eligible roster list, and are playing in a professional / "semi-pro" league.
People who don't follow tennis are so stuck on the number McEnroe (a true tennis analyst) gave, but it could very well be accurate -- it just doesn't matter. Tennis is the most popular individual sport in the world with the most individual sport participants. The 700 ranked male player playing Challenger Tournaments, if he grew up in your town or in your state or in your country perhap, would have been a phenom growing up and won every tennis tournament within reach. If you're the 700th best football, hockey or basketball player, you're either playing in the NBA, NHL or NBA or you are or will be signed and have an exclusive contract with one of the pro teams, on their eligible roster list, and are playing in a professional / "semi-pro" league.
So sad. But interesting that there is such a gender gap. Perhaps having had for so long and so hard for the right to play and be paid more fairly, the women value the game more. C'mon, fellas ~ it IS a game! And a great one you should be tickled to be playing for any compensation at all!
1
Fiona Wang should know better.
There is a grand Slam in Australia, too. In January. Federer played his way to the final which won, making one of the best comeback after a seven months knee injury.
Never mind that, there are also some ATP torunament played before the Australian open, still in her land.
Granted, she wanted to see Roger on grass court, which is his preferred surface. Well, she still can since Federer is still in the tournament.
This reporter should know better.
The average set time of Federer is 30 minutes. He has a big serve, a serve & volley play, and just last year he used SABR, a strategy to get the point quickly on opponent's serve.
Federer is not del Potro who longs for longer games (pun intended). Yesterday, he was on 4-4 into first set while other matches, started at the same time, were into finishing their second set.
Difference in male-female players retirement is not surprising in Grand Slam
(slippiness on grass court is a matter in itself, causing excessive strain on legs) since males have to play 3 out of 5 set to win, while females play 2 out of 3 AND males players hit balls way faster and with more spin than females.
If you still think otherwise, i offered the examples of Williams's sister (the most powerful females players) in 1998 battle of sexes when they brag they could beat any male players out of 200th ranked.
They lost. Both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten...
There is a grand Slam in Australia, too. In January. Federer played his way to the final which won, making one of the best comeback after a seven months knee injury.
Never mind that, there are also some ATP torunament played before the Australian open, still in her land.
Granted, she wanted to see Roger on grass court, which is his preferred surface. Well, she still can since Federer is still in the tournament.
This reporter should know better.
The average set time of Federer is 30 minutes. He has a big serve, a serve & volley play, and just last year he used SABR, a strategy to get the point quickly on opponent's serve.
Federer is not del Potro who longs for longer games (pun intended). Yesterday, he was on 4-4 into first set while other matches, started at the same time, were into finishing their second set.
Difference in male-female players retirement is not surprising in Grand Slam
(slippiness on grass court is a matter in itself, causing excessive strain on legs) since males have to play 3 out of 5 set to win, while females play 2 out of 3 AND males players hit balls way faster and with more spin than females.
If you still think otherwise, i offered the examples of Williams's sister (the most powerful females players) in 1998 battle of sexes when they brag they could beat any male players out of 200th ranked.
They lost. Both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten...
1
Why not just pro-rate their pay for the percentage of the match which has been played up to the time of retirement?
27
The problem is that one cannot predict whether the match would have lasted 3, 4, or 5 sets, nor how many games would be won by each player. In this case, the most generous scenario would be to assume three sets, with the withdrawing player losing the minimum number of games to complete those sets and prorate accordingly. That would still net about $22,500... still not a terrible disincentive to retire.
1
One of the reasons the men go down more often is that they are physically exceeding the safe limits of change of motion far more than the women, just based on weight alone. Yes, they are stronger, but physics has a way of disappointing all but the most well-conditioned, and a player can be very strong, yet not that well conditioned as some others.
So, especially in the fiver-setters, but also in the three-setters, it is not at all surprising that the men are retiring far more often from matches.
So, especially in the fiver-setters, but also in the three-setters, it is not at all surprising that the men are retiring far more often from matches.
Mardy Fish played his very last match at the US Open in 2015, ahead by 2 sets and then losing due to obvious debilitating cramps. He earned great admiration from the fans and especially from his opponent, Feliciano Lopez, both true sportsmen. On one hand, I admired him for finishing the match. On the other, it was painful to watch, and troubling. No easy answers here.
4
At tournaments at Cincinnati, Indian Wells, Miami and Rome since 2009, there have been 116 retirements by men and 90 by women. So are we talking about the same number of matches or not? Otherwise that is a misleading statistic.
A male player down a set, down 3-0 in the second set and facing certain defeat to a Federer or a Murray, and guaranteed $45,000, has "incentive" to just walk away as set forth in the article. While this is a disservice to the game and the paying public, is it much different than NBA teams regularly sitting out superstar players during several regular season games in order to "rest' them? The Cavaliers rested their three superstar players on a trip to Memphis depriving the paying fans the top quality product they believed they were paying for. In the end it is always about the money and the paying customers are left in the lurch.
9
What about a guaranteed salary for those ranked 75-150 at the end of the year. Only in tennis do players have to earn their money over and over and are forced to play constantly. With a bit more stability in their income, they could pick and choose the tournaments to play, hire coaches and put themselves on a more even footing with the elites of the sport who have large entourages.
8
Not true that it's only in tennis that players have to "earn their money over and over." Same is true of golf, but if you quit in the midst of a golf tournament you don't get paid anything.
If you make the "cut" you get paid, quit or not, in golf. A third or so of the players in a golf tourney get no money since miss the cut. All tennis players make money even if lose first round.
The economics of the ATP and WTA are like the economy of the United States. It's all skewed to the top percent.
There is no middle class.
Sherwin Rosen,many years ago, in his essay "The Economics of Superstars" on the distribution of wealth among athletes and celebrities that "We ain't seen nothing yet". He was correct then and even more so today.
There is no middle class.
Sherwin Rosen,many years ago, in his essay "The Economics of Superstars" on the distribution of wealth among athletes and celebrities that "We ain't seen nothing yet". He was correct then and even more so today.
36
I'm guessing that those in attendance don't receive a reimbursement for seeing only half a match. Perhaps full payment of prize money should be contingent on playing out the full match, otherwise, a player receives only half or a third of the payout. Injuries can't be helped, but spectators and TV viewers have a legitimate expectation of seeing a complete match.
52
It's all about the money.
12
Duh! We live in a capitalist society. I am a software engineer and if someone asked me to join a company for half my current salary, I would say no.
No one is handing out free passes to Wimbledon or Coachella or anything else. We all have to calculate what we are going to do for money needed to sustain ourselves.
No one is handing out free passes to Wimbledon or Coachella or anything else. We all have to calculate what we are going to do for money needed to sustain ourselves.
So make a rule mandating completed play, except for injuries.
Duh!
Duh!
7
Change the rule to eliminate the ability of the player to quit instead of finishing the match unless medical or weather is the reason.
2
This describes tennis driven not by competition but by greed and financial self-interest, a narcissism that exploits the rules of pay-for-play.
48
Yes, but tennis is also a very expensive sport. They really need some rule changes so that players don't feel like they have to play hurt or sick. For those that have done it just for greed, yeah, that's dirty.
When you receive your paycheck every other week is that considered greed too? You should go to work every day driven only by the competition.
Some of the men in pro tennis these days sure do seem physically and emotionally flimsy. I see many more medical time-outs for either trivial owies or just for the breaks. I also see more tantrums.
56
Give me a break, NYT WIT. Men play 3 out of 5 in Grand Slams. What do women do except pocket equal prize money for unequal work?
2
"equal prize money for unequal work work"??
How do you measure the intensity to win in 2 sets against
knowing you can lose 2 consecutive sets and then make a comeback?. Intensity and pressure to win in 2 out of 3 can weigh against time played or waiting out your opponent i.e he might get tired, lose concentration or get too confident.
Hey, sometimes that works.
Bottom line to me ..Women work just as hard in 2 sets vs
5 sets.
How do you measure the intensity to win in 2 sets against
knowing you can lose 2 consecutive sets and then make a comeback?. Intensity and pressure to win in 2 out of 3 can weigh against time played or waiting out your opponent i.e he might get tired, lose concentration or get too confident.
Hey, sometimes that works.
Bottom line to me ..Women work just as hard in 2 sets vs
5 sets.
2
If the men are such whiners, let them also play three sets. Duh.