One of the big stories being bandied about by ESPN during their coverage of Wimbledon on opening day so far has been the fact that the All England Club has, for the first time ever, decided to award equal pay to both men's and women's players. Let me begin by saying that I am all for this change and am surprised it took this long for it to happen.
|Sorry, Roger, but you are just too good.|
Federer also fails to be polarizing (read: interesting) because he's not really a charismatic guy. Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras... these guys were all charismatic in that they were either likable or outrageous -- whatever you want to call it, they got you to watch. While Federer is buddies with Tiger, it'd be more appropriate if he were friends with Vijay Singh granted his demeanor (that is, if Vijay ever won anything anymore... but why let facts get in the way of a fun analogy?).
I digress. (Shock!)
|You say you wouldn't want to see two more sets per match of Ana Ivanovic? I say you're a liar.|
Honestly, though, I don't think that Wimbledon--or any other Grand Slam for that matter--should stop there. I think that not only should the women be given equal pay, I think they should be given equal time. That's right, sports fans, I think the women should play best-of-five-set matches. Think about it:
- The TV networks get more sustained ratings for their tennis broadcasts
- The women get further credibility for their claim that their game is just as good as the men's
- The men get solace from the fact the women will have to work just as hard as they do for the money
- The tournaments get fewer upsets with 5-set matches, ensuring the best players matched up in the later rounds
- I get another hour-plus of tennis the next time there's a Sharapova-Ivanovic match
I'm telling you it's the next logical step in the evolution of tennis, people!