Amelie Mauresmo has no REGRETS about the lack of women's night MATCHES
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2022
- Amelie Mauresmo has no REGRETS about the lack of women's night MATCHES.
🚨 ENJOYING our content? Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE ❗
🔥 Looking for Sports Videos in Spanish? Check out our Spanish channel. 👇
@TJSports - / tjsports
Follow TJ Sports USA on Social Media -
● IG: / tjsportsusa
● FB: / tjsportsusa
● Twitter: / tjsportsusa
✔️ Subscribe for New Uploads Every Day!
#TJSportsUSA #AmelieMauresmo #RolandGarros #RolandGarros2022 #FrenchOpen #FrenchOpen2022 
Спорт
Mauresmo is correct. Women tennis has been down in the dumps for a while now. Currently, Iga is my favorite player and that is only because sI like her style of play. Now she is more consistent, but does not have anyone on her level at the moment. Mauresmo scheduled Cornet and Ostapenko at night and what she got, a horrible match and empty seats. And Cornet is French. Unlike the women, the men fill seats. That is what the sponsors want. At one time the women tennis was just as good as the men. Not anymore.
Empty seats? I heard the crowd was very loud at the end when Ostapenko covered her ears.
Iga, mine also. Women need to stop showing their asses literally and play the sport.
I guess the truth hurts. I respect her for saying what she believes.
I love this woman. I would marry her in a heartbeat
I agree with her. I loved women’s tennis in the past, but it holds no interest for me now. All of the players seem like clones and there is just no variety of styles. Mauresmo is correct.
Sadly, the women's field is composed of a stream of cookie cutter monotonous baseline screamers. Without Serena, Ash, and Naomi, the field is just not appealing enough to attract more viewers. Iga has no one except for Zheng to challenge her adequately.
Like watching Anisimova...boring. Ons is fun to watch.
But ... compared to other sports, tennis is the ONLY sport I can enjoy the men and women almost equally. I was enjoying Borg era, but then I lost interest because Samprass make it too serve based. So I switched to the women side since there were Graff, Navratilova, Sales, Hingis, .... Then the men was interesting again with the big 3+2 era. Right now ... I might change side again because Swiatek has more swagger than the atp next-gens. In restropect ... I can't compare Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Ronaldo, Rossi to any woman, as well as comparing Nadia Comaneci to any male
She is right. Cause the wta is on a transition right now.Serena out Osaka healing. Barty was #1. When she retired. For some reason . Halep vika Muguruza Kerber etc.. not at a hight level anymore. So we have to wait for the raducanu. Fernandez coco etc… to catch up to Iga level. No worry that will come like always.
Problem is not only absence of rivalries. The general level of tennis is probably below the ATP Challenger level.
I have no intention of belittling women, however, they need to understand and accept that male athletes will almost always be superior to female athletes. Swiatek's idol is Nadal, not Serena, Venus, Henin, Sharapova or any of the female tennis players.
When the big 3 of men's tennis play, especially against each other, even the legends of women's tennis are in awe of their matches. Can any of the ladies hit the forehand winners Nadal hit in the 1st set tiebreaker against Zverev? I don't know of anyone, not even Swiatek, Barty, Serena, Venus, Henin, Clijsters etc. There isn't even anyone who can play at the level of Zverev.
Raducanu? She has compiled the worst 9 month post-slam record of all time on the WTA. Her top scalp in that time is the WTA 49 (has lost to several players way lower than that) and she hasn't won more than 2 matches at any event since. There hasn't been a decent standard of rivalry on the WTA in nearly 15 years when Justine Henin retired.
@@prakashsurendran6285 - comparing female athletes to male athletes as if they are clones of each other who should perform at the exact same level is a simpleton move. None of the lades "can hit the forehand winner Nadal hit in the 1st set tiebreaker against Zverev" because they're not suppose to be able to...they are not male. The women's game in just about ANY sport is always going to be different than the male. The true comparison standard is not the male sex, where women have multiple physical and other disadvantages and differences as a result of nature, the comparison standard is the female sex, and what other females have accomplished theretofore in the sport. Expecting a female to play at the exact level of Zverev is about as idiotic as expecting a male to supply at the same level the needs of a newborn. Both are idiotic expectations.
@@waldolydecker8118
You said it. If you cannot compare the sport, don't compare the prize money, because it is not the same sport. Period.
@@prakashsurendran6285 - Not necessarily. You assume that because they are not "the exact same sport" you can't have "the exact same prize money." Negative. The standard comparative debate on this topic is flawed - everybody knows men are always going to hit harder, out-dunk, generally out-draw, etc, etc, etc, women in sports primarily for two reasons - nature, and the much longer head start men's sports have been established, promoted, and financially supported. Most women's pro sports are no more than 25-50 years old at best. Men's pro sports have generally been around two to three times as long; 100-150 years at the pro level for the major sports - football, baseball, hockey, basketball, tennis, golf, etc. As a less mature, less saturated product, women's sports have excellent growth potential, given the proper product, the proper markets, promotion, and financial support similar to what all men's sports required in their fledgling years.
The two sports will always be different and unique with their own respective qualities, contributions, etc. Regarding the prize money, nothing wrong with the same prize money paying for different things. The women's games may not generally out do men in ticket sales, ratings, etc, but what they will do is attract fans and market segments that the men's games will not; this is important to the total picture. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Famously in 2001, it was the Williams Sisters who launch tennis as a "prime time" broadcasted sport, when, because of their ratings power, CBS moved their afternoon schedule US Open final to 8pm. It was the first tennis match ever broadcast live in prime time and its ratings outdrew everything else in its time slot, including the Notre Dame- Nebraska football game on NBC. Before 2001 tennis was played around the world as a daytime sport - like baseball before the first night game in 1935. With most of the best tennis matches now being scheduled for night sessions, we easily forget today that it was the women's game in 2001 - not Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, or Aggasi - who brought the sport to the larger audiences of prime time television. This is one of the lasting accomplishments of the Williams Sisters and women's tennis - bringing the sport live to primetime where it has never been before.
Per capita, the female sport demographic may (at least at this point in time) be 'more expensive' compared to some male sports demographics, but if the female sports fan is a more emotionally attached customer, corporate marketers will find worthwhile value in that demographic. You can view the two sports as you would two $50K automobiles or two $300K houses. Both vehicles or both homes cost the same prize money, but for that same money, each one will be different in style, function, purpose, capability, appeal, etc. Some buyers will like one of the vehicles or homes way better than the other, while other buyers will feel exactly the opposite. Nevertheless, they both will sell for the same prize money.
Same prize money for women's tennis isn't to pay for the same performance you get in men's tennis; its to pay for the unique demographic DIFFERENCES you can only get from the women's game.
Ici London lawn 🎾 tennis
" Un quarteron de jeunes retraités du tennis a mené une aventure personnelle en vendant notre patrimoine national à un épicier numérique de l'étranger .. ce groupe et ce quarteron possèdent un savoir-faire limité et expéditif..., mais ils ne voient et ne connaissent la nation et le monde que déformés au travers de leur frénésie.
She is spot on!!!
Very obvious when you have a streak like Iga....How could you ignore that? Very short sighted.
does 1 consistent player make a tour? does it make it compelling? no, it doesn't. Only 1 of the Top 10 WTA seeds made the second week of Roland Garros (round of 16). That's a joke. 6 of the top 8 ATP seeds made the quarter finals (even though the silly French draw method ended up with two lop-sided halves)
There is is long-lasting argument about equal pay for female players.
Richard Krajicek said something about that, back in 1992: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Krajicek
Not politically correct, but very clear. The percentage he was referring to has decreased since then, but at the time it was hardly an exaggeration.
And now Amélie, with a far softer approach, will still get criticised for speaking out on this obvious difference.
I'm glad she had the nerves to do so.