Grand Slam Tennis number of sets - Tennis Review

Grand Slam Tennis number of sets

Spreadsheet showing aggregated statistics of the four grand slams. (Please see article body for the main results in text form.)The results (aggregate of all 4 tournaments):

(1) Winners per game: men 2.0, women 1.8

(2) Winners rate (as % of total points): men 31%, women 27%

(3) Unforced errors per game: men 1.7, women 2.1

(4) Unforced errors rate (as % of total points): men 27%, women 33%

(5) Winners to unforced errors ratio: men 1.14, women 0.83

(6) Points per game: women 6.6, men 6.3

(7) Games per set: men 9.8, women 9.2

(8) %age of straight-sets matches: men 50%, women 69%

(9) %age of final-set matches: women 30%, men 17%

(10) %age of tie-break sets: men 18%, women 9%

(11) Double-faults per game: men 0.2, women 0.3

(12) Service breaks rate (as % of total games): women 35%, men 20%

Arguments that women should receive less prize money than men are more generally arguments about value – i.e. does men’s tennis have more value than women’s tennis. The measurement of this value can take many forms – prize money is one of them; other forms are things like the amount and nature of media coverage, and the amount and nature of public appreciation. The higher the prize money, and the more and better the media coverage and public appreciation, the more the tennis is valued.

Most commonly one hears the argument that since men play best-of-5 and women play best-of-3, therefore men’s tennis deserves more prize money (i.e. it has more value). Leaving alone the fact that the WTA is willing to play best-of-5 too (links: Major obstacle to women’s call for five sets, WTA chief says women ‘ready, willing’ for five sets), the main flaw in these arguments is inconsistency – if number of sets really determines value, then that metric ought to be applied uniformly across the board rather than only on two sides of an arbitrarily chosen divide of men’s tennis and women’s tennis – i.e. it ought to be applied to all tennis matches, period. So a man who loses in 3 straight sets should receive less prize money (and less and worse media coverage and public appreciation) than a man who loses in 5 sets – because going by the logic of that particular metric, there is a difference in value the two men have provided. The same principle holds for any of the metrics above, or any other metric of your choosing, such as market demand (ticket sales, TV ratings etc.). Today the prize money is already equal, so what of the other measures of value – the media coverage and the public appreciation? It’s quite easy to see the inconsistency – a men’s match is treated kindly even when it ought not to be (as per these metrics). The media tends to be generous with praise and emphasizes the positive rather than the negative, with far more interview quotes and coverage for the men in general. One example from recent times – Maria Sharapova’s final-set defeat to Angelique Kerber in this year’s Wimbledon only got one sentence of coverage in The Hindu. Yet it devoted several paragraphs to Andy Murray’s straight-sets defeat (on a different day) – and this discrepancy in coverage was repeated on many days. This issue is something that would be worth doing a proper study on.



You might also like

Grand Slam Tennis 2 vs. Roger Federer set 1
Grand Slam Tennis 2 vs. Roger Federer set 1
Grand Slam Tennis 2 vs John McEnroe set one
Grand Slam Tennis 2 vs John McEnroe set one
Grand Slam Tennis 2 - Broke and Silver Set Achievements
Grand Slam Tennis 2 - Broke and Silver Set Achievements ...
GRAND SLAM TENNIS 2 - MCENROE V SAMPRAS 5TH SET DECIDER
GRAND SLAM TENNIS 2 - MCENROE V SAMPRAS 5TH SET DECIDER ...
Match point: ten years ago, Amelie Mauresmo came out of the closet after her breakout run to the finals at the Australian open. Two grand slam titles ... (The national gay & lesbian newsmagazine)
Book (Regent Media)
HELLEN WILLS (Moody) Wins US OPEN Women's Tennis Grand Slam Champ 1929 Newspaper THE NEW YORK TIMES, Sport's section only, August 25, 1929
Entertainment Memorabilia ()
  • Rare Newspaper
  • An original, printed in 1929
  • We make every effort to describe each item accurately and to provide photos which reflect both content and condition. Please see the item s description and photos...

Copyright © . All Rights Reserved