Feminists Rejoice!!!!! Woo HOOOOOOO

[NotanOtter]

about time too!

nice Verdi? Steady there caligula

I said entertainment of similar style and entertainment value. I wouldn't compare a circus with a film.

My personal view is that, if I have £100 to spend on a tennis ticket, I'd probably rather spend it on a men's game than a women's game as it provides better value for money.

But if they had to play a minimum of 3 sets, wouldn't they need to loosen their stays, or else they would have an attack of the vapours?

(Think that was Tim Henman's argument?)

Sue Barker was on the news saying that the women have offered to play 5 sets but were turned down because the organisers can only just manage to fit everything in with the 3 sets they play now.

LOL. That's the thing Freckle, lots of people prefer the women's game, because they say it is less boring than the men's one. (personally I'd just sit in the entertainment tent and drink the pimms, I think they're all boring.)

I mean nice as opposed to Wagner, Marina!

To be honest, the better value for money is probably the drink-it-in-the-tent option. How far would £100 go at Wimbledon - if you opt for no strawberries??

If that's right, coppertop, then the organisers should scrap the interminable doubles matches so that the women can play five sets. I'm not a big tennis fan but I often feel cheated watching the womens' game.

I think they should cut them all down to three sets so there's more time to spend in the tent...

Isn't Wimbledon the only Grand Slam tournament that has 5 set matches? I thought the others were only 3 sets for both men and women (where it does make sense for money parity).

Why not get rid of doubles? Does anybody actually watch it?