[Simon Gruber]

US OPEN has been famous for some great Men's night matches throughout the years. If you look at tonight's matches you'll see Federer-Matosevic (which has potential) scheduled ahead of Serena-Townsend which will be a snoozefest. Do I have to go down there and kill people? This has to stop. Equal prize money? Okay, fine. But depriving the audience of some classic late night US Open drama?

[EaglesPhan36]

Has nothing to do with equal anything. They load up on the big names. Serena plays night matches every year. Get over it. There's very rarely any drama in the night matches the first three-four days.

[Simon Gruber]

Has nothing to do with equal anything. They load up on the big names. Serena plays night matches every year. Get over it. There's very rarely any drama in the night matches the first three-four days.

You're missing the point - I'm well aware of what they do - I've been going there since I was 6 years old. US OPEN night matches are famous for late night drama; the potential for an epic 5 set match that ends at 2 in the morning. The woman should be on first - not sometimes, not almost always - always.

[EaglesPhan36]

Meh doesn't bother me any. Men's matches can be just as lopsided early and boring. They're not all going to be winners.

[Simon Gruber]

Obviously not, but at least with the Men the potential is there for a great 5 set tennis match. I guess they started alternating a couple of years ago. There was a reason why it was the way it was for 25+ years of night matches. If they were smart they'd schedule Seppi-Kyrgios for the second match on Thursday night.

[Simon Gruber]

If I bought tickets for the night match and was stuck watchin Seppi Id ask for a refund.

Better that then being swindled into Serena-Fatty headliner. It's like Opeth co-headlining with In Flames. Who would stay for In Flames?

[EaglesPhan36]

More people would fill Ashe to watch Serena bash someone 6-0, 6-1 than to watch some shitfest with Seppi unable to hold serve. Just because a match goes five sets doesn't mean it's going to be exciting. Plenty of five setters are as boring as a straight sets 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 win.

[poet]

I have to weigh in on this one, EP. Women's tennis is inferior in every way to men's tennis (unless you love catty bitches with skimpy outfits staring each other down in between points where they try to out-grunt each other) which is not to say it is not entertaining or even exciting. Is it a form of entertainment? Sure. Is it a sport? Maybe. Is it a sport played at highest level? Certainly not. Women's tennis is to the sport of tennis (in terms of its caliber) what the special olympics are to the olympics. And if you don't like that analogy, how about this one. Say a group of dwarfs got together and created a tennis league, and then played matches as well as they could for dwarfs of their size. Would you watch it? Maybe. Would you call it entertaining? Maybe. Would you ever consider putting it on primetime as a featured match at the USO? Certainly not. The freak show called women's tennis, featuring a buffed out Serena (full of roid rage) against Taylor Townsend (full of twinkies and cupcakes) is a bit of a farce, if you ask me. In this regard, I have to agree with Simon.

[fitguy67]

agree with OP and Poet here...

top-tier women's tennis = top-tier boy's hi-school tennis

for absolute starters (ie. being totally blind to the important and vast difference in quality of the "product" being delivered by the two brands)...prize money for a max-3set tourney should be not a penny more than 60% of that awarded for the same result achieved in a concurrently-held max-5set tournament