Great to see the facts laid out so clearly. One thing that has changed is there’s now men campaigning for women - everyone now cares that their daughters grow up in an equal world. Thank you for carrying the torch on this.
Well-explained and organized. Thanks. A few random thoughts: 1) This thing of making former players tournament directors is a bit of a farce. The person ends up being the face of the tournament and has to defend decisions they may or may not be responsible for. It’s like they’re the fall guy for all complaints. 2) Even taking that into account, Mauresmo isn’t good at it. I’m not saying she’s not smart, but you need someone smartER, quick on their feet and well-prepared for the questions they’re going to get. Some of it might be language-related, but she doesn’t express herself well enough in English on these issues. I sympathize. These are nuanced things to discuss in a non-native language. But some people can do it well. She’s not one of those people. 3) There needs to be transparency about who is really making these decisions. When Mauresmo gets flustered she says it’s not only her decision, which makes it sound like she doesn’t agree with the decision. Or it at least raises the question. 4) You sort of have to admire the ballsiness of the tournament not just doubling down, but 22-timesing down this year on the night match/first match thing. You’d think someone would say, maybe let’s hedge a bit and go 70% women for 11am and 30% men. Or let’s pick two nights and gamble on the women. But no, these people go big or go home. They’re going down the T every single serve. No exceptions. No hedging!
It's quite frustrating that a consideration leading to one of the constraints to which Mauresmo alluded in the press conference - starting the night session late to make sure there are butts in seats - is seemingly disregarded when scheduling the day session, where, as noted by Ben, the first match of the day tends to not be well attended and is overwhelmingly filled with a women's match. The tournament is doing women a "favour" by not having them play in front of a small crowd to start an earlier night session, but it's a-okay to have them play in front of a small crowd to start the day.
It's also frustrating that the tournament is digging in on its "we don't intend the night session scheduling to be sexist therefore it's not sexist" response. Journalists and players (and fans) are telling them that this is being received by some as sexism. Doubling down and not changing any behaviours despite the knowledge of how it is being perceived, that's the true display of sexism here.
I get that some people would feel like they'd not gotten their money's worth if they watched a 2-set blowout. (For the record, I personally would also feel like I'd not gotten my money's worth watching a 3-set blowout.) But there's inherent risk in purchasing a ticket for tennis. Because it's not a team sport and there are no subs, there is no guaranteed outcome for what paying ticketholders are going to get to see. A male player could get injured and retire after 2 sets. Before there was a roof on any courts, it might rain a significant portion of the day and the crowds would get only part of a match for a whole day. People might grumble if it happened, but they knew that was a possibility going in. Sometimes the crowd is unlucky.
To be really clear, the French Open night session is a bad ticket, and the tournament should do away with it entirely. The tournament managed well without one for many, many years. It's a cash grab by the organizers. (Maybe I'm being too cynical...)
P.S. Love the reference to The Body Serve. If the rest of you aren't listening to that podcast, try them out. 👍
Fantastic analysis. The focus on who is getting the lousy 11 AM slot really hits the nail on the head. I was thinking about that watching recent Slam winners Coco Gauff and Madison Keys very very early this morning. I understand that there were constraints about having downtime before needing to play the next day, but women play three set matches everyday during the other tournaments all the time.
Excellent post. Two matches per night, women and men, would be such a natural solution to all of this. Has there been/is there a problem of curfews around RG which could make such a solution infeasible?
Great to see the facts laid out so clearly. One thing that has changed is there’s now men campaigning for women - everyone now cares that their daughters grow up in an equal world. Thank you for carrying the torch on this.
Agree about Mauresmo. It’s extremely puzzling, and disappointing. I share that feeling of betrayal that Pam outlined.
Awesome read.
Well-explained and organized. Thanks. A few random thoughts: 1) This thing of making former players tournament directors is a bit of a farce. The person ends up being the face of the tournament and has to defend decisions they may or may not be responsible for. It’s like they’re the fall guy for all complaints. 2) Even taking that into account, Mauresmo isn’t good at it. I’m not saying she’s not smart, but you need someone smartER, quick on their feet and well-prepared for the questions they’re going to get. Some of it might be language-related, but she doesn’t express herself well enough in English on these issues. I sympathize. These are nuanced things to discuss in a non-native language. But some people can do it well. She’s not one of those people. 3) There needs to be transparency about who is really making these decisions. When Mauresmo gets flustered she says it’s not only her decision, which makes it sound like she doesn’t agree with the decision. Or it at least raises the question. 4) You sort of have to admire the ballsiness of the tournament not just doubling down, but 22-timesing down this year on the night match/first match thing. You’d think someone would say, maybe let’s hedge a bit and go 70% women for 11am and 30% men. Or let’s pick two nights and gamble on the women. But no, these people go big or go home. They’re going down the T every single serve. No exceptions. No hedging!
Great read! Thank you!!
Happy Pride to you too! ❤️
It's quite frustrating that a consideration leading to one of the constraints to which Mauresmo alluded in the press conference - starting the night session late to make sure there are butts in seats - is seemingly disregarded when scheduling the day session, where, as noted by Ben, the first match of the day tends to not be well attended and is overwhelmingly filled with a women's match. The tournament is doing women a "favour" by not having them play in front of a small crowd to start an earlier night session, but it's a-okay to have them play in front of a small crowd to start the day.
It's also frustrating that the tournament is digging in on its "we don't intend the night session scheduling to be sexist therefore it's not sexist" response. Journalists and players (and fans) are telling them that this is being received by some as sexism. Doubling down and not changing any behaviours despite the knowledge of how it is being perceived, that's the true display of sexism here.
I get that some people would feel like they'd not gotten their money's worth if they watched a 2-set blowout. (For the record, I personally would also feel like I'd not gotten my money's worth watching a 3-set blowout.) But there's inherent risk in purchasing a ticket for tennis. Because it's not a team sport and there are no subs, there is no guaranteed outcome for what paying ticketholders are going to get to see. A male player could get injured and retire after 2 sets. Before there was a roof on any courts, it might rain a significant portion of the day and the crowds would get only part of a match for a whole day. People might grumble if it happened, but they knew that was a possibility going in. Sometimes the crowd is unlucky.
To be really clear, the French Open night session is a bad ticket, and the tournament should do away with it entirely. The tournament managed well without one for many, many years. It's a cash grab by the organizers. (Maybe I'm being too cynical...)
P.S. Love the reference to The Body Serve. If the rest of you aren't listening to that podcast, try them out. 👍
Fantastic analysis. The focus on who is getting the lousy 11 AM slot really hits the nail on the head. I was thinking about that watching recent Slam winners Coco Gauff and Madison Keys very very early this morning. I understand that there were constraints about having downtime before needing to play the next day, but women play three set matches everyday during the other tournaments all the time.
Excellent post. Two matches per night, women and men, would be such a natural solution to all of this. Has there been/is there a problem of curfews around RG which could make such a solution infeasible?
Thank you Ben for saying what needs to be said, Mauresmo needs to resign.