Leaderboard

I don't think it is any exaggeration to say that the most memorable moment in women's tennis was this :

Regardless of the outcome, you've really got to applaud these nations for reaching the final of the Ashes, time after time.

It's good for us but also a bit of a joke - getting a bye to a stage of the tournament where more than half the teams have gone out? From a fans point of view, the best things about cup ties are the trips to grounds in different leagues that we don't normally go to. Stenny away this season was excellent.

I see the draw for the League Cup 1st Round is made tomorrow. I noticed Partick Thistle (now SPL) are to be included in it and I had a look at the format for this season. It's not explicitly been mentioned anywhere, but I can only see that Inverness have a bye to Round 3 - the last 16!!! The format employed assumes 5 Scottish teams in Europe but there are only 4 this season. They automatically get byes to the last 16. However, there seems to be a clause that, in the event of there not being 5 European representatives, then the highest placed team from the league (not European qualified) will assume the position of team 5. If I've interpreted it correctly, this would be a nice unexpected boost! The format is from this link with section 2 being the relevant bit. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/football/league-cup/format/

I have always been one for equality and fairness and I do believe that men and women should get equal pay for the tournaments they enter - however, only if they play the same amount of tennis. In the men's singles, they have to win a minimum of 21 sets ( 7 matches winning in 3 sets in each) to win the title but the women only have to win a minimum of 14 (7 matches winning in 2 sets in each) this is at the grand slams. The men also could play a maximum of 35 sets in a grand slam where as the women would only play a maximum of 21 sets. so why do the women get equal pay for playing less? I think the women should get the same prize money but they should also play the best of 5 sets like the men. Women run the 100m like the men, a marathon like the men, play 90mins of football like the men so why not play best of 5 sets in tennis like the men? Not looking to offend anyone, just wondering what other peoples opinions are on this

£1.99 in Menzies and Woolies.........unless you had a deep pocket in yer coat

But some of the women are more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

Average number of points played in a match : Men : 231 Women : 132 So men play an average of 75% more tennis. And at to a much, much higher standard. But for the same pay. That's not what I would call equality.

Get a message to Terry quick. Fans are not happy that our success last season allows us to enter the league cup at a later stage. We need to ensure we finish no higher than sixth in future seasons. In fact, to ensure we get to play round 1 we need to get relegated. Reading Rule 12 I think Partick still start in Round 1 as it states the SPL at end of season are deemed to be higher than below. At end of season Dundee were 12th in SPL and Partick 1st in Div 1. My interpretation says Dundee come in at Round 2.

An argument has always been that despite the fact the matches are shorter, the women still need to spend as much time and effort in training to reach the top. There is also the argument that because they are not as powerful there are are likely to be longer rallies because there are fewer aces and outright winners. In the old days there was some truth in that because the men played a serve and volley game and there were very few baseline battles. Games last far longer now despite the fact that there are tie breaks in all but the last set. I do think that sometimes men's matches are too long and women's matches are too short. In the women's game there is sometimes little opportunity for a good comeback and players can be blown away before they have really settled. In order to restore some equality what I would like to see is 4 set matches with a slightly longer tie break set such as best of 21 points if they ended at 2 sets all. As well as introducing equality, it would also end the ridiculously long matches that sometimes occur and which can be disruptive of schedules and which seriously disadvantage the player in the next round. As for prize money, I do think that equality is inappropriate because more people come to watch the men play than the women. Where there are separate tournaments for men and women (Queens and Eastbourne for example) there is more media interest and sponsorship money for the men's event. If prize money was awarded pro-rata to paying customers, media rights and sponsorship deals for separate mens and womens events, then women would not get the same as the men. Women footballers may play for 90 minutes but they don't get paid the same for the simple reason that women's football does not attract the same level of paying customers. It is simple market forces. The problem with Wimbledon is that in general it is difficult to differentiate between what the paying customers are hoping to see and therefore market forces cannot be applied to the allocation of prize money. So whilst equality of prize money may be inappropriate, I don't think there is much that can be done about it - although deducting £10 for every unnecessary grunt would be a step in the right direction.

The season hasn't started and already we've gone on a cup run.

Seems legit.