They can't cope with the demands of it physically.
I dont think that's it. Lots of women have talked about going five sets and have said that it being physically demanding doesnt really have anything to do with it. I think they could cope with the physical demands fine.
Marking for: John Morrison, Randy Orton, CM Punk, Sheamus, Dolph Ziggler, Cody Rhodes and Jack Swagger.
Yes, you love him whilst he's winning, then he loses and gets trashed in the papers and by British fans that he's a hack, a failure and the like. 50% of Murray's mental fragility is the weight of expectation upon his shoulders, much like it was with Henman. It was always predictable each year to watch Henman fail in the semis.
How many British papers have you read in order to form that opinion? You're way off the mark and there's no shame in losing to the likes of Nadal at Wimbledon, and Murray has often played some of his best tennis at Wimbledon and has come back from 2 sets down before. Here's some examples of post-Murray elimination reaction:
Not a choker. Not a failure. Just not as good as Nadal.
Originally Posted by Daily Express
So finally, once and for all, we know the answer to the hottest question in Britain over the past fortnight. The cruel answer is simply: No, Andy Murray is not as good as Rafael Nadal. He will work fiercely to close the gap. But on the hard evidence of last night on Centre Court, when Murray tried high-risk tennis to try to force his way to the final, Nadal has more shots, more pace, more skill.
Originally Posted by Daily Record
Nadal overcame a slow start to produce some of the highest-quality tennis witnessed at SW19 and blow that statistic completely out of the water. The ability to deliver your best under pressure is what separates the true elite from their talented peers and it was the difference between Nadal and Murray
As for Henman, he was never good enough to get beyond the semi's, bar 2001 where he probably would've reached the finals without the rain delays.
Serena on beast mode today on her serve. Crazy shit. Think she got up to 24 Aces in just 2 sets. She was even hitting them off her 2nd serve. Hard to see anyone beating her at Wimbledon when she's playing like that. Nobody on the womens tour that comes close to her power. Can't see Radwanska beating her sadly. She's been playing doubles every other day too along with her singles run.
As for why women don't play 5 sets I think some but not all of it has to do with scheduling for these grand slams. When Mens matches go 5 sets and there's delays it causes enough of a headache but you'd need even more time if the womens draw were best of 5 sets too. Plus the women aren't physically as strong is true too. I'm sure they could play a 5 set match but probably not a tournament full of them. I doubt there'd be the same level of interest in womens tennis either if they were playing 5 sets.
Average women can't compete with men, I would agree.
But these women are professional athlete and I think a few more sets wouldn't tire them!
I was joking! In this day & age they're far more able to compete for a longer period of time. Their conditioning is so much better now than it was 10 years ago. I'm sure they could go five sets. Personally I'd love to see the likes of Kirilenko on court for five hour matches!
I don't think the women are that inferior as far as stamina goes. But I think their style of play would make it much harder on them. Most men are better at getting quick points. That's what makes the 5-setters manageable for men.
I have to admit, it would be fun to see how Caroline Wozniacki would do in 5-sets. She looks fit enough to just grind everybody out.