The French Tennis Federation made the definitive announcement today that The French Open will begin a day earlier next year, on Sunday instead of Monday, and also announced that they will follow the lead of the Australian and US Opens by paying the women equal prize money. This leaves stodgy ol' Wimbledon as the only Slam that does not offer the women equal pay.

Now Amelie Mauresmo has an extra day to be nervous about Roland Garros and, should she ever shock us all and win the title, she'd earn every bit as much as the boys do!

Ooh La La!

More likely she'll win the same amount of money as the men who lose in the 3rd or 4th round.

So when will the women play a best of five like the men do at Grand Slams?

I kind of like this idea. At first I thought it was just a revenue generator for the tournament, but the arguement about starting the tournament witht a high viewing audience is a great one.

Now if the other Slams pick this up, they will have adjust some of the "traditional" scheduling. It seemed like there were some rather thing days towards the middle of the second week at the Open this year, and I fear adding another day at the beginning of the tournament will only make this problem worse.

I can barely stand men's matches at best of five, forget making women's matches best of five.

This arguement that men should get paid more because they play best of five is really an after-the-fact arguement to justify why men get paid more. That certianly wasn't the reason why men were paid more to begin with, or at least that's what I think.

And for sure, it seems like for the past few years, the women have been more of a draw than the men, while at least when they're all healthy.

I think the best of five argument is weak. Tennis goes in cycles ... sometimes there is more entertainment on the men's side and sometimes there is more entertainment on the women's. The two support each other and balance one another out, regardless of whether or not the women play the same amount of sets as the men in the majors. Best-of-five does not automatically make men's tennis more competitive or more intriguing or more meaningful than a best-of-three sets match. And it certainly doesn't affect marketability or drawing power. I guarantee you that the general public can list far more top female tennis players than top male players.

Sure, when men's tennis is at its best, you get a great five setter like Blake vs. Agassi at this year's Open. But, more often than not, the five setters on the men's side are simple wars of attrition where the length of the match far exceeds its entertainment value. (Especially on red clay!) They also pose more of a problem for televison coverage, as the matches often last longer than most networks devote to tennis (except for USA, God Bless 'Em). So the best of five can do as much harm to tennis as good.

It's great that the men have the five set matches as an element that can produce great tennis. But it only harms the sport to use that as a divisive tool to belittle women's tennis and argue for a comparative pay scale. Tennis is not the ATP versus the WTA. Even the regular events are starting to realize that the two tours need one another and equality is the way to go, hence more combined events, including the combination of the year-end championships in the near future.

Plus the Slams would have difficulty with scheduling if the women went to best of five. They are often scrambling to get all the matches in at the end of week two.

Phew....I thought that the French Open was moving the tournament earlier in terms of weeks. I know a lot of fans and players wish that there was more of a break between the French Open and Wimbledon but I think thats what makes winning both in the same year such a feat. The surfaces are like night and day and you don't have much time to transition. Who is the last men's player to win the French and Wimbledon in the same year? I know the last women's player was Serena.

Wasn't Borg the last to do the French-Wimbledon double. That makes his feat that much more impressive. I personally don't think that any more time would give the vast majority of players, on the men's side especially, more of a shot at the both slams. Federer is the only current player that look capable of it. Agassi did come close in 99' when he won the French and made the finals of Wimbledon. It was pretty impressive that he made the finals in 4 straight major during that streak.

I believe it was Borg--who did it three times in a row! I don't think that's been matched by anyone, male or female. Graf won both 4 times, but not consecutively.