Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via AP

DAY 1: (2) Serena Williams def. Neuza Silva
DAY 2: (3) Venus Williams def. Stefanie Voegel
DAY 3: Gisela Dulko def. (24) Maria Sharapova
DAY 4: (9) Caroline Wozniacki def. Maria Kirilenko
DAY 5: (8) Victoria Azarenko def. (28) Sorana Cristea
DAY 6: (3) Venus Williams def. C.S. Navarro
DAY 7: (1) Dinara Safina def. (17) A. Mauresmo
DAY 8: (1) Dinara Safina def. Sabine Lisicki
(2) Serena Williams def. (8) Victoria Azarenka

Besides a shocking amount of vowels, what do you see in this list? Days 3-5 (listed in red) are clearly the matches that compelled the Daily News article to say, “While a succession of easy-on-the-eye unknowns have appeared in Wimbledon’s prime arena, the top women’s seeds have been relegated to lesser courts.”

Here’s what I’m willing to concede about those three days: Higher ranked players were playing somewhere other than Centre Court. I’ll also concede that while the top-ranked were elsewhere, attractive tennis players were at Centre Court. Six of ‘em.

Here’s what I’m unwilling to concede:  That they are unknowns.

First off, don’t call Maria Sharapova an unknown. She’s known. She’s very known. She’s more known than you and me combined. Stop it. On Day 4, when Venus Williams was on Court 1 and Safina took Court 2, up-and-comer Caroline Wozniacki defeated Maria Kirilenko at Centre Court. Wozniacki had just made a splash at the French Open a few weeks before and, oh yeah … she’s the ninth-ranked woman in the world. Let’s say that despite being one of the 10 best female tennis players in the world, Wozniacki is still unknown, isn’t that all the more reason to get her onto a prominent platform to promote the sport? You’ll be hard-pressed to find people knowledgeable about tennis who aren’t bored with the Williams sisters’ absolute domination for the past decade. It makes more sense to showcase players outside the top three early in the tournament because the likelihood that they’ll be around later dwindles with each round. The next day Victoria Azarenka (ranked one spot above Wozniacki) defeated No. 28 Sorana Cristea. Safina and Venus Williams had the day off, which only left Serena. Where was Serena? On Court 2 battling it out with unseeded Roberta Vinci.

Sophisticated tennis fans would more likely prefer to watch two ranked players, right? Isn’t there a better chance for close competition between any two seeds than a  No. 2 and a non-seed? Unsophisticated fans probably just want to watch hot chicks grunt. Either way, Wimbledon made the right call.

From The Daily Mail:

The fact that many seats remained empty for the Cristea-Azarenka clash implies that the knowledgeable SW19 crowd were underwhelmed by the tennis on offer. Which would suggest that attractive players are placed on Centre to amuse the BBC television audience, some of whom care more for a pretty face than a powerful forehand.

This brings me to my next non-concession: That the SW19 crowd is so sophisticated that they only follow “good tennis.” UPDATE: They don’t. From a Day 10 recap: “The [No.1 Dinara Safina v. No. 3 Venus Williams match opened before a half-full Centre Court as the crowd sought shade and refreshment after Serena’s almost three-hour victory over Russia’s Elena Dementieva in the day’s first semi-final."

Photo courtesy of Yahoo! Sports via Getty Images

Look at the picture on the left. This was taken at the conclusion of Wednesday’s Day 3 match between No. 24 Maria Sharapova and unseeded Gisela Dulko. Not too many empty seats, right? Surely all those sophisticated strawberries ‘n’ cream-eaters showed up for more than the grunting. No. They’re there for the same reason people watch Venus and Serena: because the Sharapova Supernova is known and marketed like any other marquee athlete. There’s nothing wrong with this, but there’s a difference between marketing and sexism. C’mon people, this is sports here. Stop acting like this circus hasn’t rolled into town countless times before. Most fans – even rabid basketball fans – don’t go to a Lakers game to see solid execution of Phil Jackson‘s triangle offense. They go to see Kobe Bryant drop some awesomeness on the other team.

The final concession that I’m unwilling to make is that the female players whom are most deserving of the Centre Court spot are being denied the honor. It’s not true. At least not insofar as some other female players are getting more of a shot.

Both Roger Federer and Andy Murray (ranked No. 2 and 3 in the world respectively) were easily the favorites coming into this year’s Wimbledon. In the first eight days, they’ve each played on Centre Court four times. The top three females have each made it to Centre Court twice in that same span.

On the surface, this just proves that the cream of the female crop isn’t getting the same play that the cream of the male crop is. This is true, but not because prettier ladies are taking up valuable spots. It’s because of the men. There’s a bigger problem than favoring beauty at Wimbledon, it’s favoring men. They spend twice as much time on Centre Court as the ladies. Why? Well because the ATP has heftier competition (and bigger draws because of it).

It would be naive to pretend physical beauty plays no part in player popularity and exposure. It does. But one player’s beauty would not get her on Centre Court alone; that part of this entire storyline has been blown way out of proportion. The Daily News, BBC and dozens of blogs this week started blaming the leaves, when the roots are the problem. Until the WTA, Wimbledon and other tennis tournaments begin making as many of its players as exciting and varied as the men, they’ll be stuck in the same rut they are in now: no one knows half of the top 10 seeds and Anna Kournikova remains one of the few female players anyone can name.