Now is not a good time to compare the men’s game with the women’s and the question of value for money, both for the people who hand out the prize money and for those who buy the tickets, has come up again.

Three of the four women semi-finalists have yet to drop a set and three of the four quarter-finals — Dinara being the exception — together lasted less time than the fourth round battle between Andy Murray and Stanislas Wawrinka under the new roof.

Yet here’s the number that has got a lot of people talking on Tuesday — the four semi-finalists are guaranteed at least 212,500 pounds each in prize money for their troubles. In three cases, that’s for playing eight sets of tennis apiece.

But any calls to turn back the clock and reinstate the disparity in prize money should be resisted.

It’s true that the women’s game needs more players with the talent to challenge the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, but they will surely come. Women’s tennis recently lost its undisputed number one in Justine Henin, who retired a little over 12 months ago to everyone’s surprise. Any sport losing its best player could be forgiven for struggling for a little while.

In fact, in just a few years the women’s game has had to say goodbye not only to Henin but Kim Clijsters (although she is coming back in some form), Martina Hingis and Jennifer Capriati, while Lindsay Davenport appears to be on her way as well.

That’s a large void to fill, and the loss has left spectators in a transitional period whereby a seemingly endless line of teenaged eastern european prodigies emerge to replace the last great hope to shine momentarily.

This situation will, no doubt, eventually come good. Just give it time… and in the mean time, enjoy watching the men.

A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT: Sabine Lisicki of Germany drinks during a medical break in her quarter-final defeat by Dinara Safina of Russia at Wimbledon, June 30, 2009. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth