What does a match need to have to be considered "appealing" for you?
It got me thinking, that last year everyone was claiming that WTA tennis needed some variety, and that players like Aga Radwanska were the only ones to "save" the WTA.
Yet now that Aga won a big tournament like Miami, everyone's saying she was unworthy of the final 'cause she made only 1 winner in the set of the final, and because it was won by Maria's errors. Despite Aga playing with variety, nobody considers her recent matches as interesting.
So what do you think a match needs to have to be interesting?
Counterpuncher vs Agressive player?
I know we aren't getting many good matches, so what does there need to be? Werent people hoping for matches between counter-punchers like Aga vs an agressive baseliner like Maria or Vika?
I'd like to know your opinions.