Lack of depth on the women's tour?
With wimbledon coming up quickly I'm once again reminded of the perennial question in women's tennis regarding lack of depth. Last week, Jon Wertheim from SI, like so many other sports journalists and 'experts' predicted that unless your last name is Williams or you hold a Belgian passport, you probably aren't going to be a serious contender at this years wimby. I think he overlooked Davenport but still, who else can seriously be expected to take the title? Momo obviously still has mental demons to deal with, Capriati hasn't found her form from 2001 and the rest of the top 20 reads like a list of probable also rans (Dokic?, Hantuchova?, Myskina?). The funny thing is, this doesn't seem new at all. There've always been a few elite players who have been pretty much unchallenged. A couple years back, it was Hingis, Davenport, Venus (maybe Serena and Seles as well). Before that it was pretty much all Graf, Seles and Sanchez-Vicario with a little Sabatini, Pierce and Martinez. If you go back farther, it was all Chrissie and Martina. Why have there never been more players who can get to the top? On top of that the WTA seems to be riddled with perpetual players who are touted as the 'next big thing' but never get to the top or go off track completely: Huber, Zvereva, Lucic, Stevenson, Likhotseva, Tu, Schnyder etc. etc. etc. and there's the list of players who seem to be continually waiting to 'break through' like Bedanova, Krasnaroutskaya, Razzano etc.
Soo...what opinions do you have about this constant lack of depth on the women's tour? and more importantly, what can be done so that it's not always the same 4 or 5 people who challenge for all the slams and top tier tournaments?