PDA

View Full Version : The Current State of tennis?


!<blocparty>!
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:31 PM
hey, what do you guys think about the general state of the game? Women's in particular (obviously!!!)
Do you think the game is in a healthy state? What I mean by that is;
1. Is there enough people playing the game in your country, or worldwide??
2. Is there enough people interested in the game?
3. Are television audiences rising? or declining?
4. Is the profile of the sport being raised?
5. Is the professional game too fast (particularly the men)
6. have we got enough personalities?
7. Is the ATP and WTA doing their jobs properly???

In would love to hear from all of you!!!

Ill start with some of my opinions! I have to go to bed soon!!!

1. Well, in the UK, I dont think there is enough players playing the game in general, my local clucb only has about 20 members, and im sure me and my friend are the only people that play on it!!!

2. I think in Britain, people only take an interest during wimbledon, but not much else.:rolleyes:

3. Well, i read an article hear the other day critising tennis (IN THE US) and it said the US audiences are going down, but im not sure about european or asian audiences though! I know that when paradorn Schricapan is playing, about 50 millon thais (spelling?) tune in too watch!! (I think I heared that somewhere!!)

4. umm, don't know there!

5. well, the womens game seems to be OK, the faster the better, as serves dont dominate as much. I think the mens game is really fast on fast courts, but i dont think the game needs slowing down.

6. On the womens side, not many, not many at all!!!! On the mens side, there a few, but none that stand out. ooo, i like Safin though.

7. Well, the WTA seems to be OK, but I think the ATP is in a mess, with the current doping matters!

Anyway, please post your thoughts.

ps, soz about the spelling errors, i cant b bothered to look back!!:p

darrinbaker00
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:39 PM
As long as you have all these organizations working independently of, and sometimes against, each other (ATP, WTA, USTA, IMG, IMTA, etc.), the game will never be as healthy as is could be. For instance, a few days after the ATP announced that it was going to take a harder stance against gambling, the USTA announced that it would host a first-round Davis Cup tie at a casino. Tennis needs one governing body. ;)

Volcana
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Oklahoma

kerbear
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:49 PM
:lol: Oklahoma

darrinbaker00
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:55 PM
Oklahoma
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If you had to go the cornball route, you should have said Nebraska! ;)

Volcana
Apr 27th, 2004, 11:06 PM
1. Is there enough people playing the game in your country, or worldwide??
No. That's the reason the USTA came up with this 'US Open series'. But 30 years ago, you pretty much had to always wait to get on a court. Now, I can get on my local courts almost any time I want. Soccer has drained away a lot of female athletes. Half the little girls in America play it now. Inthe northeast anyway. And gold is killing it among the 'baby-boomers'.

2. Is there enough people interested in the game?Not even close. Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Venus Williams, Serena WIlliams, Anna Kournikova and Martina Navratilova are all anyone knows.

3. Are television audiences rising? or declining?Rising. Butonly because of the return of the Williams sisters

4. Is the profile of the sport being raised?No. it's too star-driven.

5. Is the professional game too fast (particularly the men)Not at all. Did you see that last Agassi-Federer match? It was incredible! The men are good enough athletes to handle the pace of play. Roddick's serve is a freak of biomechanics we just have to learn to live with.

The women's game needs MORE speed. By that I don't mean the ball should go faster. I mean the players need to be better athletes. The court coverage of the best players dwarfs that of 99% of the tour.

6. have we got enough personalities?What's a 'personality'? Do we have enough players large numbers of fans want to get near? No. Do we have enough players who WANT to be stars and rep the sport? God, no.

7. Is the ATP and WTA doing their jobs properly???Depend on what you think their job is. The WTA and the ATP ae unions. Their 'job' is to maximize the pay for their members, and get them the most job opportunites. The WTA is doing very well on the former, and not as well on the later. Can't speak to the ATP. I know their internal politics is fucked, whereas the WTA's is sheer apathy.

Randy H
Apr 27th, 2004, 11:21 PM
I think it's suffering a bit right now, and in a bit of a slump, but it seems like the tour is in a bit of a transition phase along with the fact that injuries haven't helped.

In recent years we've had a lot of key stories and 'themes'

During 98, 99 it was sort of the old vs. new - The veterans were still going strong battling for the top spot and slams, and the new players were making their mark on the tour aswell. It was very interesting to see a lot of those matches.

In 2000 we had Mary return to grand slam form, and then even bigger, the emergence of Venus finally winning her first grand slam after long anticipation, and it was a great story to see her come through at Wimbledon and be such a dominant force for the rest of that year.

2001 of course was Jennifer's year, and everyone knows the 'fairytale comeback' story for her which was talked about and praised the entire year.

2002 was Serena's year, getting out of the shadow of Venus' more recent success, and then winning 3 grand slams...this lead into 2003 and the 'Serena Slam'.

2003's theme was now 'Who can challenge Serena for the slams now?' - Kim had come close, Venus was still the #2 best player based on results, and by the claycourt season Justine was added into that mix too. Then the Roland Garros semifinal between Serena and Justine cooked things up, and shortly after it all fizzled out.

Venus? Injured. Serena? Injured. Amelie injured, Jennifer and Lindsay not at their best. This left us with Justine and Kim at the top, two great players, but also two players who don't have the same profile level of Venus, Serena, or others like Monica, Anna etc. Not their fault, because they are still reasonably new to the top of tennis, but I think it was hard for a lot of general audiences to be as interested when they were not as aware of who these people were. I also think Justine and Kim currently lack the same 'X-factor' with them to court, as far as personality goes. Some players are more than just tennis players to the media, they are celebrities. Kim and Justine are not there, maybe they will be in future. They've tried the Kim is sweet as a kitten routine, and Justine is the tough as nails willing to do anything to win number 1, but their slam finals didn't produce much, and apart from the Jennifer vs. Justine semi, there weren't many matches to really get in to in order to set off that rivalry to it's maximum potential.

What the tour needs is to have all of its top players healthy so that the potential of rivalries can be re-established (the Serena/Justine rivalry could have been a great thing, and could have raised Justine's profile even more had Serena been healthy enough to carry that on after Wimbledon), and the tour also needs better marketing of the players who aren't as well-established yet. There are certain players who the majority of the general public know, and right now it seems like a lot of the current players who are fit and playing are not on that list. Hopefully that can be changed though, because there are players with personality and who bring something interesting to the game, but it needs to be showcased better.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 28th, 2004, 04:17 PM
I think it's suffering a bit right now, and in a bit of a slump, but it seems like the tour is in a bit of a transition phase along with the fact that injuries haven't helped.

In recent years we've had a lot of key stories and 'themes'

During 98, 99 it was sort of the old vs. new - The veterans were still going strong battling for the top spot and slams, and the new players were making their mark on the tour aswell. It was very interesting to see a lot of those matches.

In 2000 we had Mary return to grand slam form, and then even bigger, the emergence of Venus finally winning her first grand slam after long anticipation, and it was a great story to see her come through at Wimbledon and be such a dominant force for the rest of that year.

2001 of course was Jennifer's year, and everyone knows the 'fairytale comeback' story for her which was talked about and praised the entire year.

2002 was Serena's year, getting out of the shadow of Venus' more recent success, and then winning 3 grand slams...this lead into 2003 and the 'Serena Slam'.

2003's theme was now 'Who can challenge Serena for the slams now?' - Kim had come close, Venus was still the #2 best player based on results, and by the claycourt season Justine was added into that mix too. Then the Roland Garros semifinal between Serena and Justine cooked things up, and shortly after it all fizzled out.

Venus? Injured. Serena? Injured. Amelie injured, Jennifer and Lindsay not at their best. This left us with Justine and Kim at the top, two great players, but also two players who don't have the same profile level of Venus, Serena, or others like Monica, Anna etc. Not their fault, because they are still reasonably new to the top of tennis, but I think it was hard for a lot of general audiences to be as interested when they were not as aware of who these people were. I also think Justine and Kim currently lack the same 'X-factor' with them to court, as far as personality goes. Some players are more than just tennis players to the media, they are celebrities. Kim and Justine are not there, maybe they will be in future. They've tried the Kim is sweet as a kitten routine, and Justine is the tough as nails willing to do anything to win number 1, but their slam finals didn't produce much, and apart from the Jennifer vs. Justine semi, there weren't many matches to really get in to in order to set off that rivalry to it's maximum potential.

What the tour needs is to have all of its top players healthy so that the potential of rivalries can be re-established (the Serena/Justine rivalry could have been a great thing, and could have raised Justine's profile even more had Serena been healthy enough to carry that on after Wimbledon), and the tour also needs better marketing of the players who aren't as well-established yet. There are certain players who the majority of the general public know, and right now it seems like a lot of the current players who are fit and playing are not on that list. Hopefully that can be changed though, because there are players with personality and who bring something interesting to the game, but it needs to be showcased better.

thanks, really good points there.
Nice summary of the years!

!<blocparty>!
Apr 28th, 2004, 04:20 PM
Oklahoma

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Barsonly2
Apr 28th, 2004, 04:25 PM
1. Is there enough people playing the game in your country, or worldwide??
2. Is there enough people interested in the game?
3. Are television audiences rising? or declining?
4. Is the profile of the sport being raised?
5. Is the professional game too fast (particularly the men)
6. have we got enough personalities?
7. Is the ATP and WTA doing their jobs properly???

1. I think there are so many people playing tennis right now. From the poor to the rich, small to the short, and in every single race. Its good to see. I do wish there were more asians that were successful, such as paradorn and tamarine.
2. The level of interest is much higher than before. But tennis still takes a step back compared to other sports such as basketball or football.
3. i would think that right now the amount of television audiences are declining. Since the lost of players such as martina anna monica, the amount of injuries on the tour, people are less interested, in terms of womens tennis. As for the men, though we have lost Pete, and Andre is having a hard time. There are players that have added excitement to the game like federer, roddick, coria ferrero, nalbandian..Etc
4. The profile of the sport is being raised. So many times i see tennis players in teen magazines or on TV ads or even sports ads. so its all good.
5. The game i think is just right. Its not too fast. Though at wimbledon some might complain.
6. On the mens side a lot of great personalities. On the womens, we still have the W sisters, but nothing more.
7. Hmm...im not on the tour but hopefulyl they are.

sarza
Apr 28th, 2004, 04:25 PM
1. Well, in the UK, I dont think there is enough players playing the game in general, my local clucb only has about 20 members, and im sure me and my friend are the only people that play on it!!!

2. I think in Britain, people only take an interest during wimbledon, but not much else.:rolleyes:

i can sure relate to you about the whole british thing i play at least twice a week every week without fail and i have the luxury of even being able to pick my own court as its always empty,well wimbledon comes and i struggle to even get a court :lol:

!<blocparty>!
Apr 28th, 2004, 04:33 PM
i can sure relate to you about the whole british thing i play at least twice a week every week without fail and i have the luxury of even being able to pick my own court as its always empty,well wimbledon comes and i struggle to even get a court :lol:
yeah, my club is the same as urs! But it only has two courts. I have only ever had to wait for a court twice, and both those times were during wimby last year!!!!

I always try and play, but the person i play with (hes my friend and everything) he is just shit!!! So i easily win!!
Also, when my clubnight comes, (every thursday), if the weather is too cold, windy, or there is a spec of rain, half the people dont turn up!!!

sarza
Apr 28th, 2004, 04:39 PM
i play with my dad and brother in law they r both soooo good though its hard to even get a game betterlone a set or even a match and if i play with my friends they suck. trying to find sum1 at my level to have a good match with is near on impossible, and as for having a british player in the wta to support thats the same :lol: