PDA

View Full Version : Men's tennis a hotter product than women's tennis right now


GoDominique
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Simply because the men show much more commitment to the sport.

On the women's side we have a no.1 that doesn't give a shit about GS titles and skips the whole European clay season (a disgrace which should not be allowed), a GS winner that is out of shape and only seen at movie premieres, a GS finalist that refuses to work on her biggest weakness resulting in her matches becoming freak-shows, and several others who show little effort to improve their game and shrug off GS losses without problem.

Except Justine, no one left her heart on the court at Roland Garros.
On the men's side, lots of players fought until total exhaustion and actually CARED about doing well.
And, they played their best tennis at this tournament, while most women tried to play their worst.

The women have to step it up soon or else the WTA Tour will get into trouble.

TF Chipmunk
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:10 PM
I think that is just testament to how much competition the women's field has. Lindsay has to take all of those weeks off the European clay court season because otherwise she would be too tired and exhausted to face the likes of Amelie and Kim. It clearly helped her reach the quarters in the FO this year. And Amelie, how can you criticize her for even trying to get advice from Yannick Noah (which obviously didn't work out). It's how competitive the women's field is that's what making these people have to go through extraordinary lengths to achieve, and you're criticizing them for trying?

In the men's field right now, who is there? You just hear Roger and Rafael. What fun is that? It's boring as hell to watch and follow men's tennis because whichever event Roger and Rafael enter, you're almost certain that one of them will win it.

GoDominique
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:14 PM
Wait you mean you just realized now that womens tennis is a joke. :tape:
Actually, yes.

tennisfreak: Too tired LMAO.
What about the women's side? Justine enters = she wins.
And it seems to me that Puerta was much closer to beating Nadal than Federer. So there goes your "theory" which shows that you know zero about men's tennis.

TF Chipmunk
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:17 PM
Actually, yes.

tennisfreak: Too tired LMAO.
What about the women's side? Justine enters = she wins.
And it seems to me that Puerta was much closer to beating Nadal than Federer. So there goes your "theory" which shows that you know zero about men's tennis.

Justine enters and wins, it's CLAY. On other surfaces, it's less predictable.

Nadal and Puerta :rolleyes: End result, same thing. Nadal wins. And they did go to 4 sets as well, Nadal vs. Federer.

icequeen
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Simply because the men show much more commitment to the sport.

On the women's side we have a no.1 that doesn't give a shit about GS titles and skips the whole European clay season (a disgrace which should not be allowed), a GS winner that is out of shape and only seen at movie premieres, a GS finalist that refuses to work on her biggest weakness resulting in her matches becoming freak-shows, and several others who show little effort to improve their game and shrug off GS losses without problem.

Except Justine, no one left her heart on the court at Roland Garros.
On the men's side, lots of players fought until total exhaustion and actually CARED about doing well.
And, they played their best tennis at this tournament, while most women tried to play their worst.

The women have to step it up soon or else the WTA Tour will get into trouble.

Why should V&S give two flying fucks when all they hear for years is that they are not good for the sports. Answer that one.

tenn_ace
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:24 PM
agreed. men's tennis definitely has more stars who are commotted to tennis: Federer, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt and now Nadal. Definitely a lot more in terms of rivalries and nail biting matches.

Hagar
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:27 PM
a GS finalist that refuses to work on her biggest weakness resulting in her matches becoming freak-shows

Are you talking about Kim?

manu
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Are you talking about Kim?

I think (or should I say hope? ;) ) (s)he's talking about Elena D...

tyk101
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:43 PM
nadal Vs Puerta was an amazin match, full of energy and variety of shots.. had everything in it.

Henin Vs Pierce... can't compare

Hagar
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:44 PM
I think (or should I say hope? ;) ) (s)he's talking about Elena D...

I hope it too because it would not do any justice to Kim calling her GS finals freakshows.

goldenlox
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Is there another big money sport where the women do as well as the men?
Tennis has to be the biggest women's sport in the world.
In money and fame.

Marcell
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:45 PM
People need to make up their minds as to what exactly they want.When Venus and Serena were winning everything,we were constantly being told it was not good.Now that we have more competition in women's tennis these same people are complaining.Why should the competitiveness in women's tennis be on the back of the Williams sisters?.They are damn if they do,and damn if they don't.It's about time they do what is best for them.

GoDominique
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:46 PM
Are you talking about Kim?
Nope. manu is on the right track. ;)

wta_zuperfann
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:49 PM
It was indicated on this thread by several posters that the ATP men are more committed to the tour than the WTA women are.

If this is so, how do you explain?

Is it because the men earn more money from the tournaments, or is it because the women earn so much more in commercial endorsements? Or is there some other reason???


Will someone please post a listing of earnings both from the tours and from commercial endorsements and other outside interests by players from both genders? This may perhaps illustrate why there is a difference in commitment.

Thank you in advance for your research.

wta_zuperfann
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:55 PM
Is there another big money sport where the women do as well as the men?

In ice skating [figures & dance], women earn a great deal more money than do the men both in terms of tour earnings and commercial endorsements. Of course, they also attract far more fans and generate far more income for the promotors and commercial sponsors so that the earning disparity is fully deserved. This is also true for professional gymnastics.

jj74
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:56 PM
And mens tennis has the posibility of an amazing rivaldy between two young and talented players Nadal-Gasquet. Women tennis are very static right now, i remember the days with the fight between the veteran (Graf, Novotna, ASV, Conchita, Seles,...) and the new players (Hingis, the Willians, Kournikova,..) those were exciting days

icequeen
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:58 PM
People need to make up their minds as to what exactly they want.When Venus and Serena were winning everything,we were constantly being told it was not good.Now that we have more competition in women's tennis these same people are complaining.Why should the competitiveness in women's tennis be on the back of the Williams sisters?.They are damn if they do,and damn if they don't.It's about time they do what is best for them.


OMG Marcell you said that so well. Thank you, thank you. :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

vertigo
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:09 PM
Its the variety of women's tennis that makes me love it so much. I have always found men's tennis to be more predictable, and lacking the endearing 'characters' of the WTA. And as such men's tennis will remain the lesser of the two tours in my mind.

I agree with the statement stating that with the dominance of the Williams the WTA was branded as dull and predictable, and yet the dominance of Federer has not been seen as being detrimental to the ATP, as a gross double - standard.

Pengwin
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Kuznetsova goes to movie premiers? :tape:

goldenlox
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Kuznetsova goes to movie premiers? :tape:I don't know. If she wants to, she's probably known in the U.S.
http://www.wtatour.com/global/photogallery/rolandgarros/f_24.jpg http://www.wtatour.com/global/graphics/space.gifhttp://www.wtatour.com/global/graphics/photogallery_mainimage_bottom.jpg©Sony Ericsson WTA Tour
Paris, France: Reigning U.S. Open champion Svetlana Kuznetsova poses on the Pont du Carrousel for tournament photographers before the start of Roland Garros.

RVD
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:22 PM
People need to make up their minds as to what exactly they want.When Venus and Serena were winning everything,we were constantly being told it was not good.Now that we have more competition in women's tennis these same people are complaining.Why should the competitiveness in women's tennis be on the back of the Williams sisters?.They are damn if they do,and damn if they don't.It's about time they do what is best for them.Don't pay GoDominique any mind. He/she/it is ALWAYS coming up with some idiotic reason to bad mouth them. Just wait and you'll see the rest of the GoDumDum and the DumDum Squad chiming in.
*click...Starts the stopwatch*

creep
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:27 PM
I don’t watch WTA tennis for the tennis. Once I did, but not now. Anyway the tennis is irrelevant to what's going on on these forums. It's just an excuse for 99% to come here.

BUBI
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Women's final was embarrassment :help:

Whatzup
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:34 PM
You're totally right! The mens tennis is far more better because they are really comitted to the sport and the tennis is better. Womens tennis is a joke right now!

fifiricci
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:35 PM
Mens' tennis is better than womens' in every which way. But the same cannot be said for their tennis forums. MTF = boring; WTA = bloody good fun.

Pengwin
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Wait till the Chinese girls get to the top.

Martian Willow
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:45 PM
Why should V&S give two flying fucks when all they hear for years is that they are not good for the sports. Answer that one.

They must have very poor hearing if that's all they've heard.

It's amusing as always to see the WS fans taking things so personally. Saying WS domination is bad is no different from saying Justine turning up and winning is bad. It's not a statement about the WS or Justine, it's a statement about their competition and the tour as a whole.

Of course GoDominique is correct, but the women are still better looking. :)

!<blocparty>!
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:46 PM
Simply because the men show much more commitment to the sport.

On the women's side we have a no.1 that doesn't give a shit about GS titles and skips the whole European clay season (a disgrace which should not be allowed), a GS winner that is out of shape and only seen at movie premieres, a GS finalist that refuses to work on her biggest weakness resulting in her matches becoming freak-shows, and several others who show little effort to improve their game and shrug off GS losses without problem.

Except Justine, no one left her heart on the court at Roland Garros.
On the men's side, lots of players fought until total exhaustion and actually CARED about doing well.
And, they played their best tennis at this tournament, while most women tried to play their worst.

The women have to step it up soon or else the WTA Tour will get into trouble.

I don't know why you're not on my ignore list. Oh well.

Mens tennis is currently better than womens. This French Open proved that, unfortunately. However, I'm pretty sure that come the USO everyone will be back playing good tennis, this can't last.

For the top players at this years French, only Justine was able to keep it together. Clay is Lindsay's worst surface, anyone can see why. The comment in bold is totally retarded :retard: What makes you think she doesn't give a shit about Grand Slam titles. Why is she out on the tour when she has 20 million+ in prize money alone? She is only playing for Grand Slam titles :retard: Regarding the clay. It's her worst surface, she can't move on it, the cartilage in her knee is degenerating and can only play for so long before the damage is too great, why would she play the European clay season and risk an injury like this? The off season is like, 1 month and her schedule is pretty full for most parts of the year. If we're comparing mens and womens, how many clay courters miss Wimbledon or turn up and try? :tape:

Mausesmo and RG = no. Kim, well she was 'injured' and had a lack of preperation coming in. Clay is Maria's worst surface and she lost to Justine, Serena, well, she didn't play. Venus....ok. Many people will do better at Wimbledon.

harloo
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:46 PM
Sorry but I don't think it's a hotter product at all. The personalities and rivalries on the men's side are non-existent. As a tennis fan I do enjoy the overall quality of men's matches, however when it comes to universal appeal (meaning appeal to move audiences outside of tennis fans) the guys just don't cut it. The Andre and Pete rivalry use to be able to generate that interest but Pete has retired and Andre is close to retiring also.

As much as we all bitch and moan about the poor quality of the women's matches they continue to create the drama that is needed in competitive sports. It was no mistake that Serena vs. Maria at the AO was ESPN's highest rated telecast for tennis ever on the channel. So as much as someone claims men's tennis is a HOTTER product, it's not that HOT if it has no crossover audience appeal.

manu32
Jun 5th, 2005, 06:51 PM
roland garros is not a good appreciation howewer because spaniards (nadal,robredo,ferrer,ferrero and all the others are clay's specialists) and argentins also (coria,gaudio,puerta,canas...etc)....they played on clay since january and how many at wimby and on amaerican hard court????....i agree there are grass specialists but they are different (henman,hewitt,australians,roddick....)...ion wta tour no difference....they want to play and win every gs and they got many injuries .but i 'll think wimby and uso would be better ....puerta was more offensive than nadal and he lost...

RenaSlam.
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Men's tennis is 10x better off right now than women's tennis. Women's tennis has sucked ever since the Williamses left in '03 bc of injuries and then got worse when JHH and Clijsters were injured/ill last year.

I miss the days of Monica, Davenport, Serena, Venus, Capriati, Mauresmo, and the rising Belgians at the top of the sport. :(

grandpuba
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:14 PM
maybe we just need better female clay-courters. the men have a tons guys who excel on clay then disappear on the other surfaces. (99% won't even show up for Wimbledon) the women are usually the same on all surfaces. on the other surfaces the matches aren't much different.

RG isn't a good example to guage which is better because of what i mentioned above. we'll see what happens at Wimbly, the hardcourt season and the US Open.

women's tennis will be just fine.

Tennisaddict
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:17 PM
The quality of men's tennis is definitely better at the moment RG is proove of that.
But it's not like all top players were present or in form on the women's side.
I think it would have been much more interesting with Capriati, Serena, a healthy Clijsters and good playing Venus and Myskina. They were all missing or a non-factor.
The women's tour can get better than the men's tour again but they''ll need Serena back in full force as I think any rivalry with her is the most interesting and draws the most attention globally. I mean Justine, Maria, Capriati, Kim and Amelie among others are all top players and I enjoy watching their games but when Serena faces one of them she adds a special flavour to the matches which makes it very exciting to watch because you don't know what's going to happen.

I also think that 98% of the women's tour needs to visit a sports psychologist because these choke/tank jobs in finals and other important matches are getting ridiculous :rolleyes:.

goldenlox
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:29 PM
I also think that 98% of the women's tour needs to visit a sports psychologist because these choke/tank jobs in finals and other important matches are getting ridiculous :rolleyes:.This is the story of woman's tennis.

Sveta commented on it - "Martina Navratilova has been playing for 30 years and she still has nerves," she said.

"If you don't have nerves it's like you don't care. But the best players are the ones who know what to do when they start to feel nervous."

Despite the defeat Kuznetsova believes she is slowly getting back to the level she reached when she pulled off her stunning victory at Flushing Meadows last year. "I slowed down after the U.S. Open a little bit because that was such a big thing, but now I feel like I'm starting to get my game again back," said the 19-year-old who moved to Spain at a young age to forge her tennis career. "Now I'm looking forward to preparing for Wimbledon, it's another grand slam and I'll have another chance."

Tennisaddict
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:39 PM
This is the story of woman's tennis.

Sveta commented on it - "Martina Navratilova has been playing for 30 years and she still has nerves," she said.

"If you don't have nerves it's like you don't care. But the best players are the ones who know what to do when they start to feel nervous."

Despite the defeat Kuznetsova believes she is slowly getting back to the level she reached when she pulled off her stunning victory at Flushing Meadows last year. "I slowed down after the U.S. Open a little bit because that was such a big thing, but now I feel like I'm starting to get my game again back," said the 19-year-old who moved to Spain at a young age to forge her tennis career. "Now I'm looking forward to preparing for Wimbledon, it's another grand slam and I'll have another chance."

Sad isn't it? Svetlana could have been holding the trophy on Saturday instead of Justine had it not been for her choke job. I'm not saying it because she's my fave but because it's the truth, she couldn't convert when it mattered. The other top players are lucky in that sense because once Svetlana overcomes her mental weaknesses she will be a contender for every slam title and other big titles because her game is one of the best among the elite players.

icequeen
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:41 PM
Sorry but I don't think it's a hotter product at all. The personalities and rivalries on the men's side are non-existent. As a tennis fan I do enjoy the overall quality of men's matches, however when it comes to universal appeal (meaning appeal to move audiences outside of tennis fans) the guys just don't cut it. The Andre and Pete rivalry use to be able to generate that interest but Pete has retired and Andre is close to retiring also.

As much as we all bitch and moan about the poor quality of the women's matches they continue to create the drama that is needed in competitive sports. It was no mistake that Serena vs. Maria at the AO was ESPN's highest rated telecast for tennis ever on the channel. So as much as someone claims men's tennis is a HOTTER product, it's not that HOT if it has no crossover audience appeal.


Any tennis match with Serena always gets high ratings.

goldenlox
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:45 PM
Sad isn't it? Svetlana could have been holding the trophy on Saturday instead of Justine had it not been for her choke job. I'm not saying it because she's my fave but because it's the truth, she couldn't convert when it mattered. The other top players are lucky in that sense because once Svetlana overcomes her mental weaknesses she will be a contender for every slam title and other big titles because her game is one of the best among the elite players.Sveta's dad is a cycling coach. Her mom was a 6-time world champion cyclist, who set 20 world records. Her brother won a silver medal cycling in Atlanta.
She trains at the Sanchez-Casal Academy, and is good friends with Martina N. and ASV.

She has great people around her. She knows this stuff happens.
It used to happen to Justine. And Martina.

mboyle
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:05 PM
Sad isn't it? Svetlana could have been holding the trophy on Saturday instead of Justine had it not been for her choke job. I'm not saying it because she's my fave but because it's the truth, she couldn't convert when it mattered. The other top players are lucky in that sense because once Svetlana overcomes her mental weaknesses she will be a contender for every slam title and other big titles because her game is one of the best among the elite players.

I completely disagree. All she does is hit as hard as she can. She doesn't care where it goes, as long as she's hitting hard. She will never be a threat to Justine or Maria or Serena.

goldenlox
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:10 PM
Emilio Sanchez said this -


Svetlana (as we call her Sveta) arrived at the Academy Sanchez-Casal in Barcelona in when she was about 15 years old. Her mother was an Olympic cycling champion and her father a cycling coach who was doing preseason training in a city nearby, approximately about 100 km away. But Svetlana wanted to do something different: To be a tennis player.

First time I met her I said: "She was so shy she would not look at you, she had no confidence in herself, but every time she hit the ball the noise was different, never saw anything like it in all my career, maybe similar to Roddick, remember Arantxa when was little, incredible talent but this strokes was never seen". We had a staff meeting and decided that we will help her, at that time we just started the Academy and didn’t have many of this kind of players.

Two years later, at age 16, she was already the number 1 junior in the world. I tried to convince the Spanish Tennis Federation to offer her to become a Spanish citizen, but they didn’t believe the potential that I saw in her. The Federation's president at that time said: ".. She's a mediocre player that never will be in the top 20. We have people offering players like this to us every month...". Today after Arantxa and Conchita have retired, Spain is in deep trouble for female players.

harloo
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Sad isn't it? Svetlana could have been holding the trophy on Saturday instead of Justine had it not been for her choke job. I'm not saying it because she's my fave but because it's the truth, she couldn't convert when it mattered. The other top players are lucky in that sense because once Svetlana overcomes her mental weaknesses she will be a contender for every slam title and other big titles because her game is one of the best among the elite players.

I can say that the difference between the women's and men's tour is that the top players on the mens side go toe to toe. You are not gifted matches on the men's side like Svelta gave to Justine. As a matter of fact if you are the more mentally tougher player on the women's side you can win playing badly. On the men's side it does not matter how mentally tough you are if you have an off day you are most likely going home.

Tennisaddict
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:38 PM
I completely disagree. All she does is hit as hard as she can. She doesn't care where it goes, as long as she's hitting hard. She will never be a threat to Justine or Maria or Serena.

Well, you obviously see what you want to see but it doesn't change the fact that Svetlana is a very big threat to Justine and Serena. She has beaten Justine once and pushed Serena in a thrilling final in China last year.
She has a better game than Sharapova and the description that you gave in your post fits Sharapova who is the one with no plan B. Kuznetsova displayed her diverse game at RG and that's why she pushed Justine to a 3 hours and 15 minutes match which she should have won, that's not relevant now btw.
She will be a tremendous threat to all top players once she gets over her mental hurdle.

THE NET
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:39 PM
Well, once you work till you are famous enough, it might be time to use that advantage to change for the life you want!?

Most female players nowaday are trying to be celebrities from tennis then change her career to something else. Being actors/actresses is a bit easier to earn money than winning a grandslam? They might realize that..and think "why do I have to give a shit to tennis?"

Anyway, it's their rights.

Anna K.? Her ring from Enrique costs more than a million dollar!! That means you have to be a granslam winner...just to have her ring. So why should she give a shit to tennis?

Serena? She doesn't have to train everyday and going on court grunting her way for the title! She can just go do something in Hollywood, wearing the dress she wants, and smiles to the camera at all time!

Not to mention other (part-time) female tennis players.

One thing, tennis career is a gap of 10-15 years I guess. If you don't make much money, that will be difficult at the end of tennis career. People have to take the chances in front of them and they are not wrong!!

Men players (well, men in sport, let's say) don't give a shit about Hollywood. They don't care about being an actors, they are too macho!!! They have to train very hard and the game in men is so depth!! And that gives us a quality in nearly every matches. :angel:

Tennisaddict
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:41 PM
I can say that the difference between the women's and men's tour is that the top players on the mens side go toe to toe. You are not gifted matches on the men's side like Svelta gave to Justine. As a matter of fact if you are the more mentally tougher player on the women's side you can win playing badly. On the men's side it does not matter how mentally tough you are if you have an off day you are most likely going home.

Yep, and women's tennis should become different in that aspect, it would make for very amazing unpredictable tournaments.

Sam L
Jun 5th, 2005, 11:56 PM
Davenport skipped the claycourt season? LOL! And here I was thinking she just lost in the 1st rounds. Wouldn't suprise me. :tape:

Problem is, we're needing players who are going to take tennis seriously and remain healthy. I can see Justine and Maria as a real rivalry in the future years.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 12:04 AM
It's only clay, I think.

It's well known fact that the major difference between men and women is that men generally can combine spin and pace. Women can't. That's why, say, Serena Williams who serves harder and hits harder than Olivier Rochus has no chance against him if they play. Spin is the difference.. It's not a point though.. What I am leading to this is that hardcourt and grass tennis is similar for men and women - it is more of pace and less of spin on both occasions - because fast surfaces reward low percentage game. You hit it hard, you hit it flat. Say, 7-8 out of 10 of those shots go in. On claycourts 5 or 6 out of those 7 will probably come back, which would make that risky low percentage game a losing strategy. On fast courts, maybe 3-4 out of those 7 will come back. Which may make low percentage game a winning strategy. And as men can combine topspin and pace, their game on claycourts is still watchable. If case of women tennis on clay we have either this or that, either topspin tennis a la Martinez-Schnyder which is agonizingly slow, or high risk tennis, like Davenport-Pierce or Dementieva-Likhovtseva which is an UEfest. From what I saw at this RG, only 2.5 players looked capable of combining pace with decent amount of topspin - Henin, Kuznetsova and also Bovina at some moments. Others played either hit&miss tennis or very slow -waiting-for-error game. Both are very painful to watch.

Things will be back to normal at W, when women's tennis will be competitive to men's tennis again.

Dancehall_Queen_
Jun 6th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Im much prefering the mens matches now. Well its been since Hingis quit, Williams sisters were on hot form, Jenny Cap, Seles, Lindsay...those were the days.

The 1/4 finals of GS used to pretty much be the top 8 seeds and to be honest thats the way I like it.

switz
Jun 6th, 2005, 12:26 AM
everything about the women's tour is hotter except for one small part that few seem to care about anymore - ie the actual playing of tennis.

Women's tennis has been on a downward spiral in terms of quality for a few years now and when I watch men's tennis i just can't help but feel thoroughly more satisfied by the product i'm viewing. I understand with fan bias etc why people don't want to admit this but honestly if you take some tapes of the big matches from the Williams sisters/Hingis/Davenport/Capriati/Seles/Novotna period and compare it to this current state i just think it's impossible to mount a valid argument to suggest the standard is higher or even level.

I'm not so much saying these girls were infinitely better than the current ones (same ones in some cases), as Sharapova, Dementieva, Henin etc playing well could still play at their level but i'm just saying we don't see the quality matches we used to and now it's just based on so called "drama" in matches like capriati vs henin at the US Open.

each to their own though.

rhz
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:01 AM
I think WTA should set up rules like in ATP, where top players need to commit to top Tier Tournaments no matter what, except when they are seriously ill or injured. If they don't show up to these tournaments, they will get penalties such as fine in $.

volta
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:02 AM
at least for this RG HELL YEAH

nander
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:19 AM
I am a woman who has been watching tennis for a long time, male & female, tour, club grandslam whatever. It struck me more forcibly this weekend that maybe the big difference between man and women is that the men are so much more accuarate than the women..look at the balls that these guys retrieve and put into the court..for women, they spray balls all over the place and into the net. They appear to apply what they have been taught i in terms of technique and strategy during matches. Even 2 lowly ranked male players keep good rallies going unlike top ranked women. Compare these finals.. look at the balls that Nadal and Puerta retrieved.
I really don't see why they are paid the same. I am convinced that it is because men like to watch and fantasise about attractive young women running, sweating, exposing as much as is possible, that there is a following for and promotion of women's tennis.
I really wish that they could start doing something about their game so that we could be better entertained by them..by their tennis that is.

Prizeidiot
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:05 AM
I am a woman who has been watching tennis for a long time, male & female, tour, club grandslam whatever. It struck me more forcibly this weekend that maybe the big difference between man and women is that the men are so much more accuarate than the women..look at the balls that these guys retrieve and put into the court..for women, they spray balls all over the place and into the net. They appear to apply what they have been taught i in terms of technique and strategy during matches. Even 2 lowly ranked male players keep good rallies going unlike top ranked women. Compare these finals.. look at the balls that Nadal and Puerta retrieved.
I really don't see why they are paid the same. I am convinced that it is because men like to watch and fantasise about attractive young women running, sweating, exposing as much as is possible, that there is a following for and promotion of women's tennis.
I really wish that they could start doing something about their game so that we could be better entertained by them..by their tennis that is.
I agree with your comments on accuracy, and I think that has been the consequence of the power game. Women can't play with less errors and cut down on power, because they get completely outhit by top players. You can't blame them for sticking to the power game in that regard, but it is a shame that the actual tennis is generally so ugly compared to the men.

P.S Elena Dementieva does have a poor serve, but she actually is trying to fix it... I think she was criticised for lack of effort somewhere in this thread

Crazy Canuck
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:20 AM
roland garros is not a good appreciation howewer because spaniards (nadal,robredo,ferrer,ferrero and all the others are clay's specialists) and argentins also (coria,gaudio,puerta,canas...etc)....they played on clay since january and how many at wimby and on amaerican hard court????....i agree there are grass specialists but they are different (henman,hewitt,australians,roddick....)...ion wta tour no difference....they want to play and win every gs and they got many injuries .but i 'll think wimby and uso would be better ....puerta was more offensive than nadal and he lost...

Ferrero is a US Open finalist and indoor Masters Series winner. He also played the euro indoor stretch after Australia - when, according to you, he was playing on clay.

Robredo has been injured most of the year and is fairly consistent everywhere. He also tends to play the euro indoor season, which is quite special since he was apparently playing on clay then, according to you.

Ferrer is having the best season of his career and did well in both Australia and Miami. Both of which occured during the people when he was apparently playing on clay, which is quite a fascinating feat.

I will grant you Puerta and Gaudio as pure claycourters with few results on other surfaces. That is all.

Hewitt and Roddick are not "grasscourt specialists". Neither is Henman. They jsut happen to do very well there. You want a "grasscourt specialist"? Popp. Look him up.

While you're at it, spend some more time over at the ATP site reviewing other names before posting such nonsense again.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:23 AM
I completely disagree. All she does is hit as hard as she can. She doesn't care where it goes, as long as she's hitting hard. She will never be a threat to Justine or Maria or Serena.

She will never be a threat to Justine. Or Maria. Riiiiiiight. If by "never be a threat" you mean "continue to allow them to eek out matches against her by outplaying them and then failing to hold her nerve"... then yes, yes of course.

Sam L
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:27 AM
She will never be a threat to Justine. Or Maria. Riiiiiiight. If by "never be a threat" you mean "continue to allow them to eek out matches against her by outplaying them and then failing to hold her nerve"... then yes, yes of course.
Have you been having too much coffee?

Anyway. I'm not convinced that male tennis players are very marketable. I mean women's tennis now has Maria Sharapova. She's our savior. But who does the men have? Nadal? Please!

Greenout
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Have you been having too much coffee?

Anyway. I'm not convinced that male tennis players are very marketable. I mean women's tennis now has Maria Sharapova. She's our savior. But who does the men have? Nadal? Please!


I have to agree with Sam L (not the part about Maria the savior ;) )
but, that the men's tour isn't exactly packing the charisma quotient
here. There's really only Marat and Nadal. Hewitt talks, the talk
and hasn't come up with much. Andy is already peaked in the US
and is going international; hence LaCoste.

Some people here seem to ignore the fact that Roger's domination
has to do with how poorly everybody in the ATP except Nadal and
Marat have challenged him. Have people already forgotten Hewitt
and Andy getting those tepid scorelines against Roger in grand slams
and Tier 1's?


The best matches in the women's draw came all before the
semi finals. Sorry; but if you missed them, and that means about
95% of all Americans, Australians, and UK residents who did
not get good coverage sorry.

If your favorite loses a 3 set match, does it make it a piss poor
match, as some of you are saying? I don't care if it's a player
I like losing- if it's a rollercoaster 3 setter it's still entertaining.
I just sense alot of bitterness from alot of people because their
favorites lost early. Sorry, but Ana-vs- Amelie was a great
match. Lindsay -vs- Razzano and Peng were great matches.
Mamic-vs Elena D was another good match.

Some of the so called great men's matches were great. The Gaudio-vs-
Ferrer match had so much choking! There were some other
matches with alot of choke closing problems too in the men's
draw. Usually because it's best of 5 they simply give up the
set, unlike the women- so it may seem like there's better points.


Where were all the so called Ferrer and crazy Puerta fans before
they got past the QF's anyway? Nobody cared until then. Whereas
look at the women's draw. There were loads of fans for so many
players- and these people were totally behind only 1 or 2 players.
Venus, Lindsay, Maria, Kim, Amelie, Ana and the Serbians, The
Russians, Elena D. I don't see that sort of interest for the ATP
players - it usually seems to me people only care or notice
after the glory hunting matches. Then once an event is over, nobody
cares about these ATP players.

I see more people worried about Daniela losing, than Davydenko
losing. What's so wrong about this? Nothing! Let everyone enjoy
their favorite players without the thrashing that men's tennis is
better than women's tennis. It's two different things, and if a
person get's more out of Daniela than a Davydenko, what's so
bad about this?

Jakeev
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Simply because the men show much more commitment to the sport.

On the women's side we have a no.1 that doesn't give a shit about GS titles and skips the whole European clay season (a disgrace which should not be allowed), a GS winner that is out of shape and only seen at movie premieres, a GS finalist that refuses to work on her biggest weakness resulting in her matches becoming freak-shows, and several others who show little effort to improve their game and shrug off GS losses without problem.

Except Justine, no one left her heart on the court at Roland Garros.
On the men's side, lots of players fought until total exhaustion and actually CARED about doing well.
And, they played their best tennis at this tournament, while most women tried to play their worst.

The women have to step it up soon or else the WTA Tour will get into trouble.

So does this mean your sorry, disrespectful big mouth is moving to the men's forums and we won't be seeing your sorry excuse for threads anymore?

PLEASE DON'T TEASE US!!!!!

nygirl
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Have you been having too much coffee?

Anyway. I'm not convinced that male tennis players are very marketable. I mean women's tennis now has Maria Sharapova. She's our savior. But who does the men have? Nadal? Please!

I hardly agree with your assessment that Sharapova is the savior of woman's tennis. Tennisfans haven't warmed up to her (except at Wimbledon). Most of the time they will root against her than not. She doesn't have the "X-factor" that Anna had in abundance. Anna, although a blonde bombshell, was accepted and adored by both the tennisfans and the more casual viewers. She was great for the sport because she seemed genuine. Maria's problem is that she appears to be too fake and comes off as a snob most of the time (and the excessive eyerolling doesn't help matters).

Jakeev
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:11 AM
I hardly agree with your assessment that Sharapova is the savior of woman's tennis. Tennisfans haven't warmed up to her (except at Wimbledon). Most of the time they will root against her than not. She doesn't have the "X-factor" that Anna had in abundance. Anna, although a blonde bombshell, was accepted and adored by both the tennisfans and the more casual viewers. She was great for the sport because she seemed genuine. Maria's problem is that she appears to be too fake and comes off as a snob most of the time (and the excessive eyerolling doesn't help matters).

But she is a dedicated tennis champion that actually cares about the game of tennis. That is the the more important difference between Maria and Anna.

manu
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:15 AM
I have to agree with Sam L (not the part about Maria the savior ;) )
but, that the men's tour isn't exactly packing the charisma quotient
here. There's really only Marat and Nadal. Hewitt talks, the talk
and hasn't come up with much. Andy is already peaked in the US
and is going international; hence LaCoste.

Some people here seem to ignore the fact that Roger's domination
has to do with how poorly everybody in the ATP except Nadal and
Marat have challenged him. Have people already forgotten Hewitt
and Andy getting those tepid scorelines against Roger in grand slams
and Tier 1's?


The best matches in the women's draw came all before the
semi finals. Sorry; but if you missed them, and that means about
95% of all Americans, Australians, and UK residents who did
not get good coverage sorry.

If your favorite loses a 3 set match, does it make it a piss poor
match, as some of you are saying? I don't care if it's a player
I like losing- if it's a rollercoaster 3 setter it's still entertaining.
I just sense alot of bitterness from alot of people because their
favorites lost early. Sorry, but Ana-vs- Amelie was a great
match. Lindsay -vs- Razzano and Peng were great matches.
Mamic-vs Elena D was another good match.

Some of the so called great men's matches were great. The Gaudio-vs-
Ferrer match had so much choking! There were some other
matches with alot of choke closing problems too in the men's
draw. Usually because it's best of 5 they simply give up the
set, unlike the women- so it may seem like there's better points.


Where were all the so called Ferrer and crazy Puerta fans before
they got past the QF's anyway? Nobody cared until then. Whereas
look at the women's draw. There were loads of fans for so many
players- and these people were totally behind only 1 or 2 players.
Venus, Lindsay, Maria, Kim, Amelie, Ana and the Serbians, The
Russians, Elena D. I don't see that sort of interest for the ATP
players - it usually seems to me people only care or notice
after the glory hunting matches. Then once an event is over, nobody
cares about these ATP players.

I see more people worried about Daniela losing, than Davydenko
losing. What's so wrong about this? Nothing! Let everyone enjoy
their favorite players without the thrashing that men's tennis is
better than women's tennis. It's two different things, and if a
person get's more out of Daniela than a Davydenko, what's so
bad about this?

I disagree. Men's tennis is finally starting to have quite a number of marketable stars: they've got Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Marat, Agassi if he's healthy, and now Nadal. I agree that Federer has received little competition in past years, but at least things are getting more interesting now. And even though Hewitt and Roddick aren't beating Roger, they're still consistently reaching (Slam) finals against him.

Okay, women's tennis still outnumbers ATP when it comes to amount of stars: Venus, Serena, Lindsay, Maria, Justine, Kim, Amélie, even LenaD, Ivanovic, Capriati and personalities like Mary, Patty and Conchita... They spice things up. But the problem is only few of these stars live up to their potential. With Serena, Venus, Lindsay, Maria, Justine, Kim, Amélie, Jennifer, Svetlana, etc playing up to their top level, we SHOULD be in for spectacular Slam quarters, semi's and finals. But what do we see? It's one thing to have a lot of stars, it's another thing to have them all competing on top level.

There really haven't been many great matches at this year's FO IMO, even in the first week. The only 'great match' (and that was more because of the drama than the quality) was Henin - Kuznetsova IMO. The Davenport-Razzano and -Peng matches combined for 200+ errors, and one of them had a 6-0 third set. You call that exciting? And Dementieva - Mamic was entertaining to see, but not a 'great match', maybe a great first set... I agree that Ana - Amélie was of good quality tennis-wise and tension-wise.

Maybe people care more about the women's players. But really what does that matter if on the end of the day we see much poorer competition in the women's tournaments than in the men's? That's still the most important thing to get people interested in the sport, esp at Grand Slam stage.

spudrsca
Jun 6th, 2005, 09:36 AM
I have to agree with Sam L (not the part about Maria the savior ;) )
but, that the men's tour isn't exactly packing the charisma quotient
here. There's really only Marat and Nadal. Hewitt talks, the talk
and hasn't come up with much. Andy is already peaked in the US
and is going international; hence LaCoste.

Some people here seem to ignore the fact that Roger's domination
has to do with how poorly everybody in the ATP except Nadal and
Marat have challenged him. Have people already forgotten Hewitt
and Andy getting those tepid scorelines against Roger in grand slams
and Tier 1's?


The best matches in the women's draw came all before the
semi finals. Sorry; but if you missed them, and that means about
95% of all Americans, Australians, and UK residents who did
not get good coverage sorry.

If your favorite loses a 3 set match, does it make it a piss poor
match, as some of you are saying? I don't care if it's a player
I like losing- if it's a rollercoaster 3 setter it's still entertaining.
I just sense alot of bitterness from alot of people because their
favorites lost early. Sorry, but Ana-vs- Amelie was a great
match. Lindsay -vs- Razzano and Peng were great matches.
Mamic-vs Elena D was another good match.

Some of the so called great men's matches were great. The Gaudio-vs-
Ferrer match had so much choking! There were some other
matches with alot of choke closing problems too in the men's
draw. Usually because it's best of 5 they simply give up the
set, unlike the women- so it may seem like there's better points.


Where were all the so called Ferrer and crazy Puerta fans before
they got past the QF's anyway? Nobody cared until then. Whereas
look at the women's draw. There were loads of fans for so many
players- and these people were totally behind only 1 or 2 players.
Venus, Lindsay, Maria, Kim, Amelie, Ana and the Serbians, The
Russians, Elena D. I don't see that sort of interest for the ATP
players - it usually seems to me people only care or notice
after the glory hunting matches. Then once an event is over, nobody
cares about these ATP players.

I see more people worried about Daniela losing, than Davydenko
losing. What's so wrong about this? Nothing! Let everyone enjoy
their favorite players without the thrashing that men's tennis is
better than women's tennis. It's two different things, and if a
person get's more out of Daniela than a Davydenko, what's so
bad about this?

Well, the difference is that in ATP, they are fan of the game and while they are fans of a tennis player, they have still interest in tennis if the player have lost or ends his career.
The wta relies too much on personnality, dramas and not on the game.

Cris Senior
Jun 6th, 2005, 09:47 AM
So does this mean your sorry, disrespectful big mouth is moving to the men's forums and we won't be seeing your sorry excuse for threads anymore?

PLEASE DON'T TEASE US!!!!!
Comment:
And this kind of personal diatribes against others is what you call "intelligent posts on tennis"!!!
Unbelievable! You are a queen of cynicism.
And,by the way, where did you get this idea that you own the Forum? Maybe it is YOU with your bad bile who should move out of it!
CS

nygirl
Jun 6th, 2005, 10:12 AM
The wta relies too much on personnality, dramas and not on the game.

The WTA has no one to blame but itself for that. Rather than market tennis ability they market the next hot blonde.

They had billboards and print ads of Sharapova with something that was supposed to be a seductive look on her face and the tag line "The closer you get the hotter it gets." That's assmarketing, not tennis ability marketing.

What they don't seem to get is the more they market individual 'hot' players the more they're going to hurt in the end.

spec7er
Jun 6th, 2005, 10:54 AM
I wouldn't fault the WTA for marketing personalities rather than play, since obviously if they go this route their product will pale in comparison to the men's game.

The claycourter title isn't very apt in this day and age. The new generation has certainly showed that they are trying to improve their game for it to suit faster surfaces. Nadal certainly plays Wimbledon as do Guga, who reached the QF once in his career and a lot more so called clay specialists.

I'd like to think that at some point in this year the quality of women's matches will get better. They usually sneak in a couple of matches that turn out to be high quality matches.

I watch both the WTA and the ATP. They have different things going for them. The ATP produces better tennis quality wise, while the WTA produces personalities that can play decent tennis and the top players can give a good match most of the time. There's no point in pitting the two tours against each other. :)

10nisfanofruz
Jun 6th, 2005, 12:34 PM
When it comes to clay, Men's tennis is much more exciting than Women's. Playing on clay requires so much efforts, physical and mental strength play big part on clay than other surfaces.
I understand why people think that Men's tennis is a hotter product than Women's. They run faster and hit the ball harder. <it makes the match not so boring> :boxing: Woman can not move well like that. :sport:<therefore they tend to make too many unforced errors> :o

What Nadal did is incredible ,his movement is the best and he is so strong<did u see his muscles :eek: :drool:?>
No one can deny the fact that quality of men's tennis is higher than women's especially in GS final. Last year Wimbledon women's final caught everyone's attention because there's a new rising star who dominated the match. But the hype is over now. :confused: On the men side, it's Nadal now. The difference between Maria and Nadal is that when people talk about Nadal, it's about his excellent performance<and sexy ass :drool: :hehehe:>. On the other hand, Maria is all about her looks ahead of her performance. :confused:
It's like...if you want to be known in Men's tennis, you must play great. In contrast, for women's tennis if you have the look and personality, you can be popular among fans. :ignore: :shrug:

Sam L
Jun 6th, 2005, 12:48 PM
On the other hand, Maria is all about her looks ahead of her performance. :confused:

What? She won Wimbledon as a 17 year old beating the two time defending champ. She won the season-ending championships. She's been very consistent in slams this year. If that isn't performance, what is? :confused:

And men's claycourt tennis bores me to tears. It's these unknown Latin American and Spanish players trying to grind each other to death with their spins from the baseline. Sure, it may take talent to do that but it's dreadful to watch.

I can only really tolerate men's tennis on hardcourts.

Whereas, women's tennis is great on any surface.

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Simply because the men show much more commitment to the sport.

On the women's side we have a no.1 that doesn't give a shit about GS titles and skips the whole European clay season (a disgrace which should not be allowed), a GS winner that is out of shape and only seen at movie premieres, a GS finalist that refuses to work on her biggest weakness resulting in her matches becoming freak-shows, and several others who show little effort to improve their game and shrug off GS losses without problem.

Except Justine, no one left her heart on the court at Roland Garros.
On the men's side, lots of players fought until total exhaustion and actually CARED about doing well.
And, they played their best tennis at this tournament, while most women tried to play their worst.

The women have to step it up soon or else the WTA Tour will get into trouble.

give me a fucking break.
committment? how many men tank matches all the times Marat Safin this year decided to play in the Australian Open, then he went for a vacation. In 2002 he decided it wasn't worth the effort.
Many claycourters (including RG champions) skip Wimbledon, the biggest event all together.
Depth? whatever, who is going to win Wimbledon? who has realistic chances in the men's side? Federer, Roddick, and that's it. Marat hates grass, and Nadal's overacted game won't help him on grass.
Who has realistic chances in the women's side? Maria, Lindsay, Justine, Serena, Kim, Sveta.
Go to the US Open, who can really win it in both sides?
Puerta, Gaudio are one surface wonders.
some male top players are freakshows on clay, or grass, you know that someone like Gaudio will never ever win Wimbledon or the US Open, you know that Roddick will never win RG.
One of the greatest men of all times never made it to the RG final.
But for the men it's two separate tours, the clay season, and the rest, most players that are good on clay suck on other surfaces and viceversa

spudrsca
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:07 PM
give me a fucking break.
committment? how many men tank matches all the times Marat Safin this year decided to play in the Australian Open, then he went for a vacation. In 2002 he decided it wasn't worth the effort.
Many claycourters (including RG champions) skip Wimbledon, the biggest event all together.
Depth? whatever, who is going to win Wimbledon? who has realistic chances in the men's side? Federer, Roddick, and that's it. Marat hates grass, and Nadal's overacted game won't help him on grass.
Who has realistic chances in the women's side? Maria, Lindsay, Justine, Serena, Kim, Sveta.
Go to the US Open, who can really win it in both sides?
Puerta, Gaudio are one surface wonders.
some male top players are freakshows on clay, or grass, you know that someone like Gaudio will never ever win Wimbledon or the US Open, you know that Roddick will never win RG.
One of the greatest men of all times never made it to the RG final.
But for the men it's two separate tours, the clay season, and the rest, most players that are good on clay suck on other surfaces and viceversa

That doesn't mean anything, nearly all the woman play the same regardless the surface.
Do you prefer watching a match between 2 players ranked around the 50 in the men or a macht between two women ranked around the 50.

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:00 PM
That doesn't mean anything, nearly all the woman play the same regardless the surface.
Do you prefer watching a match between 2 players ranked around the 50 in the men or a macht between two women ranked around the 50.

depends tell me what two women and what two men and then I can answer.

tennischick
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:29 PM
You're totally right! The mens tennis is far more better because they are really comitted to the sport and the tennis is better. Womens tennis is a joke right now!
ditto. a joke and somewhat of an embarassment. :tape: no offence to Pierce or her fans but her making it to the finals of RG is a riot. :devil:

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:32 PM
ditto. a joke and somewhat of an embarassment. :tape: no offence to Pierce or her fans but her making it to the finals of RG is a riot. :devil:

Absolutely.. I am sure Venus, Elena D. and Anastasia are still biting nails on their toes...

Spunky83
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:35 PM
So...Justine should be allowed to play on the ATP tour as the rest of the players are just an embaressment


:rolleyes:

Cybelle Darkholme
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:37 PM
I find it funny that justine enters = win that people are saying especially when kuzy almost took her out if she hadnt' choked big time. Justine was lucky to escape that match and by all rights should have been out in the quarterfinal. She had the fight and kuzy didnt.

The same thing happened between sharapova and serena. Serena should have lost that match but she had the fight inside her and sharapova didnt.

Women's tennis is in a sorry shape but you can hardly blame players who are injured.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:37 PM
So...Justine should be allowed to play on the ATP tour as the rest of the players are just an embaressment


:rolleyes:

She would be Top 100.. On Juniors tour..

Gallofa
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:04 PM
As far as I can tell, the biggest problem with women's tennis these days is not lack of commitment, but lack of imagination. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but 75% of women's tennis today seems to be about out-of-shape players with no imagination (or variety) making 40 UE in two sets while trying to out-hit each other. What tennis needs is adventurous players, people that are not afraid of serve 'n volleying (chip and charging), dropshots, moonballs, hitting with topspin or slicing their backhands.

What women's tennis lack is style. Most players have no style, no trade-mark shots, no speciality... are you wondering how a certain young player plays? Just like all the others! They are almost robotic.

Of course, not all of them fit what I am saying, but many do, and to me, that's what's wrong about women's tennis.

Sir Stefwhit
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:28 PM
When it's all said and done, it's still Serena who generates the most interest here in the states and she's got the rating to prove it. I love men's tennis and at this particular slam there was no contest the women were a complete bore. At the first slam of the year it was more equal, in terms of excitement, for both the men and women (Safin-Federer, Serena-Sharapova, Safin-Hewitt, Molik-Venus, etc..) I do think a double standard does presist with regards to the mens tour, but overall the mens tour has just recently had a much needed resurgance- so good for them. For a long time the women have been ruling tennis and now the tour is equally loaded with superstars, I agree that men's tennis now has the slight edge. For the most part, they don't deal with injuries as much as the women and the top players seem to play each other more often. If that happened more on the women's side they would be more popular...

nander
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:32 PM
I wouldn't fault the WTA for marketing personalities rather than play, since obviously if they go this route their product will pale in comparison to the men's game.

The claycourter title isn't very apt in this day and age. The new generation has certainly showed that they are trying to improve their game for it to suit faster surfaces. Nadal certainly plays Wimbledon as do Guga, who reached the QF once in his career and a lot more so called clay specialists.

I'd like to think that at some point in this year the quality of women's matches will get better. They usually sneak in a couple of matches that turn out to be high quality matches.

I watch both the WTA and the ATP. They have different things going for them. The ATP produces better tennis quality wise, while the WTA produces personalities that can play decent tennis and the top players can give a good match most of the time. There's no point in pitting the two tours against each other. :)

They promote personalities who they deem attractive or try to make them appear sexy... why else should 18 year old Sharapova pull a camera from below her skirt in what I guess is supposed to be a sexy "striptease" like move? It's the same mentality that used to show shots of women's panties and any revealing shots that they could get in the days when the players dressed more conservatively.
The men's ads show a little more creativty and intelligence and to me good taste.

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Maria does that when she takes the ball for her second serve. So they put the product there.
I didn't think that commercial was sexy.
The WTA needs some consistency at the top, from the players. Or Kournikova.
5 different winners in the last 5 majors is the problem. Not this one FO final.

Paneru
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:42 PM
When it's all said and done, it's still Serena who generates the most interest here in the states and she's got the rating to prove it. I love men's tennis and at this particular slam there was no contest the women were a complete bore. At the first slam of the year it was more equal, in terms of excitement, for both the men and women (Safin-Federer, Serena-Sharapova, Safin-Hewitt, Molik-Venus, etc..) I do think a double standard does presist with regards to the mens tour, but overall the mens tour has just recently had a much needed resurgance- so good for them. For a long time the women have been ruling tennis and now the tour is equally loaded with superstars, I agree that men's tennis now has the slight edge. For the most part, they don't deal with injuries as much as the women and the top players seem to play each other more often. If that happened more on the women's side they would be more popular...


Don't you think that the clay has a great deal
to do with it?

Especially when one considers that really the most of the top30
women players in the world right now don't have a game that is
particularly suited for clay making RG the most unpredicatble
Slam for the women and the potential bore it could be and was.

Could the same be said for the men and Wimbledon when you
consider that a winner outside of a Federer, Roddick, Hewitt,
and maybe Safin/Nadal is highly unlikely. In so making the men's
competition their more of a predicatble nature like for the women at RG?

I don't know.

I like both and watch both.
I never expect much from the women when
playing RG so I don't get hyper over it.

Wimbledon should be amazing though and the
rest of the season which isn't on clay!

THE NET
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:42 PM
What? She won Wimbledon as a 17 year old beating the two time defending champ. She won the season-ending championships. She's been very consistent in slams this year. If that isn't performance, what is? :confused:

Come on, she is just another Anna K. I know she wins more matches that Anna K. But, after all, she is just another Anna K. This is all business. They don't come out playing tennis for charity! Beautiful gilrs get more attention and hypes, simply as that!!

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:47 PM
Women's tennis has turned into power tennis. Few people would dispute that. Justine is an exception, but she plays a power game in many ways, too.

While nobody, myself included, wants to go back to the old days of weak play, the pendulum has obviously swung too far in the power direction. First because it does not make for attractive tennis, secondly because it has resulted in a tidal wave of injuries to the top women players. So many of them are sidelined so often that you just never know who is going to show up at the majors.

Paneru
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Women's tennis has turned into power tennis. Few people would dispute that. Justine is an exception, but she plays a power game in many ways, too.

While nobody, myself included, wants to go back to the old days of weak play, the pendulum has obviously swung too far in the power direction. First because it does not make for attractive tennis, secondly because it has resulted in a tidal wave of injuries to the top women players. So many of them are sidelined so often that you just never know who is going to show up at the majors.

I agree with that.

Power has been ruling for years now and that's
what has been winning titles for so many.

It can be very ugly or amazing beautiful simply depending on
how they decided to play on any given day against one another.

Jakeev
Jun 7th, 2005, 07:42 AM
Comment:
And this kind of personal diatribes against others is what you call "intelligent posts on tennis"!!!
Unbelievable! You are a queen of cynicism.
And,by the way, where did you get this idea that you own the Forum? Maybe it is YOU with your bad bile who should move out of it!
CS

The enemy kits you are looking for are on sale I think at Walgreens......

Cris Senior
Jun 7th, 2005, 08:05 AM
The enemy kits you are looking for are on sale I think at Walgreens......
Walgreen? I live in Manhattan, my dear. I don't live in Cheekeesaw.
CS

Jakeev
Jun 7th, 2005, 11:01 AM
Walgreen? I live in Manhattan, my dear. I don't live in Cheekeesaw.
CS

Take a drive down there then......who knows cleaner air might help clear your brain while you attempt to clean out your bowels........

alfonsojose
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Hingis, come back :tears:

alfonsojose
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:56 PM
I can say that the difference between the women's and men's tour is that the top players on the mens side go toe to toe. You are not gifted matches on the men's side like Svelta gave to Justine. As a matter of fact if you are the more mentally tougher player on the women's side you can win playing badly. On the men's side it does not matter how mentally tough you are if you have an off day you are most likely going home.
Aside from Nadal, No top 10 player goes toe to toe with JesusFed. Let's see how he handles RG SF defeat

DEETHELICK
Jun 7th, 2005, 01:00 PM
In my eyes their are two factors:

The men are able to hang better with each other off the ground and all seem to hit with a relatively similar amount of pace. There are no huge discrepancies. They also seem to control their shots better.

The standard of SOME women's matches being low are due to nerves (maybe it could be hormonal, we don't know). But majority cause is the evolution of the power game.

The power levels of the Top 10-15 players is such that it can overwhelm lower ranked opponents. There is a discrepancy. The new aggressive style of game also causes more UEs and so far, the women have not mastered it as well as the men. So the trade off between aggression and errors is still finely in the balance.

It will get better as the game evolves further. However I expect things to begin resuming normality at Wimby, with a headline field and showcase of matches by the USO.

We said the same things at RG 2004 and look at the drama we had and quality at USO 2004 (Venus vs Chanda, Venus vs Lindsay, Serena vs Jennifer, Elena D vs Amelie, Mary vs Maria, Elena D vs Jennifer).

So many to choose from. And I am sure there were more too!

TonyP
Jun 7th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Another simple factor is that men, being stronger than women, are faster around the court, so they get more balls back, resulting in longer rallies and the need for more precise shot making to win those rallies.

Maria is a good example and while I'm sure they didn't think about it, that Canon commercial which ends with her saying "Make every shot a power shot" pretty much sums up the whole problem in a nutshell. Especially for her. It was very obvious that Maria had no plan B out there in her loss. She's a talented girl, but a faily one dimensional player. She's going to have to develope other aspects of her game if she is going to become a great player.

Scotso
Jun 7th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Rightfully so.

Cris Senior
Jun 7th, 2005, 10:51 PM
Another simple factor is that men, being stronger than women, are faster around the court, so they get more balls back, resulting in longer rallies and the need for more precise shot making to win those rallies.

Maria is a good example and while I'm sure they didn't think about it, that Canon commercial which ends with her saying "Make every shot a power shot" pretty much sums up the whole problem in a nutshell. Especially for her. It was very obvious that Maria had no plan B out there in her loss. She's a talented girl, but a faily one dimensional player. She's going to have to develope other aspects of her game if she is going to become a great player.
Comment:
Why power play would be a problem for Maria? You still have to make the case no in theory but in practice. From Tennis practice we get: power players are still the dominant ones at the top ten level and that is the only OBJECTIVE definition of a "gvreat player".Look at LDavenport, still a No. ! at the age of almost 30,even though she never developed a "plan B". She and Maria are just simply too tall to develop any other style profitably. In any career you have to develop not ALL tools but those which maximize success,which in this case is power play.I am not sure you'd be a good developmental coach.
CS

Cris Senior
Jun 7th, 2005, 10:57 PM
Take a drive down there then......who knows cleaner air might help clear your brain while you attempt to clean out your bowels........
Why do you want to submit the forum to your foul perv obssesion with excrements.? Please keep them private. Do you realize how psycho-sick you are ,ENEMA woman?
Your perversion,like of all of them, is frankly very unimaginative and boring. But then ,again,that is probably all of what you are .Try to control your inferiority complexes about your deficiencies and concentrate on improvement .I know you see it as very difficult, however,if you tell me in which Cheekeesaw you live,I can sent money to pay for remedial courses for you, to see if we can get some improvement in raising your level of thought and speech,although I can tell,in advance that,you are right,it is going to be a tough job.
You keep lecturing others to post about tennis topics,however, all you do is to post, literally, CRAP!!! Unbelievable!!!
Is JAKEEV an acronym made from crossing JAcKiE-EVil?
CS

Jakeev
Jun 8th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Why do you want to submit the forum to your foul perv obssesion with excrements.? Please keep them private. Do you realize how psycho-sick you are ,ENEMA woman?
Your perversion,like of all of them, is frankly very unimaginative and boring. But then ,again,that is probably all of what you are .Try to control your inferiority complexes about your deficiencies and concentrate on improvement .I know you see it as very difficult, however,if you tell me in which Cheekeesaw you live,I can sent money to pay for remedial courses for you, to see if we can get some improvement in raising your level of thought and speech,although I can tell,in advance that,you are right,it is going to be a tough job.
You keep lecturing others to post about tennis topics,however, all you do is to post, literally, CRAP!!! Unbelievable!!!
Is JAKEEV an acronym made from crossing JAcKiE-EVil?
CS

There ya go again talking out of your arse again. It's funny every year we get one new kook that tries to makes waves and fails miserably. Cris Senior is our version of this in 2005.

Any bets how long this waste of space disappears?

Maybe its not an enema you need Chrissy but perhaps we just need to pull out that big pole you have lodged deep in your bowels.........

Cris Senior
Jun 8th, 2005, 10:28 AM
There ya go again talking out of your arse again. It's funny every year we get one new kook that tries to makes waves and fails miserably. Cris Senior is our version of this in 2005.

Any bets how long this waste of space disappears?

Maybe its not an enema you need Chrissy but perhaps we just need to pull out that big pole you have lodged deep in your bowels.........
COMMENT:
NO Jakeev you are the typical ignorant clown that knows nothing about tennis
and hangs out in the Forum to gossip and for targets to throw your bile onto.
And there you go again showing off that propietary delusional attitude you have about the forum. Let me make it clear, you don't own it! And why are you speaking on behalf of others using terms like "WE".Do you really think you represent the hundreds of members of the Forum? Do you really think that people pay attention to the moronic simpleton ramblings you post. If you do then you need urgent help! Ah but I forget ,the other day you were speaking on behalf of "two billion on earth."
Your arrogant ignorance is pathetic. I ,once more renew you my offer of paying for some remedial classes for you in Cheekeesaw! It will do you some
good. Not much in your case ,but still worth trying. Or maybe what you need is a social worker that gets you the right mental therapy.
Come on,be honest and tell the forum how many professional tournaments you have watched live in your life? Have you ever play a match yourself?
Is Jakeev a mix of JAcKiE-EVil?
CS

TonyP
Jun 8th, 2005, 01:28 PM
I think another problem plaguing women's tennis right now is, for lack of a better phrase, the choke factor.

It seems to me that too many slam finals these days just go to the woman who doesn't blink.

I love Mary, but she delivered a pitiful performance last Saturday against Justine. Davenport's third set in the AO final was embarrassing as well.

I like Dementieva, too, but her two slam finals appearances were pretty weak. And Kim has also "thrown up a brick" as they say in basketball in three of her four slam final appearances.

What you expect to see in a slam final are two players hitting each other with everything but the kitchen sink, pulling out all the stops, doing everything but biting their opponent's ankle to win the match. Say what you will about Hingis at Roland Garros in '99, she did everything including serve underhand (which was perfectly legal) to try to pull out the victory.

I don't always see that in matches today. I see a lot of women who look like deer caught in a car's headlights. In that embarrasingly bad second set against Justine, I thought Sharapova was going to run to her room and throw herself on her bed in tears. She looked completely frustrated and completely out of ideas.

We don't see enough steel in many of today's players.

Look at the guys. Puerta put on a great performance in the finals, diving for balls, running his butt off after every shot, despite the groin injury. Last year, Gaudio and Coria fought down to the last point in the fifth set.

We're not seeing those kind of performances too often in big matches on the women's side these days.

Helen Lawson
Jun 8th, 2005, 01:33 PM
The men's matches I watched at RG were better than the women's, I have to admit. Plus, the good part is, I had to run some errands and go grocery shopping during one match. When I came back, the same match was still on, and not close to being over. So, you can have a more flexible schedule with your tennis watching.

sartrista7
Jun 8th, 2005, 02:26 PM
It seems to me that too many slam finals these days just go to the woman who doesn't blink.

Just the Slam finals? What I'm seeing in the WTA Tour these days isn't (as many people argue) a bunch of players rising to the top who are less talented than the usual elite players, but instead a large group of women who have superb, dominating, varied games...but absolutely no capacity to hold it together mentally, especially on the big stage. (The exceptions are Henin-Hardenne, Sharapova and Serena Williams, of course, and god only knows what the latter is playing at these days - it's not tennis, half the time.) And this complete lack of mental iron has resulted in some terrible matches over the past year or so.

I thought the argument that the men's game lacks characters died years ago? The men's game is in perfect shape right now - Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Coria and hopefully Ferrero again, with Monfils and Gasquet to come: all charismatic, fan-friendly players who are actually capable of playing their hearts out and raising their levels when it matters most.

The frustrating thing is that there's so much potential to have the same mix among the top women, but they're all headcases.

TonyP
Jun 8th, 2005, 02:41 PM
sartrista:

I hope my entire post reinforced your point.

No, it is not just slam finals, but other important matches as well. Slam finals are the worst, of course, because they have the highest visibility and are the matches the casual TV viewer is likely to tune in. I know women who just happen to be channel surfing on a Sunday morning and caught Nadal's "act" and were hooked from that moment, on. And these are people who normally could have cared less about tennis.

And with Nadal, it obviously is more than sex appeal. They guy leaves everything on the court when he plays. He scrambles for every single shot. On the other hand, w

We saw Davenport stand flatfooted as Mary Pierce blasted balls past her.

Lindsay probably didn't choke. She apparently just didn't care. That's not a good attitude from the number one player in the world. Mary, the same age roughly, did choke and choke big time in the final and that is exactly what I am talking about.

Unfortunately, I don't have any real answers for this problem. Some feel it has been around for a long time. They think the women at the top have been earning very good money and are simply too comfortable to really work any harder. I hope that is NOT the case and I assume each case is different. But I have to say I see a different energy level on the men's tour than the women's tour and I am wondering if this is the slacker generation of women players?