PDA

View Full Version : Does this equate to "yes, there's depth on the WTA tour"?


Xander
Sep 14th, 2007, 12:46 AM
I'm wondering how you personally measure depth on the WTA tour.

Look at the winners and runners-up for the all Grand Slams in the 00's.

2000
AO - DAVENPORT def. Hingis
FO - PIERCE def. Martinez
W - V. WILLIAMS def. Davenport
US - V. WILLIAMS def. Davenport

2001
AO - CAPRIATIdef. Hingis
FO - CAPRIATI def. Clijsters
W - V. WILLIAMS def. Henin
US - V. WILLIAMS def. S. Williams

2002
AO - CAPRIATI def. Hingis
FO - S.WILLIAMS def. V. Williams
W - S. WILLIAMS def. V. Williams
US - S. WILLIAMS def. V. Williams

2003
AO - S. WILLLIAMS def. V. Williams
FO - HENIN-HARDENNE def. Clijsters
W - S. WILLIAMS def. V. Williams
US - HENIN-HARDENNE def. Clijsters

2004
AO - HENIN-HARDENNE def. Clijsters
FO - MYSKINA def. Dementieva
W - SHARAPOVA def. S. Williams
US - KUZNETSOVA def. Dementieva

2005
AO - S. WILLLIAMS def. Davenport
FO - HENIN-HARDENNE def. Pierce
W - V. WILLIAMS def. Davenport
US - CLIJSTERS def. Pierce

2006
AO - MAURESMO def. Henin-Hardenne
FO - HENIN-HARDENNE def. Kuznetsova
W - MAURESMO def. Henin-Hardenne
US - SHARAPOVA def. Henin-Hardenne

2007
AO - S. WILLIAMS def. Sharapova
FO - HENIN def. Ivanovic
W - V. WILLIAMS def. Bartoli
US - HENIN def. Kuznetsova

32 Slams contested by 15 players. Of the 15, Martinez, Myskina, Ivanovic and Bartoli played in only 1 final apiece.

In your opinion, do these numbers indicate that there's depth? Yes, no, maybe so?

Personally, just looking at the winners and losers year by year suggests that there isn't depth. I'd like to see more years like 2004 but then again I like to see the wealth spread around. :)

MH0861
Sep 14th, 2007, 12:59 AM
Davenport didn't make the '01 USO final ;)

AcesHigh
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:02 AM
You can't tell just from those numbers. Especially since the tour was drastically different 2000-2003, 2004-2006 and now another period where hopefully, we see healthy WS and Henin.

Donny
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:10 AM
I never liked the idea of depth, in relation to the gap between the top players and everyone else.

If you were to remove Justine, Serena and Venus from the mix at slams (which basically happened for most of 2004) you'd see a lot more slam winners and finalists.

NeeemZ
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Look at the results from 2002 RG to 2004 A0. Only two players won the GSs and they had to beat the same opponent in the final during that period.

Serena won 5 GSs - Had to beat Venus in all five finals
Justine won three - Had to beat Kim.

Xander
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:13 AM
Davenport didn't make the '01 USO final ;)

Thanks! :yeah:

NeeemZ
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:14 AM
Don't want to be a pain, but Justine won 2007 RG and USO as Henin, not Henin-Hardenne. That reminds me of the USO Ceremony! :lol:

IceSkaTennisFan
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:14 AM
There's depth, but you're expecting quality just because of quantity. The two aren't always necessarily equal.

Xander
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:16 AM
I never liked the idea of depth, in relation to the gap between the top players and everyone else.

If you were to remove Justine, Serena and Venus from the mix at slams (which basically happened for most of 2004) you'd see a lot more slam winners and finalists.

That's precisely the point that WTA critics regularly make. There would be depth IF dominant players weren't on the tour.

NeeemZ
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:18 AM
That's precisely the point that WTA critics regularly make. There would be depth IF dominant players weren't on the tour.

Yes, I agree!

Xander
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Look at the results from 2002 RG to 2004 A0. Only two players won the GSs and they had to beat the same opponent in the final during that period.

Serena won 5 GSs - Had to beat Venus in all five finals
Justine won three - Had to beat Kim.

A solid argument for the "no depth" stance.

LudwigDvorak
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:20 AM
So Elena's part of only 11 women to contest in more than one slam final since 2000? I'll take it! :hearts:

Plenty of the semifinalists or quarterfinalists in many of those events were/are rising stars, it's just the strongest usually eek into the final. There's more depth to the WTA than those finals would say. Most of the women listed who have won the titles most frequently lose plenty outside the grand slams, which in itself must mean SOME depth.

Xander
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:24 AM
There's depth, but you're expecting quality just because of quantity. The two aren't always necessarily equal.

I agree with you. I just think it's revealing and a bit sad as well because it seems that women's tennis will always be like this i.e. an elite group of players who'll win Slams and then everyone else. The non-elite group really love the sport because they have to believe or accept the stats at some point that they will never win a singles Slam. I know that I personally couldn't live with that fact and would retire after giving it a try for a couple of years.

Donny
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:29 AM
This is my theory on the differences in depth between the ATP and WTA.

On the ATP, all the men are (relatively) equal skillwise. Anyone in the top 100 is capable of hitting good shots, good serves, etc. The biggest difference between the top ten and everyone else is mental- the top ten chokes, tanks, etc. less than the rest. Take someone like James Blake. A top fifty player, who makes a comeback, gets his mind and tactics in order, and become four in the world. Or Fernando Gonzalez. A guy who couldn't hit inside the lines before makes it to the AO finals.

Even in the top 3 this is evidence. In the USO final, Djokovic was outplaying Fed for a lot of the match. He just choked on the big points.


On the WTA, even the top women are prone to lapses. So the main difference between the top ten and every other player is skill- the top five women are simply better than the rest, and they win- easily- over lower ranked opponents.

So, logically speaking, it's easier for a ATP to have a "good day" than it is for a WTA player to obtain skills she's never had before, which is why the top female players almost always win.

Marcus1979
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:08 AM
womens seems to have more depth than ATP nowadays.

Its funny how for years the critics were like womens lack depth and its always the same players contesting slams yet when the same happens to mens its exciting in their opinion. :shrug:

Karsten Braasch
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:51 AM
womens seems to have more depth than ATP nowadays.

Its funny how for years the critics were like womens lack depth and its always the same players contesting slams yet when the same happens to mens its exciting in their opinion. :shrug:

No.

Polikarpov
Sep 14th, 2007, 03:20 AM
The discrepancy in skills between the top 10 and the top 50 is very drastic. What more the difference between the top 10 and top 100?

austennis
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:06 AM
I think there is more depth in the number of players who can make a final and win the title at GS level- however these numbers show that often there is a lack of players who can consistently win and have solid results

ZeroSOFInfinity
Sep 14th, 2007, 05:05 AM
In your opinion, do these numbers indicate that there's depth? Yes, no, maybe so?

Yeah they do. Just look at the Slam winners for WTA since 2004... Justine, Serena, Venus, Amelie, Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova and Clijsters

Compare that with ATP... Federer, Safin, Nadal, Gaudio... that's it.

8 for WTA against 4 for ATP. Need to say more? ;)

(P.S: WTA asks the question "Who will be in the Final?". ATP asks "Who will Federer/Nadal face in the final?")

darice
Sep 14th, 2007, 11:02 AM
Yeah they do. Just look at the Slam winners for WTA since 2004... Justine, Serena, Venus, Amelie, Myskina, Sharapova, Kuznetsova and Clijsters

Compare that with ATP... Federer, Safin, Nadal, Gaudio... that's it.

8 for WTA against 4 for ATP. Need to say more? ;)

(P.S: WTA asks the question "Who will be in the Final?". ATP asks "Who will Federer/Nadal face in the final?")

:worship: ita! :yeah:

TLP
Sep 14th, 2007, 12:22 PM
Depth can be measured but what is the comparason? If measured against the ATP the numbers are not that different although there is a slight difference. Since 2000 the ATP has had 13 different slam winners and the WTA has had 11 slam winners. The three top male players, Federer (12 wins), Nadal (3 wins) and Agassi (3 wins) apiece have garnered 56.25% of the slams. The top 3 female players, Serena (7 wins), Justine (7 wins)and Venus (6 wins), have garnered 62.5% of the slams. That's not a lot of difference IMO. The cream does rise to the top and it's been several years since Roger and Rafa have been bumped out by anyone. Both tours have depth but the ATP is only slightly better than the WTA by looking at it the way I have. Some may want to go into more detail by looking at RUP and other matters.

Mic-190286
Sep 14th, 2007, 12:55 PM
Depth can be measured but what is the comparason? If measured against the ATP the numbers are not that different although there is a slight difference. Since 2000 the ATP has had 13 different slam winners and the WTA has had 11 slam winners.

Yes, but in the last 3 years there's been 6 WTA slam winners and 2 ATP. In the last 4 years it's 8-4. Recently it's the men's game which has lacked depth-sure, any top100 player on the ATP can usually hold their own against a top5 (unlike the thrashing they often get on the WTA) but the end result is still the same!

The good side to this is that the men's finals are usually much better than the women's, but it does get a little boring all the same.

Anyway, it would be better to look at the whole season not just the slams, but who could be bothered?!

JackFrost
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:07 PM
There canīt be much depth on the wta-tour, if an oldtimer comes back from having a baby and beats the number 3 in the first tournament she plays.

roelc
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:23 PM
There canīt be much depth on the wta-tour, if an oldtimer comes back from having a baby and beats the number 3 in the first tournament she plays.

ē

the slams are still dominated by the same players as 4/5 years ago

TLP
Sep 14th, 2007, 05:18 PM
There canīt be much depth on the wta-tour, if an oldtimer comes back from having a baby and beats the number 3 in the first tournament she plays.

When the old timer is a 3 time slam champion and has been #1 for close to 100 weeks in addition to over 50 titles to her name I don't think her comeback at age 30 is an indictment of the depth of the WTA. Lindsay had a baby, she wasn't injured or ill with a diblitating disease. If she is in good shape she can contend for titles. I see her comeback as a boost to the WTA depth. Agassi was winning titles at 30 so depth was a problem in the ATP at that time?

gentenaire
Sep 14th, 2007, 05:41 PM
There canīt be much depth on the wta-tour, if an oldtimer comes back from having a baby and beats the number 3 in the first tournament she plays.

Very true. You never hear of a man returning to the tour like this after giving birth. It's a clear sign of the lack of depth in the women's tour.



</sarcasm>

ASP0315
Sep 14th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Look at the results from 2002 RG to 2004 A0. Only two players won the GSs and they had to beat the same opponent in the final during that period.

Serena won 5 GSs - Had to beat Venus in all five finals
Justine won three - Had to beat Kim.

i have to remind you justine took out defending champ Serena in the RG semi-finals before facing clijisters. :wavey:

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 05:52 PM
depth to me means that when there's a grand slam, there is a possiblity that anyone in the top ten or five can be beaten by a top 20 or 40 player.

almost all of the top ten male players were pressed in the early rounds of the us open. so, when aga beats pova, that might mean there's depth. when paszek beats schnyder in three sets that indicates depth.

but, i'm always a little disturbed when a player (davenport) can come back and beat a top five player so quickly. it may show how great davenport is, but it also shows how weak the general field is. these types of things don't happen so much in sports.

ASP0315
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:05 PM
depth to me means that when there's a grand slam, there is a possiblity that anyone in the top ten or five can be beaten by a top 20 or 40 player.

almost all of the top ten male players were pressed in the early rounds of the us open. so, when aga beats pova, that might mean there's depth. when paszek beats schnyder in three sets that indicates depth.

but, i'm always a little disturbed when a player (davenport) can come back and beat a top five player so quickly. it may show how great davenport is, but it also shows how weak the general field is. these types of things don't happen so much in sports.

Agreed with what you said.
I don't see anybody in mens side coming out of retirement and reaching top 10 right away.(take hingis in wta for example. she just needed a one year to reach top 10. i'm huge fan of hingis and i admire her and she certainly deserved it. But this shows the lack of depth in wta.)

RenaSlam.
Sep 14th, 2007, 07:19 PM
2004 was a fluke. That will never happen again. The Big "Four" were injured/ill/MIA.

Xander
Sep 24th, 2007, 10:12 AM
2004 was a fluke. That will never happen again. The Big "Four" were injured/ill/MIA.

Based on patterns from the past, I reluctantly agree with you. It will be interesting, though, to see what happens when Justine, Venus and Serena retire. The field might be wide open, which would be refreshing, for a change. :)

matanuriel
Sep 24th, 2007, 11:10 AM
This doesn't equate to "yes, there's depth on the wta tour".
Why? grand slams aren't the only thing that matters considering depth. In the WTA, most of the top 20 won't loss to someone outside of that group (there are some slumps here and there but it hardly happen that a non top 20 player outplayed a top 20 player). In the ATP, as oppose to the WTA, none of the players aren't safe, even Federer when played below his avarage (in IW and Miami and Rome) lost in the early rounds, in a best of 5 sets match it might be harder to beat him but beside him everybody can loss (not considering Nadal on clay), I can put so many examples to it but I just don't have the power. WTA has more GS winners in the recent time just because it doesn't have 2 leading man like the ATP, but it is far less suprising in results.

sharapovarulz1
Sep 24th, 2007, 11:28 AM
Very True :)

BuTtErFrEnA
Sep 24th, 2007, 01:40 PM
i think there's more depth than the ATP....even if Fed fails to win you know who is next in line to win....Nadal or these days Djokovic.....and we know there is only one person who is not a mental midget when it comes to Fed and that is Nadal...whereas on the women's side you have like 6/7 who can take a title....you have the big 4 then JJ and Ana although Ana seems more mentally stable than JJ :angel: but still that's more than the ATP can say....

Poova
Sep 24th, 2007, 02:54 PM
The ATP does not have as much depth as it used to IMO. It's actually decreased in depth from say the late 90s and early 00s because of Federer and to some extent Nadal. But there's still more depth than the WTA, but they're slowly getting closer to each other. The WTA, on the other hand, has actually increased in depth over the years, but it's still not at the level of the ATP.

That's what I think anyway. :lol: