PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree that the ATP is stronger than the WTA?


karimcartoon
Oct 16th, 2007, 09:58 PM
do you agree with the statement that the men's tour is deeper while on the women's side only the top 50 or so women can actually challenge the top while on the men's tour a qualifier can threaten the top players.

Mightymirza
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:04 PM
:yawn:

Aaron.
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:05 PM
I always thought it would be easier to go pro as a girl

JAMESYBABY!
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:06 PM
well mens is domenated by one player only whice is federer possible nadal

wereas the women have more contenders hehe for the a grandslam:P

Kworb
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:08 PM
Upsets happen on both tours

Rexman
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Interesting enough, Justine has fewer losses this year than Roger.

They are pretty similar in competition I think. There are three men who can be considered really serious threats for big titles (Fed, Nadal, Djokovic) and three women (Henin and the Williams)

Below them you have either good but not great players (Sharapova, Roddick) or consistent but not mentally strong enough players (Davydenko, Jankovic)

I think ATP has better quality.

Nicolás89
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:10 PM
do you agree with the statement that the men's tour is deeper while on the women's side only the top 50 or so women can actually challenge the top while on the men's tour a qualifier can threaten the top players.

but yet only 3 or 4 players manage to get to the final or win the most important titles over the last 4 or 3 years? i prefer wta where marion bartoli can make the final of wimbledon :)

karimcartoon
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Upsets happen on both tours

yeah but it happens more on the men's tour ; i mean federer was pushed to 4 sets to this qualifier some time last year and other players that are like in the top 200 are upsetting the top 20 players, while on the women's tour ; when was the last player who is completely unknown outside the top 50 or so upset a top 10 player?

Nicolás89
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:12 PM
I always thought it would be easier to go pro as a girl

maybe because your are taller and weight more than most of the girls, it would be a lot different if you really were a girl :wavey:

Marcus1979
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:16 PM
the last time a player won a slam who was not Federer or Nadal was 2005 Australian Open.

lets look at the Grand Slam Champs from 2005 AO - 2007 USO for comparison.

Womens
2005
AO: S.Williams
RG: J.Henin
WIM: V.Williams
USO: K.Clijsters

2006
AO: A.Mauresmo
RG: J.Henin
WIM: A.Mauresmo
USO: M.Sharapova

2007
AO: S.Williams
RG: J.Henin
Wim: V.Williams
USO: J.Henin

Mens

2005
AO: M.Safin
RG: R.Nadal
Wim: R.Federer
USO: R.Federer

2006
AO: R.Federer
RG: R.Nadal
WIM: R.Federer
USO: R.Federer

2007
AO: R.Federer
RG: R.Nadal
WIM: R.Federer
USO: R.Federer

Kworb
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:18 PM
yeah but it happens more on the men's tour ; i mean federer was pushed to 4 sets to this qualifier some time last year and other players that are like in the top 200 are upsetting the top 20 players, while on the women's tour ; when was the last player who is completely unknown outside the top 50 or so upset a top 10 player?
Zi Yan def. Ana Ivanovic 6-3, 6-1?

pepsi
Oct 17th, 2007, 02:14 AM
The ATP plays tennis, the WTA a poor imitation. The ATP has better tennis players but the gap between Federer and Nadal and the other players is huge. But even with that the 200th ranked ATP player can beat the top players in the WTA as Karsten Braach showed. ;)

Willam
Oct 17th, 2007, 02:31 AM
do you agree with the statement that the men's tour is deeper while on the women's side only the top 50 or so women can actually challenge the top while on the men's tour a qualifier can threaten the top players.
this is right..

friendsita
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:58 AM
I prefer WTA

hingisGOAT
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:04 AM
the only reason a qualifier can threaten a top player on the men's side is because of the style of play -- boring ass service holds all match long until one player is fortunate enough to break. all it takes is a little luck :shrug:

Donny
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:09 AM
the only reason a qualifier can threaten a top player on the men's side is because of the style of play -- boring ass service holds all match long until one player is fortunate enough to break. all it takes is a little luck :shrug:

Yes, because Davydenko, Nadal, and Ferrer rely on their serves to win matches....

What you described is far more evident for the WTA than the ATP. As of now, there are five players in the ATP top ten with mediocre serves (Nadal, Davydenko, Blake, Robredo, Ferrer). There's three on the women's side (Jankovic, Dementieva, Chakvedatze.

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:09 AM
the only reason a qualifier can threaten a top player on the men's side is because of the style of play -- boring ass service holds all match long until one player is fortunate enough to break. all it takes is a little luck :shrug:

i think women have more distinct styles of play but men are more alike i guess.

hingisGOAT
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:35 AM
Yes, because Davydenko, Nadal, and Ferrer rely on their serves to win matches....

What you described is far more evident for the WTA than the ATP. As of now, there are five players in the ATP top ten with mediocre serves (Nadal, Davydenko, Blake, Robredo, Ferrer). There's three on the women's side (Jankovic, Dementieva, Chakvedatze.

So you think there are more breaks of serve on the ATP? :spit:

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:45 AM
So you think there are more breaks of serve on the ATP? :spit:

actually the men have bigger servers. but the thing is for the women there are more upsets within the top 10 while on the men its a lot bigger diversity. you get what i mean?

Volcana
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:53 AM
Right now, based on sheer accomplishments, four of the top 20 female tennis players of ALL-TIME are in the top 20 of the WTA. That's before allowing for Open Tennis, the weakness of the Australian Open before the mid-1980's, or increased levels of competition. If you stick to the Open Era, three of the top ten players of the Open era are in the WTA top ten right now. Hingis seems to be out of slam contention, but the other three are actually holding slam titles right now.

On the ATP side, you have exactly ONE of the top players of all-time currently active, and playing well. Even measuring just against the Open era, it's only one. Nadal may get there, but he's got a long row to hoe, with only three slam wins, and Fedex in his way.

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:24 AM
Right now, based on sheer accomplishments, four of the top 20 female tennis players of ALL-TIME are in the top 20 of the WTA. That's before allowing for Open Tennis, the weakness of the Australian Open before the mid-1980's, or increased levels of competition. If you stick to the Open Era, three of the top ten players of the Open era are in the WTA top ten right now. Hingis seems to be out of slam contention, but the other three are actually holding slam titles right now.

On the ATP side, you have exactly ONE of the top players of all-time currently active, and playing well. Even measuring just against the Open era, it's only one. Nadal may get there, but he's got a long row to hoe, with only three slam wins, and Fedex in his way.

so basically whats your opinion?

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:25 AM
Right now, based on sheer accomplishments, four of the top 20 female tennis players of ALL-TIME are in the top 20 of the WTA. That's before allowing for Open Tennis, the weakness of the Australian Open before the mid-1980's, or increased levels of competition. If you stick to the Open Era, three of the top ten players of the Open era are in the WTA top ten right now. Hingis seems to be out of slam contention, but the other three are actually holding slam titles right now.

On the ATP side, you have exactly ONE of the top players of all-time currently active, and playing well. Even measuring just against the Open era, it's only one. Nadal may get there, but he's got a long row to hoe, with only three slam wins, and Fedex in his way.

so basically whats your opinion?

mankind
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:27 AM
Right now, based on sheer accomplishments, four of the top 20 female tennis players of ALL-TIME are in the top 20 of the WTA. That's before allowing for Open Tennis, the weakness of the Australian Open before the mid-1980's, or increased levels of competition. If you stick to the Open Era, three of the top ten players of the Open era are in the WTA top ten right now. Hingis seems to be out of slam contention, but the other three are actually holding slam titles right now.

On the ATP side, you have exactly ONE of the top players of all-time currently active, and playing well. Even measuring just against the Open era, it's only one. Nadal may get there, but he's got a long row to hoe, with only three slam wins, and Fedex in his way.

That's a little unfair. If Federer weren't around, the slams would be shared among players who may as a consequence be considered some of the great players. When one player is dominating the way Federer is, it's difficult to compare anyone else on tour to him. :shrug:

DimaDinosaur
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:32 AM
Yeah, but I still like WTA for its drama and controversy

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:37 AM
Yeah, but I still like WTA for its drama and controversy

theres a lot of controversy in the ATP too. Hewitt against Chela they shared some words plus Hewitt called Blake the N word but then he apologized and now they're great friends. Plus the ATP betting scandal. *shrugs*

Jeff
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:57 AM
I guess this is a new topic for you, but for me this type of discussion is so beyond old.

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:33 AM
so jeff since you know so much about the topic what is your opinion?

ZeroSOFInfinity
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:40 AM
ATP is stronger than WTA? :spit:

In WTA, at least you can bet either Justine, Serena, Venus, Maria, Jelena, Ana and Kuzzy to win a tournament (when all are healthy). You will never know when a new Slam or tournament winner will appear over the horizon...

In ATP, when you hear the name "Roger Federer" in the list of participants of a tournament, just put your life savings on him and you'll be a millionaire by tomorrow. If you bet against him, better pray for a HUGE upset, or the surface he's playing is clay....

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:46 AM
ATP is stronger than WTA? :spit:

In WTA, at least you can bet either Justine, Serena, Venus, Maria, Jelena, Ana and Kuzzy to win a tournament (when all are healthy). You will never know when a new Slam or tournament winner will appear over the horizon...

In ATP, when you hear the name "Roger Federer" in the list of participants of a tournament, just put your life savings on him and you'll be a millionaire by tomorrow. If you bet against him, better pray for a HUGE upset, or the surface he's playing is clay....

yeah but theres a rivalry growing. the WTA is a lot more "open" but only to top players. i mean at 2006 australian open bagaditis made the finals. he was barely in the top 50 and he beat so many great players. Its just like steffi graff dominating and Monica Seles in the 1990s. i just think the men's field of players is larger to upsets.

Erika_Angel
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:49 AM
It goes something like this:

ATP =

Federer >>> Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #3+

WTA =

1-10 >> 10-20 > 30-50 > 50+

--

That being said, both tours are boring as batsh*t at the moment :tape:

I give the final verdict to WTA, purely because they don't have those ACE ACE DF ACE Short Point ACE type games :rolleyes: where the matches end up 7-6 6-4 6-7 5-7 7-6, and last 4 or 5 hours (over at least 2 days) :yawn:

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:58 AM
It goes something like this:

ATP =

Federer >>> Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #3+

WTA =

1-10 >> 10-20 > 30-50 > 50+

--

That being said, both tours are boring as batsh*t at the moment :tape:

I give the final verdict to WTA, purely because they don't have those ACE ACE DF ACE Short Point ACE type games :rolleyes: where the matches end up 7-6 6-4 6-7 5-7 7-6, and last 4 or 5 hours (over at least 2 days) :yawn:


the men's 3 out of 5 sets can be very boring in some matches.

mankind
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:05 AM
What you described is far more evident for the WTA than the ATP. As of now, there are five players in the ATP top ten with mediocre serves (Nadal, Davydenko, Blake, Robredo, Ferrer). There's three on the women's side (Jankovic, Dementieva, Chakvedatze.

The thing is, every single ATP player can serve. Some might be better/faster/more accurate than others, but they can ALL serve. The same cannot be said for the WTA players. The ATP players you name there who have, as you say "mediocre" serves, still have fast and often effective serves. That is, they do not double-fault 8 times a match minimum. (and that was a day when Lena WON :o) You'll find a much better serving display from the male players no doubt. And that often makes for better matches, as opposed to a player with permanent yips gifting service games. The notion of serving first in a set is almost a non-factor in women's tennis often.

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:11 AM
The thing is, every single ATP player can serve. Some might be better/faster/more accurate than others, but they can ALL serve. The same cannot be said for the WTA players. The ATP players you name there who have, as you say "mediocre" serves, still have fast and often effective serves. That is, they do not double-fault 8 times a match minimum. (and that was a day when Lena WON :o) You'll find a much better serving display from the male players no doubt. And that often makes for better matches, as opposed to a player with permanent yips gifting service games. The notion of serving first in a set is almost a non-factor in women's tennis often.

you can win a lot easier in the women's game with power ; but in the men's game all the of the players have power and i think i heard commentators talking about when the top spin players will invade the women's game ; like in the men few players hit flat groundstrokes continually in matches. Its easier to win with a one dimensional game in the women's side.

Cat123
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:03 AM
ATP and WTA each have their own merits and I enjoy them for different reasons. I can't say I prefer one over the other or that one's weaker tahn the other.

KennyChante4ever
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:48 AM
do you agree with the statement that the men's tour is deeper while on the women's side only the top 50 or so women can actually challenge the top while on the men's tour a qualifier can threaten the top players.

Despite Roger's dominance, I do think the ATP is stronger.

Poova
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:51 AM
I think the people who say that any one can beat any one on the ATP are living in the past. That was true about ten years ago, but now that Federer and to an extent Nadal have come along, the ATP has really gone down in depth. The reason why their matches are so close are because, as someone already said, the serve. Without that Federer would cruise into the second week of Grand Slams without even breaking a sweat.

Upsets happen on both tours, but I would say the ATP still has the slight advantage in terms of depth, but barely. However, I can't watch a whole match in men's because it's sooooooo boring. There's just no personality and you know who's going to win every game 80% of the time - the server. Just boring IMO.

Cat123
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:13 AM
I find the score in ATP a little boring but the range of shots is generally more diverse. Net play is exciting in my book and you just don't get that on WTA. The breakfests that happen in women's matches are exciting though, but base line rallies just aren't.

Beny
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:20 AM
I agree.
I wouldn't call it stronger but..

There was someone who played four sets with Federer at USO I think.
You couldn't have seen some girl/woman ranked like that man, play three sets with Justine or even push her.

Karlovic, Monfils or I don't know who can push the best players far more than women with similar ranking can push the top5 of wta

I don't know what's Ivo's and Gael's rank at all...

But for example betting, I never bet on men because it's difficult, the competition is tighter.. The best thing to bet on is women's doubles IMO, then women's singles.
I was quite successful at that, but betting on men is just too...risky :)

KennyChante4ever
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:26 AM
I agree.
I wouldn't call it stronger but..

There was someone who played four sets with Federer at USO I think.
You couldn't have seen some girl/woman ranked like that man, play three sets with Justine or even push her.

Karlovic, Monfils or I don't know who can push the best players far more than women with similar ranking can push the top5 of wta

I don't know what's Ivo's and Gael's rank at all...

But for example betting, I never bet on men because it's difficult, the competition is tighter.. The best thing to bet on is women's doubles IMO, then women's singles.
I was quite successful at that, but betting on men is just too...risky :)

That's a very good example and really demonstrates the difference between the tours. :yeah:

Ingokoer
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:06 PM
For me the ATP matches are boring because they live too much from their serves. They are too much foreseeable. If your favourite is 1-5 down in the last set, you can switch off the TV because you know that he will be lose the match. In a womans match there is much more excitement because even when somebody leads 6-4 5-2 or something like this, she can still lose in 3 sets. A break or more a double break means nothing in womens tennis. Thats why I enjoy watching a WTA match, because it is finished not until the last ball has been played.

Sam L
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:07 PM
Federer will win at least 3 slams next year. It's so predictable and boring. But I love Roger. :lol:

Karsten Braasch
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:15 PM
The ATP plays tennis, the WTA a poor imitation. The ATP has better tennis players but the gap between Federer and Nadal and the other players is huge. But even with that the 200th ranked ATP player can beat the top players in the WTA as Karsten Braach showed. ;)

:rocker:

Jasmin
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:18 PM
Yes, right now it's not really close. It use to be the other way around but I think it goes in cycles.

Donny
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:19 PM
So you think there are more breaks of serve on the ATP? :spit:

Your insistence that the ATP is a serving contest is nuts.

And regardless: The serve SHOULD be the most important shot in tennis. Women losing their serves so often is just indicative of how bad so many players are.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:28 PM
anyone who thinks the overall.quality of wta matches is better than that of the atp matches knows nothing about what good tennis is. i dont care how much drama is in a match if neither player can keep a ball in court. and for those talking about how men hold serve more, thats a good thing. serving is a vital part of the game. just as much as a forehand or backhand so the fact that wta can barely hold serve often is nothing to be proud of. you will never see scorelines like 5/7,6/1,6/1 or 0/6,6/3,6/3, or 7/6,0/6,6/4 or 6/7,6/1,6/0 in atp. i rarely find a wta match that i can sit through lately because of the shitload of errors.

Lunaris
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:28 PM
For me the ATP matches are boring because they live too much from their serves. They are too much foreseeable. If your favourite is 1-5 down in the last set, you can switch off the TV because you know that he will be lose the match. In a womans match there is much more excitement because even when somebody leads 6-4 5-2 or something like this, she can still lose in 3 sets. A break or more a double break means nothing in womens tennis. Thats why I enjoy watching a WTA match, because it is finished not until the last ball has been played.
Berdych was 6-4 4-0 up today and still managed to lose to Nalbandian. :o ;)
Besides you obviously don't watch many ATP matches because it's not only about serve. That's a lame excuse many WTA fanboys use to prove how boring ATP is, but it's not true.

Anyway, why this thread turned to ATP vs. WTA contest? Everyone knows that any mens sport is better than its womens counterpart, that's without question. I thought we were comparing depth on both tours. :confused:

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:33 PM
you can win a lot easier in the women's game with power ; but in the men's game all the of the players have power and i think i heard commentators talking about when the top spin players will invade the women's game ; like in the men few players hit flat groundstrokes continually in matches. Its easier to win with a one dimensional game in the women's side.

and thats a bad thing? i find very disrespectful to discriminate bash balls players as a brute style of play, you have to find a way to win, some do magic some do bashing :shrug: and in the mens side there are the same proportion of one dimensional players, soderling, calleri, verdasco, roddick, isner, karlovic, blake, nadal, ljubicic :shrug:

Rexman
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:33 PM
1. The person who said hewitt called Blake the N word. That did not happen. Get your facts straight. Hewitt was getting foot faults that he didn't agree with and, the theory was, that he accused the Black linesmen of giving the Black player good calls. It's not exactly the first time something of that nature happened.

2. The women have more distinct styles? Really? Can someone tell me what is so drastically different between Vaidisova and Ivanovic? Or Chakvetadze and Jankovic? With a few exceptions (Hingis, Williams, Mauresmo, Henin and Schnyder) the women all play the same basic game now. Pound the ball from the baseline. Sure some hit harder than others, but that's about it. On the men's side, almost none of the top guys play the same. Federer has the all court game, Nadal has the lefty topspin and passing shots, Nole has the big groundstrokes and serve, Davydenko has the flat hitting grinder shots and quickness, Roddick has the huge serve and big forehand, Ferrer is just a scrapper through and through, Blake goes for broke, Robredo is similar to Ferrer, but that about it.

When you go lower down in the rankings, it's even more obvious.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Berdych was 6-4 4-0 up today and still managed to lose to Nalbandian. :o ;)
Besides you obviously don't watch many ATP matches because it's not only about serve. That's a lame excuse many WTA fanboys use to prove how boring ATP is, but it's not true.

agreed. nobody with bartolis sevre should be making it to a grand slam final. atp players dont just rely on serve. players who are only serve dont get far in majors or the big tournaments if so karlovic,isner,johansson would dominate events. there are also a lot of good returners on the atp tour that can get back big first serves like federer,ferrer,hewitt,nalbandian,murray,djokovic etc.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:40 PM
1. The person who said hewitt called Blake the N word. That did not happen. Get your facts straight. Hewitt was getting foot faults that he didn't agree with and, the theory was, that he accused the Black linesmen of giving the Black player good calls. It's not exactly the first time something of that nature happened.

2. The women have more distinct styles? Really? Can someone tell me what is so drastically different between Vaidisova and Ivanovic? Or Chakvetadze and Jankovic? With a few exceptions (Hingis, Williams, Mauresmo, Henin and Schnyder) the women all play the same basic game now. Pound the ball from the baseline. Sure some hit harder than others, but that's about it. On the men's side, almost none of the top guys play the same. Federer has the all court game, Nadal has the lefty topspin and passing shots, Nole has the big groundstrokes and serve, Davydenko has the flat hitting grinder shots and quickness, Roddick has the huge serve and big forehand, Ferrer is just a scrapper through and through, Blake goes for broke, Robredo is similar to Ferrer, but that about it.

When you go lower down in the rankings, it's even more obvious.

What Hewitt said was quite racist imo. in fact he is the only atp player who i get the racist vibe from. i didnt hear serena ask for anothe empire who didnt have the same skin color as capriati at the uso2004. you seem to be defending his comments which were uncalled for.

as far as your number i completely agree. most of the wta players are alike except henin,amuresmo,venus(the way she hits her strokes),hingis and schynder (the moonballer). chakvetadze is a hingis clone,bartoli is a weak imitation of seles,ivanovic is a pierce/davenport clone including the poor movement.ther are so many different types of players on the atp tour

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM
anyone who thinks the overall.quality of wta matches is better than that of the atp matches knows nothing about what good tennis is. i dont care how much drama is in a match if neither player can keep a ball in court. and for those talking about how men hold serve more, thats a good thing. serving is a vital part of the game. just as much as a forehand or backhand so the fact that wta can barely hold serve often is nothing to be proud of. you will never see scorelines like 5/7,6/1,6/1 or 0/6,6/3,6/3, or 7/6,0/6,6/4 or 6/7,6/1,6/0 in atp. i rarely find a wta match that i can sit through lately because of the shitload of errors.

first its very primitive to say that women does more errors than men i think its true you dont watch entirely a women match because thats totally changing now, second when an atp player break its oponents serve most of the time win the set in womens tennis you need to break and you can still be in danger which brings more excitment and for last the serve is as much important as the return.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:42 PM
and thats a bad thing? i find very disrespectful to discriminate bash balls players as a brute style of play, you have to find a way to win, some do magic some do bashing :shrug: and in the mens side there are the same proportion of one dimensional players, soderling, calleri, verdasco, roddick, isner, karlovic, blake, nadal, ljubicic :shrug:

blake isnt excatly one dimensional he hit big is super quick and dfends wells and is very good at net. he is also a good returner of 2nd sevres. ljubicic can hit with spin or flat, play on many different surfaces. he has a big serve and can play from the baseline or at net as is he is a good volleyer. nothing about verdasco is one dimensional.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:46 PM
first its very primitive to say that women does more errors than men i think its true you dont match entirely a women match because thats totally changing now, second when an atp player break its oponents serve most of the time win the set in womens tennis you need to break and you can still be in danger which brings more excitment and for last the serve is as much important as the return.

its not changing. its getting worse. what matches are u watching. there used to be less errors in the womens game. even hingis and chakvetadze who are supposed to be super consistent are throwing in errors left and right. the quality of tennis in moscow was terrible. i just dont get how u can say the wta has better quality tennis wise. ic an understand i u like the wta better or like to watch it over that atp but tennis wise the atp is superior. you can even find a ball striker like davydenko on the womens tour.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:48 PM
first its very primitive to say that women does more errors than men i think its true you dont watch entirely a women match because thats totally changing now, second when an atp player break its oponents serve most of the time win the set in womens tennis you need to break and you can still be in danger which brings more excitment and for last the serve is as much important as the return.

it may bring more excitemen but they are only in danger of being broken back because a)women dont have great serves and love to df or b)after being a break a player could hit about 4 quick ues to get broken back. excitement doesnt equal quality.

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:52 PM
blake isnt excatly one dimensional he hit big is super quick and dfends wells and is very good at net. he is also a good returner of 2nd sevres. ljubicic can hit with spin or flat, play on many different surfaces. he has a big serve and can play from the baseline or at net as is he is a good volleyer. nothing about verdasco is one dimensional.

they are one dimensional because those players rely on its power hitting, its serve and baseline game respectably to win its matches, of course they can volley make moonballs slice etc. but so it can sharapova.

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:58 PM
its not changing. its getting worse. what matches are u watching. there used to be less errors in the womens game. even hingis and chakvetadze who are supposed to be super consistent are throwing in errors left and right. the quality of tennis in moscow was terrible. i just dont get how u can say the wta has better quality tennis wise. ic an understand i u like the wta better or like to watch it over that atp but tennis wise the atp is superior. you can even find a ball striker like davydenko on the womens tour.

i never said women tennis is better than mens and i never even insinuated that, im just defending wta from untrue and bias opinions, now almost every match has more winners than errors, before players barely could hit a winner they rely on ue and forced errors to win matches, now women rely on winners and ue to win matches thats how womens tennis has changed, and thats what i meant.

Karsten Braasch
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:59 PM
Hey nolop;

Well Start Fena

Poova
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:02 PM
the quality of tennis in moscow was terrible.
Oh, you saw every match did you? :haha:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the WTA is better quality anyway, but some people make it sound like every point they hit is an error. :o

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:03 PM
it may bring more excitemen but they are only in danger of being broken back because a)women dont have great serves and love to df or b)after being a break a player could hit about 4 quick ues to get broken back. excitement doesnt equal quality.

again very primitive comment how often do you think a player can be broken because the server did 4 straight ues, i remember this happened once this year and thenn i remember another one some years ago and thats it and im watching tennis since i was nine. that may happen on itf tennis but not on wta.

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Hey nolop;

Well Start Fena

thats the only argument that mtftards can make against me?
and please you are totally out of place.

shiziko
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:08 PM
all i can say is thank you wta for existing cause you make tennis beautiful and exciting game to watch!

Karsten Braasch
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:11 PM
thats the only argument that mtftards can make against me?
and please you are totally out of place.

I'm pretty sure someone with the username Karsten Braasch is a lot more in place than one nolop. :)

shiziko
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:13 PM
Everyone knows that any mens sport is better than its womens counterpart, that's without question.

just say you're into men and give us a break ;)

Slutiana
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:20 PM
This is how i see it:

Overall, the mens matches are the better quality but I believe that the womens game is much much more dramatic and more exiting than the mens:

Quality
Mens tennis is obviously dominated by serve. Everyone can serve well. Even though i don't like them, it seems that as soon as a man like nadal comes whos game is based around the groundstrokes and movement and not the serve, he gets jumped on for being a hacker and having a rubbish serve. Of course the men are going to have better quality tennis overall because of their different body types. They're able to hit heavier topspin balls. Hence the longer rallies. If women tried to play like this, it would just be moonballs. There are many bad matches in the womens game e.g chakvetadze vs Kuzzy USO but i dno about other people but when i heard how bad a match it was, i was sprinting downstairs in a flas. Having said that, when two women start playing well against eachother (especially when they have contrasting or very similar games) i think the quality of tennis tends to be better.

Drama
Recently, there has been a big scandal in mens tennis - the betting scandal. That obviously creates more drama and im not going to lie - it has made me go on MTF much more recently however, there is barely any drama if you think about it. One poster defending mens tennis had to go back around five years to find another example of a big scandal which btw is barly spoken about anymore. As for the women, i just feel that there's just so much drama and im sure many wont argue this. You only have to go back a day and you see serena losing 0-6 0-3 ret. (:sad:).

However, most of the high quality tennis and drama comes from the big three and then top 20 players whereas in the mens, you could get a really 'high quality' match from any qualifier or W/C.

I definatly prefer womens tennis for both drama and the tennis. But i agree it could easily be argued that mens is better.

Volcana
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:32 PM
That's a little unfair. If Federer weren't around, the slams would be shared among players who may as a consequence be considered some of the great players.Actually, you don't know that. Nadal might have won the Grand Slam by now. The reality is, Federer IS around, and the only surface where anyone can compete with him is clay. That makes the ATP look like a weak tour. Or Federer a strong player.

The WTA currently features three of the all time great singles players, based on GS records, and they actually get defeated periodically. Does that mean the tour is strong, or does it mean those players are weak?

Certainly, the WTA has more players who can beat the GS title holders than the ATP does. You could call that 'strength'. Or you can conclude, as many do, that Federer is already one of the top three players of all time. (Borg, Laver)

thrust
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:43 PM
In general, Yes. However, the top ten in the WTA has been more competitive than the ATP especially when it comes to winning Slams. Outside of Federer, and Nadal on clay, there seems to have been really no chance for another player to win a Slam. Safin, being only exception. Unfortunately, Marat^s tennis has been rather pitiful since then.

Donny
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:04 PM
Actually, you don't know that. Nadal might have won the Grand Slam by now.

Nadal's never been past the quarters of the AO or USO.


The reality is, Federer IS around, and the only surface where anyone can compete with him is clay. That makes the ATP look like a weak tour. Or Federer a strong player.

Not true. For most of 2007, Federer has been very very beatable. Had Djokovic not choked, he would have won the USO.

The WTA currently features three of the all time great singles players, based on GS records, and they actually get defeated periodically. Does that mean the tour is strong, or does it mean those players are weak?

It means that those players aren't playing up to their potential. Let's look at who Serena's lost to this year (besides Henin, of course). Bammer, Chan, Schnyder, Kuznetsova, and Dementieva. At least three of those losses (Bammer, Chan, and Schnyder in Zurich) most likely wouldn't have happened if Serena had been in her 2002 form.

Let's look at Henin's losses: To Safarova in her first event back on tour; against Serena, whom she had match points against; against Kuznetsova; and against Bartoli.

Henin shouldn't have lost in Miami, she shouldn't have lost at Wimbledon. The fact that she did doesn't show depth, it shows mental fragility.

And I won't even go into depth on Venus's losses, because, fro mwhat I've seen, all of her losses have involved her playing shitty tennis.


Does Venus losing to Maria in that horrendous Miami match show depth?
Does Henin doublefaulting away a match point in Miami show depth?
Does Serena being unable to move and being bagelled show depth?



Certainly, the WTA has more players who can beat the GS title holders than the ATP does. You could call that 'strength'. Or you can conclude, as many do, that Federer is already one of the top three players of all time. (Borg, Laver)

Henin has, unless I'm mistaken, loss less matches than Federer has. She's def. lost less than Nadal and Djokovic.

Mic-190286
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:28 PM
ATP is probably better quality, but i still prefer WTA.

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:04 PM
In general, Yes. However, the top ten in the WTA has been more competitive than the ATP especially when it comes to winning Slams. Outside of Federer, and Nadal on clay, there seems to have been really no chance for another player to win a Slam. Safin, being only exception. Unfortunately, Marat^s tennis has been rather pitiful since then.

yeah i get your point but can you see how a no.400 qualifier at a slam can beat a top 10 seed. That never happens in the women's game.

karimcartoon
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:05 PM
In general, Yes. However, the top ten in the WTA has been more competitive than the ATP especially when it comes to winning Slams. Outside of Federer, and Nadal on clay, there seems to have been really no chance for another player to win a Slam. Safin, being only exception. Unfortunately, Marat^s tennis has been rather pitiful since then.

yeah i get your point but can you see how a no.400 qualifier at a slam can beat a top 10 seed. That never happens in the women's game.

Poova
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:29 PM
yeah i get your point but can you see how a no.400 qualifier at a slam can beat a top 10 seed. That never happens in the women's game.
:spit: When exactly did this happen recently? :confused: I don't remember anything like that...

hingisGOAT
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:33 PM
how can a fan of venus and sharapova be complaining about unforced errors in women's tennis? :spit:

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Actually, you don't know that. Nadal might have won the Grand Slam by now. The reality is, Federer IS around, and the only surface where anyone can compete with him is clay. That makes the ATP look like a weak tour. Or Federer a strong player.

The WTA currently features three of the all time great singles players, based on GS records, and they actually get defeated periodically. Does that mean the tour is strong, or does it mean those players are weak?

Certainly, the WTA has more players who can beat the GS title holders than the ATP does. You could call that 'strength'. Or you can conclude, as many do, that Federer is already one of the top three players of all time. (Borg, Laver)

i agree with everything except that imo nadal is not good enough on hardcourt to win the grand slam. without federer roddick woudl have about 2 more gs and nadal wouldve won wimbledon and djokovic the uso.

vrp1
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Maybe the ATP is stronger but I still don`t watch it!
When I want to watch tennis I prefer WTA! :hearts:

HippityHop
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:56 PM
the last time a player won a slam who was not Federer or Nadal was 2005 Australian Open.

lets look at the Grand Slam Champs from 2005 AO - 2007 USO for comparison.

Womens
2005
AO: S.Williams
RG: J.Henin
WIM: V.Williams
USO: K.Clijsters

2006
AO: A.Mauresmo
RG: J.Henin
WIM: A.Mauresmo
USO: M.Sharapova

2007
AO: S.Williams
RG: J.Henin
Wim: V.Williams
USO: J.Henin

Mens

2005
AO: M.Safin
RG: R.Nadal
Wim: R.Federer
USO: R.Federer

2006
AO: R.Federer
RG: R.Nadal
WIM: R.Federer
USO: R.Federer

2007
AO: R.Federer
RG: R.Nadal
WIM: R.Federer
USO: R.Federer

Oh yeah boy. That's some real depth there on the men's side. :lol:

harloo
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:01 PM
do you agree with the statement that the men's tour is deeper while on the women's side only the top 50 or so women can actually challenge the top while on the men's tour a qualifier can threaten the top players.
Top 50? You might want to change that to the top 10-20. Men's tennis is far advanced that women's tennis and it's been that way for years. Anyone who thinks otherwise are seriously delusional.

:tape::)

Nicolás89
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Top 50? You might want to change that to the top 10-20. Men's tennis is far advanced that women's tennis and it's been that way for years. Anyone who thinks otherwise are seriously delusional.

:tape::)

well if you are that sure go and support that other site you know. :)