PDA

View Full Version : WTA at it's best ever


pov
Jan 17th, 2009, 07:52 PM
At least Jankovic and Serena Williams think so:

“The competition is very strong, and the girls are getting stronger and stronger and everybody is working hard,” Jankovic said. “I think it’s great for the game, and I think it’s also great for the spectators. It’s great entertainment because you never know who is going to win.”

Serena Williams agreed that the women’s game has become much more competitive than the days when only three or four players were legitimate contenders. She feels she is playing better than when she was dominating the sport but has to struggle more to win.

Beny
Jan 17th, 2009, 07:58 PM
Source?

They're right. I think any sport just can't go worse as the time progresses

Dini.
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Somehow though, I don't think its a bad thing to have a dominant player, a la Justine in 07. It pushes the others to raise their game and become better players. I believe Federer is a good example of that. He was so dominant and it took a while for the top 3 guys to be able to beat him, and consistently. They all put in so much hard work into fitness and getting every shot right developing into the force they are today. Having tennis players that are really good at the top, I believe motivates a lot of other players to work that extra bit harder to overcome their weaknesses and find their right game. Having said that, variety is good for the fans- as long as its all consistent and top notch.

Willam
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I agree as well, before there was dominance in the tour of 4 or 5 women, now every player has a shot in tournaments to make it far, and we have plenty of 'upsets'.

I think it's better this way.

Kworb
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:06 PM
:spit: Serena was playing much better when she was dominating the sport. Who is she kidding?

Tennisstar86
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:06 PM
haha, Serena thinks shes playing better....thats just more of her denial that she is in "great" shape when clearly she is not.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:12 PM
They never said it was at its best ever. :rolleyes:

They could be talking about this generation in general compared to past generations rather than breaking down the tour year by year. :rolleyes:

volta
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:12 PM
In terms of competetiveness (sp) i agree but in terms of quality its a huge hell no

debopero
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:12 PM
I think Serena is in denial :o .

Willam
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Serena plays better now than before. :o The fact that there is way many nw competiton better than in the past and that she is not able to dominate anymore dosnt mean she dosnt play better.

Tennisstar86
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Serena plays better now than before. :o The fact that there is way many nw competiton better than in the past and that she is not able to dominate anymore dosnt mean she dosnt play better.

the fact that she is not in great shape and not consitent means she doesnt play better..... Do you remember when Serena hit 100% first serves in.... cause i do, and heres a hint it wasnt lately....

SharapovaFan16
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:42 PM
If you agree with this you are stupid. All you have to do is look at the ATP and the Big 4 in tennis. Can the WTA come even close to matching that? If not then the WTA isn't even close to its best ever. The defending champion isn't even at the Australian Open and the WTA is at its best ever? If this is honestly the best the WTA has to offer they might as well close up shop now.

starin
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:45 PM
Serena plays better now than before. :o The fact that there is way many nw competiton better than in the past and that she is not able to dominate anymore dosnt mean she dosnt play better.

lol how bout the fact that she's about two steps slower and not nearly as fit as she was when she was dominating.

I still think she can play as well as she did when she was dominating. But she has to play differntly and she has to get fitter.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 17th, 2009, 08:51 PM
I do think that the tour is much deeper.

The top seeds can't just snooze their way into the 2nd week of majors anymore and that's a great thing.

In Re: Serena:

I think she's playing smarter tennis (but with a more Safin-like demeanor, which sometimes goes off the boil :unsure: ), but I agree that she's not the physical specimen she once was. She CAN get fitter and make the most of her gifts, but :shrug: she doesn't have to.....so she won't....until she has to (again).

AcesHigh
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:02 PM
No way it's getting better. It's only deeper because of so many injuries and because the quality at the top is not as good as it was.

MrSerenaWilliams
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:09 PM
No way it's getting better. It's only deeper because of so many injuries and because the quality at the top is not as good as it was.

You can't deny that the quality of the the players ranked 30-100 is MUCH stronger than it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Yeah the top is weak, but there's more to the tour than just Venus.

Tennisstar86
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:17 PM
You can't deny that the quality of the the players ranked 30-100 is MUCH stronger than it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Yeah the top is weak, but there's more to the tour than just Venus.

yes...the quality there is better.... but the quality of the top 20 doesnt compare...and the top 10.....:tape:

AcesHigh
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:20 PM
You can't deny that the quality of the the players ranked 30-100 is MUCH stronger than it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Yeah the top is weak, but there's more to the tour than just Venus.

:confused: What does that have to do with anything?

And no, I personally don't think the quality of the players ranked 30-100 is that much better. We're not getting players outside the top 30 winning big tournaments or taking down big-name players when they're healthy. I really don't think the depth has changed that much outside the top 30 but again, just my personal opinion.

CoolDude7
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:21 PM
i think they were talking about how the lower ranked players play. obviously the top is weaker, no Hen, No Kim, No Maria..

debopero
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:22 PM
I have to agree with AcesHigh. Sure, there are more women ranked outside of the top 20 that can hit the ball hard but they are really inconsistent and, on a whole, do not pose a threat to the top players when they are healthyand playing well.

Apoleb
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:25 PM
lol, what a joke. The only "champions" there are currently are Serena and Venus, with Maria absent. The two Serbians are next but they still have a way to go before they catch up. The tour is in desperate need of new champion-quality blood.

Dave.
Jan 17th, 2009, 09:28 PM
I do think that the tour is much deeper.

The top seeds can't just snooze their way into the 2nd week of majors anymore and that's a great thing.

I think that ended at least 15-20 years ago. :shrug: The early rounds of tourneys have been competitive for a long time now.



In Re: Serena:

I think she's playing smarter tennis (but with a more Safin-like demeanor, which sometimes goes off the boil :unsure: ), but I agree that she's not the physical specimen she once was. She CAN get fitter and make the most of her gifts, but :shrug: she doesn't have to.....so she won't....until she has to (again).

I agree. Although I don't think there's much more Serena can improve on physcially without causing injury - this is pretty much the best she can be now. She is in good shape anyway and still one of the better movers on tour, and as you said, playing smarter than she ever used to.

No way it's getting better. It's only deeper because of so many injuries and because the quality at the top is not as good as it was.

Agreed.

TSequoia01
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:04 PM
Serena is smarter now, controls her emotions better, but physically just a shell of what she was.

Shvedbarilescu
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:17 PM
You can't deny that the quality of the the players ranked 30-100 is MUCH stronger than it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. Yeah the top is weak, but there's more to the tour than just Venus.

Fully agree. I would actually say the standard of players between 100 and 150 is as good as the standard of players between 50 and 100 ten years ago.

And the standard of today's 50 to 100 players is on par with the players ranked 30 to 50 ten years ago.

CJ07
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Serena is a better player than she was in 2002, she just doesn't play as well as she did in 2002.

Same with Seles. In 2003 before she retired she was a much more complete player than she was in 1993 before she stopped playing, she just wasn't nearly as fit and couldn't harness her game as well.

I think you have to improve to stay afloat - you can't expect what will work in one year will work in the next.

Mightymirza
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:38 PM
Not without Juju :p

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Source?

They're right. I think any sport just can't go worse as the time progresses

Football was better 15-20 years ago . Now the FIFA best player is an utter clown like Cristina Ronalda , what a joke

CJ07
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:46 PM
Football was better 15-20 years ago . Now the FIFA best player is an utter clown like Cristina Ronalda , what a joke
Well, I think there is a difference between talent being better. Basketball was way better back in the day, but physically I think people are stronger now, etc.

Football (American) too for that matter.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:50 PM
Current situation -

Champions and Legends of the game - Serena , Venus
Champions- Maria and Momo to a certain extent
Great players who have the capacity to be champions - Ana and Elena
Pretenders- Jankovic
Rest is divided into very good and mediocre players players but need to improve


The tour needs more champions , like in earlier this decade there were so many multiple GS winners who had been succesful in many other aspects of the game.

There is certainly a good deal of depth right now, but the cream is thin

IceHock
Jan 17th, 2009, 10:51 PM
Here's my take on the tour, I think there are sleepers in the 30-100 more so than there were say 4 or 5 years ago, sets are at least closer anyways, that's how it seems. however the top 30 quality has just went downhill, and it is strongly because of the retirements of clijsters,henin,myskina,capriati,davenport?,pierce ,seles. i mean all these players left within like 4 years of eachother, it's just insane for so much talent to just disappear and it's alot harder for someone to replace them. i wish the wta had a strong top 4 but they don't, the rankings are always changing at the top now while the men's move about twice a year, dominant players are good for the tour because it makes other players strive to become better and when there is no determination and you can just coast on your ranking, no player really lifts their level because nobody else's level is changing, the tour is in a lull and in need of a few rising stars along with the return of sharapova.

CJ07
Jan 17th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Thats a good point. The tour historically in the last decade had depth at the top, but not depth at the bottom. Now, its the reverse. There was a thread somewhere where it showed that 9 out of the Top 10 in 1998 were grand slam champions, with Kournikova (who was good then) and Serena lurking just below that. The tour doesn't have anything close to that now.

However, the lower ranked players now are far superior to the ones then.

homogenius
Jan 17th, 2009, 11:50 PM
Date on the topic, after her 2rd win in qualies :

“Of course [the game has improved], everybody has a better physical standard, they’re speedier [around the court], more powerful … it is a bit different compared to when I last played,” she said.


I agree that the tour is lacking champs at the top in a way but what she said is true, the overall level has improved on the tour (much deeper) so it's also more difficult for them to reach the top and stay here.

spencercarlos
Jan 17th, 2009, 11:57 PM
Date on the topic, after her 2rd win in qualies :

“Of course [the game has improved], everybody has a better physical standard, they’re speedier [around the court], more powerful … it is a bit different compared to when I last played,” she said.


I agree that the tour is lacking champs at the top in a way but what she said is true, the overall level has improved on the tour (much deeper) so it's also more difficult for them to reach the top and stay here.
Date having some success proves otherwise, whoever tries to tells us that Date or even Schultz (who set a serve speed record not too long ago) are better now than in the past is simply deluded. The game has gone backwards in terms of strategy and repertory of shots.

For me back in Circa 1999/2000 was the best period.

LindsayRulz
Jan 18th, 2009, 12:04 AM
I personnaly prefer to have less depth in the tour but with quality matchup between the top players like we had a couples of year ago, than more depth and having the top seeds a tough time reaching the second week in slams and having boring and one sided matches between top seeds, especially in the laster rounds of the slams (last times we had a 3 sets match in a slam final was 05 Wimbly and Wimbly 06).

LindsayRulz
Jan 18th, 2009, 12:06 AM
Date having some success proves otherwise, whoever tries to tells us that Date or even Schultz (who set a serve speed record not too long ago) are better now than in the past is simply deluded. The game has gone backwards in terms of strategy and repertory of shots.

For me back in Circa 1999/2000 was the best period.

Yea, I agree with you. :)

homogenius
Jan 18th, 2009, 12:11 AM
Date having some success proves otherwise, whoever tries to tells us that Date or even Schultz (who set a serve speed record not too long ago) are better now than in the past is simply deluded. The game has gone backwards in terms of strategy and repertory of shots.

For me back in Circa 1999/2000 was the best period.

I agree totally but it doesn't mean that the competition is not stronger : it asks a lot more work and efforts than before to have some success on tour (which also part of why players like Kim or Henin retired early or that we have a lot of injured players).Sure the quality of matches decreased in a way(at least between the top players) but it's more because of the style of play and lack of strategy than because players are slower, weaker etc...

Besides that, I wouldn't say that Brenda's comeback was successfull (in spite of her serve).And I saw Kimiko against Craybas and Peer (and both were poor) and it wasn't pretty.She's a smart and experienced player and trained really hard so with a good draw she probably took advantage in qualies, but as much as like this comeback I'm not expecting a lot more than that in terms of results.