PDA

View Full Version : Article: Why tennis hates to admit women's game is all about Williams


RFSTB
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:03 AM
From bloomberg.com:

Why Tennis hates to admit women's game is all about Williams (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=a0fzNjmaBe6M)

By Danielle Rossingh


June 19 (Bloomberg) -- Venus and Serena Williams are headed back to their favorite patch of London lawn, and none too soon for women’s tennis.

Overshadowed by the rivalry of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer atop the men’s game, and trying to overcome the lack of a dominant player in its own draws, the portion of the sport that produced past stars such as Chris Evert and Steffi Graf again turns to the American sisters for relief at Wimbledon.

The Williamses have been belittled by the former top-ranked Evert, who wrote an open letter in 2006 to Serena in Tennis Magazine, and other players including nine-time Wimbledon champion Martina Navratilova, for spending too much time on acting and interior design, and for following losses with behavior more associated with opera divas.

“I just think they could be better,” Navratilova said in a 2007 interview. “Serena is designing dresses, and I feel she wants to be an actress more than a tennis player.”

Some of those critics also say the sport can’t do without them.

“Women’s tennis right now is in a state of flux,” Mary Carillo, a tennis commentator for ESPN and a former French Open mixed doubles champion, said in an interview. “Any sport, especially tennis, needs a great sustaining rivalry. Women’s tennis doesn’t have that.”

Both No. 1

The only sisters to both have reached the No. 1 ranking on the WTA Tour, Venus and Serena have won a total of 17 Grand Slam singles titles, starting with Serena at the 1999 U.S. Open. Their championship match at that event two years later was switched to prime time on CBS, an unprecedented move to tap their buzz for advertisers.

Evert and Navratilova never saw prime time, even as each won 18 Grand Slam singles titles during Hall of Fame careers. They never drew the questions that the Williamses have, either.

“They do things their own way,” said Pam Shriver, a five- time Wimbledon doubles champion who has known the Williamses for 15 years.

In the last decade, the sisters have taken over the grass courts at the All-England Lawn Tennis Club in London, winning seven championships. They both played in the final a year ago, with Venus winning her fifth Wimbledon title 7-5, 6-4.

Shrinking Field

Partly because of their lack of play, Venus was seeded seventh and Serena sixth. This year, Serena is second and Venus third, as the field of rivals shrinks through injury and retirement.

Maria Sharapova, the 2004 champion, is just getting into shape after a shoulder injury last year, and is seeded 24th. She is among five women, including Serena, who have held the No. 1 ranking from the WTA Tour since Justine Henin retired in May 2008, at age 25. Two members of the group, current No. 1 Dinara Safina and Serbia’s Jelena Jankovic, never have won a major.

“We’re missing Justine, who could go up against anybody,” Carillo said. “Both Venus and Serena had a shot at the No. 1 position in Paris, but they didn’t play well enough.”

The No. 1 ranking on the men’s ATP World Tour has been held for the last 5 1/2 years by two players --Nadal, the current king and defending Wimbledon champion, and Federer, now No. 2 and looking to make history when the two-week tournament ends on July 5.

Seeking History

Federer is trying for his sixth Wimbledon title and record- breaking 15th Grand Slam championship. He tied Pete Sampras’s record when he won his first French Open title two weeks ago, and Sampras and another former champ, Andre Agassi, declared him the game’s greatest player.

One day after the Williamses battle on Centre Court last July, Nadal ended Federer’s run of five straight Wimbledon titles in a five-set match that stretched over almost five hours and won accolades from former champion John McEnroe as the best he had ever seen. Women’s tennis took a back seat again.

“It’s history and that overshadows everything,” Tracy Austin, a former No. 1 player and U.S. Open champion in 1979 and 1981, said in an interview. “There is the rivalry between Nadal and Federer, and now Andy Murray is in the mix. It makes for a lot of interest.”

The biggest headlines for women’s tennis in Paris were for all the wrong reasons.

Safina lost the championship to Svetlana Kuznetsova, who told reporters afterward that her opponent showed signs of nervousness on the court. Safina ended the match with a double fault, losing a Grand Slam final for the third time in a year.

Shrieks on Court

Portuguese teenager Michelle Larcher de Brito took the spotlight after a French opponent, Aravane Rezai, complained to the chair umpire about her shrieking.

Serena -- who weeks before had declared herself the world’s best player even though Safina was ranked No. 1 -- accused her third-round opponent, Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez, of cheating because the Spaniard won a point after a shot appeared to rebound off her arm. Williams won the match before a quarterfinal loss to Kuznetsova.

“I’m like one of those girls on a reality show that has all the drama, and everyone in the house hates them because no matter what they do. Drama follows them,” Williams, 27, told reporters after the Martinez Sanchez match. “I don’t want to be that girl.”

Serena has dabbled in acting, while Venus, 29, has an interior design company in Florida. Still coached by their parents, they have consistently said that tennis is not the only thing in their lives, even as Navratilova, Evert and others have called for them to dedicate themselves to the sport.

‘Damaged Legacy’

“In the short term you may be happy with the various things going on in your life, but I wonder whether 20 years from now you might reflect on your career and regret not putting 100 percent of yourself into tennis,” Evert wrote to Serena in her magazine letter three years ago. “Because whether you want to admit it or not, these distractions are tarnishing your legacy.”

Sharapova’s return may reignite the women’s game, according to Austin.

“She’s been No. 1 in the world, and has more money then she can ever spend, yet her desire and intensity level are unheard of,” Austin said. “They were really rooting for her in Paris; the fans love her.”

The sisters and Sharapova stand out from the rest of the women’s field because of their mental strength, Carillo said.

“When they step on a tennis court, they are saying to themselves, ‘What will it take for me to win the match?’” Carillo said. “You don’t see that so much with the other women.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Danielle Rossingh in London at drossingh@bloomberg.net.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:05 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.

RFSTB
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:06 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.

:rolls: Good one!

Cp6uja
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:17 AM
I'm just curious: Why this Danielle Rossingh not post this article 5 days before French Open instead 5 days before Wimbledon :confused:

;)

In The Zone
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:21 AM
How can we say that when Kuznetsova won the French and a Sister did not even pass the Quarters.

Yes, they are the top two players but surely other players still do matter.

mckyle.
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:25 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.

OMG :eek: Never thought of it that way!!! :lol:;):):p

:inlove:
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:27 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.

Your puns kill me. :bowdown:

Dunlop1
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Her article is all over the place.
Nothing about the title is in the article.
Also women's game is all about nothing right now. It is slumping.
That's why it is being overshadowed by men's tennis.

Dave.
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:30 AM
When the Williamses are 1 and 2 in the world, holders of all the 4 slams between them, most of the other big titles, and losing very few matches each, that's when the game is "all about Williams". It's happened before, and that period is widely accepted as the "Williams era".

It's not happening right now though, with neither of them ranked no.1, both of them still capable of losing to any of the other top players (even going on losing streaks), and other players still very much able to win big titles.

gmokb
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:43 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.

Williams fans already knew this, others are still in denial.:worship:

Horizon
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:48 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.
The originality :eek:

RenaSlam.
Jun 19th, 2009, 12:56 AM
Step.

Joana
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:03 AM
Probably because it's not.

However, the title has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the article.

renstar
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:14 AM
The article is exactly right, past decades saw dominant players and intriguing rivalries, that is exactly missing from today's game.

Take Venus instantly off as a candidate for a dominant player,other than of course for Wimbledon, her record other than Wimbledon is quite simply woeful!

Serena has broken through for a number of GS titles recently, one would wonder if not entirely related to the retirement of Justine.

Throw in the mix of a bunch of Russian women who seem to swap wins with each other in results and its a mixed bag.

Trully a shiteful time in womens tennis:rolleyes:

Serenita
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Step.
To this

youizahoe
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:30 AM
Agree with the article, it's really the problem atm, we so need justine v2.

Slammer7
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:33 AM
The article is exactly right, past decades saw dominant players and intriguing rivalries, that is exactly missing from today's game.

Take Venus instantly off as a candidate for a dominant player,other than of course for Wimbledon, her record other than Wimbledon is quite simply woeful!

Serena has broken through for a number of GS titles recently, one would wonder if not entirely related to the retirement of Justine.

Throw in the mix of a bunch of Russian women who seem to swap wins with each other in results and its a mixed bag.

Trully a shiteful time in womens tennis:rolleyes:

You know they are showing classic matches on TTC and ESPN Classic if you really miss the 'good ole days' you can go watch that. I also think there are plenty of matches from 25 and 30 years ago available for sale and download that you can enjoy. Most of us here want to watch today players, not drool over video tape of a bunch of Menopausal women from the 70's and 80's. :wavey: I'll take today's players with all of their so called flaws you can have your exclusive country club game of the twentieth century. :cool:

Tennisstar86
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:37 AM
It is all about them...... Noone cares about Safina, yeah Kuzzie won the french but noone cares about her either....

Now sharapova is back. she'll be back in the picture. buts its all about the williams note the empty seats at the RG final this year.....that hasnt happened at the other finals...

LightWarrior
Jun 19th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Safina and her belly and her horrible/boring/robotic game can go to hell. She is to blame. She should go back to Russia. Her with a few of the Russian armada that have destroyed what women's tennis used to be.

renstar
Jun 19th, 2009, 02:04 AM
You know they are showing classic matches on TTC and ESPN Classic if you really miss the 'good ole days' you can go watch that. I also think there are plenty of matches from 25 and 30 years ago available for sale and download that you can enjoy. Most of us here want to watch today players, not drool over video tape of a bunch of Menopausal women from the 70's and 80's. :wavey: I'll take today's players with all of their so called flaws you can have your exclusive country club game of the twentieth century. :cool:

Well we that are old enough to remember the 70's and 80's (I was a kid at the time) will remember the rivalries, and to some extent the 90's, through the dominant player of Graf. It was as if they were the boss, the master of the game, and when two of these masters clashed it truly was a battle of two forces....

I am not asking to go back to that time, I'm not living in the past, I think that article and what I'm saying is that the game needs rivalries like that NOW for the interest sake of the game, for fans, for sponsors, for the sport in general.

And they may be menopausal women but they have each won over double GS singles titles than your precious Williams sisters.

I'm not anti - Williams sisters, id miss the drama of a Serena or the Wimbledon play of a Venus if they were gone for sure.... i was just saying that the womens game is in disaray at the moment with no dominant leader, lack of good matches, and I think most critics agree:rolleyes:

miffedmax
Jun 19th, 2009, 02:27 AM
Well, the American media seems to feel that way. I don't, even though I'm kinda partial to Venus.

Sharapower
Jun 19th, 2009, 02:31 AM
Yet another article with no real point nor news. And as someone already pointed out, the content is barely related to the title.
Next.

woosey
Jun 19th, 2009, 02:45 AM
this article consists of recycled quotes that she probably did not acquire herself, in which case, she needs to cite where they came from.

it is also totally unoriginal and does not need to be written. she wrote nothing nobody knew already. a dumb article which says nothing.

pav
Jun 19th, 2009, 02:50 AM
All about Williams my ass!

Donny
Jun 19th, 2009, 03:00 AM
In America it is.

Then again, this may have something to do with the fact that other in form players (Safina, Kuzzie, et al) are boring as fuck.

OsloErik
Jun 19th, 2009, 03:26 AM
I hate to compare the two (since tennis is so clearly superior) but I wonder about the similarities between golf and tennis.

Ultimately, golf has become a big deal in the past ten years (more so than it was before) because of Tiger Woods. Golfers hate to admit it, but the #1 reason people watch golf is because Tiger Woods (who married A NORWEGIAN, thank you) is such a dynamic figure and icon. When Tiger took those 10 months off, the television ratings (worldwide, not just USA) went down dramatically. Like, 50%. The Williams are still the most popular figures in womens tennis, especially in the United States (where they are probably the most popular figures in tennis, period) and the biggest television interest.

Womens tennis has one overarching thing that will make it survive past the Williams sisters. It's difficult to say it, but mens tennis is the reason womens tennis will last. The slams offer equal prize money; if anything, the most significant legacy of the past 10 years is the establishment of equal prize money between men and women at slams. This gives the women a HUGE safety net (and sort of gave the men a big safety net in the 2000-2003 time frame, when they were a revolving door of nobodies and Andre Agassi) in terms of developing a star.

Picture it: 2014, Wimbledon semifinals. A young, media savvy European player with perfect English is playing Venus or Serena in the semifinals of her last deep slam run. The younger woman wins, and manages to maintain that media stranglehold for another decade. Tennis has ALWAYS produced a star to supplant a star. Evert turned into Graf, Graf turned into Hingis-Kournikova, and they turned into the Williams sisters. The women carried the men in the mid 80s, and the men can carry the women until a star emerges in the 10s.

Langers
Jun 19th, 2009, 03:53 AM
Would you believe it?!

Another Williams thread!!! :eek: :rolleyes:

Donny
Jun 19th, 2009, 04:08 AM
Would you believe it?!

Another Williams thread!!! :eek: :rolleyes:

Of course. The WTA is all about them, after all.

HRHoliviasmith
Jun 19th, 2009, 04:11 AM
I hate to compare the two (since tennis is so clearly superior) but I wonder about the similarities between golf and tennis.

Ultimately, golf has become a big deal in the past ten years (more so than it was before) because of Tiger Woods. Golfers hate to admit it, but the #1 reason people watch golf is because Tiger Woods (who married A NORWEGIAN, thank you) is such a dynamic figure and icon. When Tiger took those 10 months off, the television ratings (worldwide, not just USA) went down dramatically. Like, 50%. The Williams are still the most popular figures in womens tennis, especially in the United States (where they are probably the most popular figures in tennis, period) and the biggest television interest.

Womens tennis has one overarching thing that will make it survive past the Williams sisters. It's difficult to say it, but mens tennis is the reason womens tennis will last. The slams offer equal prize money; if anything, the most significant legacy of the past 10 years is the establishment of equal prize money between men and women at slams. This gives the women a HUGE safety net (and sort of gave the men a big safety net in the 2000-2003 time frame, when they were a revolving door of nobodies and Andre Agassi) in terms of developing a star.

Picture it: 2014, Wimbledon semifinals. A young, media savvy European player with perfect English is playing Venus or Serena in the semifinals of her last deep slam run. The younger woman wins, and manages to maintain that media stranglehold for another decade. Tennis has ALWAYS produced a star to supplant a star. Evert turned into Graf, Graf turned into Hingis-Kournikova, and they turned into the Williams sisters. The women carried the men in the mid 80s, and the men can carry the women until a star emerges in the 10s.

tiger's wife is swedish

Knizzle
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:04 AM
When the Williamses are 1 and 2 in the world, holders of all the 4 slams between them, most of the other big titles, and losing very few matches each, that's when the game is "all about Williams". It's happened before, and that period is widely accepted as the "Williams era".

It's not happening right now though, with neither of them ranked no.1, both of them still capable of losing to any of the other top players (even going on losing streaks), and other players still very much able to win big titles.They hold 3 of the slams and the YEC, but the point is that they are the face of the WTA, take them out right now and what do you have? It's a scary thought.

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:08 AM
Because it's not :lol:

debopero
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:16 AM
^ who is it about then?

RenaSlam.
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:17 AM
Williams Tennis Association.

Volcana
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:19 AM
Why tennis hates to admit women's game is all about Williams

Are you kidding? Hello? Because it would be suicidal from a marketing perspective! Women's tennis has been down this road. They made it all about Chris Evert. And without Evert the popluaroty of the sport crashed. They made it all about Monica Seles. She got stabbed and the popularity of the sport crashed.

Maybe women's tennis IS all about the Williams sisters. But if you're investing in the sport, that's not a good thing. Because even in a best case scenario, you get 10 - 15 years out of your stars. And if you don't have an equally bright light to replace them, you're fucked.

It isn't all about talent. When Evert retired, women's tennis was graced with the two greatest players in the history of the sport, Navratilova and Graf. But it was Seles who caught the imagination of the fickle audience.

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:25 AM
^ who is it about then?

so if they retire whole WTA will colapse? No.

Volcana
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:26 AM
Yet another article with no real point nor news.Rather true. I did notice one thing. The author repeatedly refers to Evert's article criticizing (especially) Serena, but doesn't refer at all to the apology Evert published, wherein she noted that she hadn't considered at all the effect that their sister's murder had had on Venus or Serena.

And am I wrong, of did the words Jankovic, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Zvonareva or Azarenka not even appear in the article? If many casual fans assume the WTA is 'all about the Williams Sisters', some of that results form so-called sports-writers who can't be bothered to learn the base elements of the sport they 're writing about.

It's easy to note that Dinara Safina has lost three of the last five slam finals. Could there be a freakin, note that making three of five slam finals is hard!?!? Put aside that Venus Williams lost four staright slam finals, and five out of six. Was it so long ago that we've forgotten that we saw Kim Clijsters go through this? She lost four GS finals before finally winning one.

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:29 AM
Maybe women's tennis IS all about the Williams sisters. But if you're investing in the sport, that's not a good thing. Because even in a best case scenario, you get 10 - 15 years out of your stars. And if you don't have an equally bright light to replace them, you're fucked.



Sharapova has bigger contracts then Williams sisters.

Maria Sharapova leads the list of the highest earning female sports figures with an endorsement portfolio that includes big names such as Pepsi, Colgate-Palmolive, Nike, Canon and Motorola. Her total earnings are now estimated at $26 million per year.

Before Sharapova became a teenage sensation in 2004, Serena Williams held the distinction of being the richest female athlete. Now, eight years later, she is second behind Sharapova, but still brings home $14 million.

2008 Wimbledon champion Venus Williams is just behind her younger sister Serena with $13 million.

Serena and Venus are way behind :wavey:

Tennisstar86
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:29 AM
so if they retire whole WTA will colapse? No.

This is what i love it being ALL about them doesnt mean the sport will collapse when they leave it just means people wont pay attention....

Maria's back, so she should carry some pop now.... but those are the 3 stars on tour.... theres no denying that. Can you imagine the tour without them.....

RenaSlam.
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:33 AM
Sharapova has bigger contracts then Williams sisters.

Maria Sharapova leads the list of the highest earning female sports figures with an endorsement portfolio that includes big names such as Pepsi, Colgate-Palmolive, Nike, Canon and Motorola. Her total earnings are now estimated at $26 million per year.

Before Sharapova became a teenage sensation in 2004, Serena Williams held the distinction of being the richest female athlete. Now, eight years later, she is second behind Sharapova, but still brings home $14 million.

2008 Wimbledon champion Venus Williams is just behind her younger sister Serena with $13 million.

Serena and Venus are way behind :wavey:

While this is all very true, don't forget that Venus and Serena raised "the bar". Period.

Tennisstar86
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:33 AM
Sharapova has bigger contracts then Williams sisters.

Maria Sharapova leads the list of the highest earning female sports figures with an endorsement portfolio that includes big names such as Pepsi, Colgate-Palmolive, Nike, Canon and Motorola. Her total earnings are now estimated at $26 million per year.

Before Sharapova became a teenage sensation in 2004, Serena Williams held the distinction of being the richest female athlete. Now, eight years later, she is second behind Sharapova, but still brings home $14 million.

2008 Wimbledon champion Venus Williams is just behind her younger sister Serena with $13 million.

Serena and Venus are way behind :wavey:

its called inflation.... The fact that in 2009 there hasnt been another STAR shows the state of the womens game... Say what you want about Ana, but shes not pulling in what these ladies did...

Venus skyrocketing to stardom in 2000 and her reebok and other endorsements proved it...

then Serena got a bigger endorsement

After that Sharapova...Ana (the next star promoted as a the IT girl of the tour) hasnt brought in the dollars..... I doubt she even got near what Venus did back when big female endorsements were impossible to get..

debopero
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:37 AM
so if they retire whole WTA will colapse? No.

that's a pretty moot point... if nadal and federer retired tomorrow the ATP wouldn't collapse either

Knizzle
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:37 AM
Sharapova has bigger contracts then Williams sisters.

Maria Sharapova leads the list of the highest earning female sports figures with an endorsement portfolio that includes big names such as Pepsi, Colgate-Palmolive, Nike, Canon and Motorola. Her total earnings are now estimated at $26 million per year.

Before Sharapova became a teenage sensation in 2004, Serena Williams held the distinction of being the richest female athlete. Now, eight years later, she is second behind Sharapova, but still brings home $14 million.

2008 Wimbledon champion Venus Williams is just behind her younger sister Serena with $13 million.

Serena and Venus are way behind :wavey:So she's making more endorsement dollars, but I'm not sure exactly how that applies to the tennis establishments. Anna Kournikova was/is huge also.

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:40 AM
This is what i love it being ALL about them doesnt mean the sport will collapse when they leave it just means people wont pay attention....

Maria's back, so she should carry some pop now.... but those are the 3 stars on tour.... theres no denying that. Can you imagine the tour without them.....

Yes i can imagine because the same situation, we had in past and we will have in the future. When Seles coucdn't play after Hamburg WTA survived and people noticed ASV. Then Hingis, Kournikova, Williams sisters came to the scene etc.

Did women tennis has gone in 2004? No, of course we have better years but that how it goes.

It's true that we need bigger personalities but i'm 100% sure they will come.

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:40 AM
that's a pretty moot point... if nadal and federer retired tomorrow the ATP wouldn't collapse either

you see, the same with WTA and williams sisters :lol: :lol:

RFSTB
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:43 AM
I would say in the US, not just women's tennis, but all of Tennis is about the Williams sisters. A lot of people know who they are, but not many non tennis fans know who Federer, Roddick or even Sharapova is...which explains the sad state of tennis in the US, it's still all about the sisters, but they've passed their peak, no longer dominant. Sharapova was never dominant.

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:46 AM
its called inflation.... The fact that in 2009 there hasnt been another STAR shows the state of the womens game... Say what you want about Ana, but shes not pulling in what these ladies did...



So we need "star" every year :tape::lol: Please do such list and we will have 8 stars from 2000 until 2008 :lol::lol:

Tennisstar86
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:50 AM
I would say in the US, not just women's tennis, but all of Tennis is about the Williams sisters. A lot of people know who they are, but not many non tennis fans know who Federer, Roddick or even Sharapova is...which explains the sad state of tennis in the US, it's still all about the sisters, but they've passed their peak, no longer dominant. Sharapova was never dominant.

People know Federer.... they may not necessarily know Nadal though in my experience.... "whose that guy federer loses too...."

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 05:57 AM
People know Federer.... they may not necessarily know Nadal though in my experience.... "whose that guy federer loses too...."

Well in Europe, people know Nadal :fiery::help: Maybe we don't know who is Blake or Roddick but we know who is Nadal

RFSTB
Jun 19th, 2009, 06:00 AM
so if they retire whole WTA will colapse? No.

Be careful what you wish for. Yes of course the sport will still be around, but fewer people will pay attention, which leads to less media attention, fewer tournaments, less TV time, all feed into one another, it's a vicious cycle. Before you know it this sport will totally disappear from TV. It's already beginning to happen. If you don't get the tennis channel, pretty much the only tennis you get to watch anymore on TV are the slams.

mdterp01
Jun 19th, 2009, 06:05 AM
WTA = Williams Tennis Association.

Umm...what has my signature said since the beginning??!! ;)

Wojtek
Jun 19th, 2009, 06:07 AM
Be careful what you wish for. Yes of course the sport will still be around, but fewer people will pay attention, which leads to less media attention, fewer tournaments, less TV time, all feed into one another, it's a vicious cycle. Before you know it this sport will totally disappear from TV. It's already beginning to happen. If you don't get the tennis channel, pretty much the only tennis you get to watch anymore on TV are the slams.

Well i don't understand why you talk about situation in US and think it will be in whole world. In Poland i can watch almost all events and it won't disappear. Sport channels have been waiting for the end of contract between WTA and eurosport. Last year we had even tier 5 events in tv from Asia.

This week i have ATP/WTA events from Holland and Eastbourne. Problem is which canal i have to watch. :lol:

DiNozzo
Jun 19th, 2009, 06:17 AM
And how can you explain the fact Sharapova has all favors :lol:

RFSTB
Jun 19th, 2009, 06:40 AM
Well i don't understand why you talk about situation in US and think it will be in whole world. In Poland i can watch almost all events and it won't disappear. Sport channels have been waiting for the end of contract between WTA and eurosport. Last year we had even tier 5 events in tv from Asia.

This week i have ATP/WTA events from Holland and Eastbourne. Problem is which canal i have to watch. :lol:

Well, good for tennis fans in Poland.

The sad thing is, Polish TV money probably doesn't even amount to 1/20th of what the WTA gets from US TV rights. US TV is still where the money is. I wonder how much Eurosport pays compared to ESPN. I know for the Olympics, US TV rights alone accounts for over 60% of all of IOC's TV revenue.

Also, the USTA gets a large chunk of its funding from US TV rights(from the US Open series and the US Open). This money goes towards running the USO including stadium upkeeps, marketing and developing new young talents from the grassroots level in the US.

Curtos07
Jun 19th, 2009, 07:29 AM
Lete me guess, this was an American journalist. :rolleyes:

StephenUK
Jun 19th, 2009, 09:08 AM
I agree with Volcana and Wojtek.

The game is really all about the Williams sisters at the moment, mainly because all their main rivals have either retired (Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis) or dropped down the rankings (Mauresmo, Sharapova). Volcana is right to say that this is bad news in the sense that the sisters are pushing 30 and if they retire and Sharapova never comes back up to the top, then there will be a big problem with the public not knowing who the top players are.

It is also a problem that whilst they are winning most of the slams at the moment, they are not No 1 and 2 in the world due to inferior performances the rest of the time. Serena only holds two titles, which hardly merits the top ranking - Martina Navratilova won 16 out of 17 in 1983, Justine won the majority of her events in 07. The general public don't understand why players like Jankovic and Safina can be No 1 when they don't seem that brilliant in the slams, but it isn't their fault that the Williams sisters don't win enough tour events.

Part of the problem is that the restrictions on teen stars means that there is no-one young to get excited about. Larcher de Brito is 16 - at that age players like Seles were reaching GS semis, but it's just not possible now.

That Guardian article does point something out that is rather unpalatable to Williams fans - that the Williams return is in part due to the decline/retirement of Henin and the failure of their main rivals to rise to the occasion. It does make the tour seem a bit shopworn when no new stars are emerging and the public starts to lose interest. We really need either Caroline Wozniacki or Azarenka to win a slam over the next 12 months and this dud generation of Safina-Jankovic to fade out like Sukova and Kohde-Kilsch did for Graf.

The Williams final last year at Wimbledon was one of their best, but I thought it was rather telling that one million more Britons tuned in to watch the next match - the junior final featuring Laura Robson. In fact the junior tournament got all the buzz in Britain last year, not the women's singles.
My guess is that this year that in the first round the Williams sisters will be sharing that Centre Court not with Safina, but with the young Miss Robson and Sharapova. Once Laura loses, the focus will be on the Sharapova comeback; once she is out, the women's tournament will be pretty much forgotten and totally overshadowed by Murraymania, Federer and Nadal.

Steffica Greles
Jun 19th, 2009, 09:51 AM
:lol:
Sharapova does indeed have more desire and intensity than probably all the other players. And yet she still lost 0&2 to a midget in Paris.

That says it all, really. She's the most competitive of them all and she can lose that easily having won some tough matches up until then.

Seriously, the game has never been so bad. It's sinking in shit creek.

Matt01
Jun 19th, 2009, 10:03 AM
The WS are sooo overrated :yawn:


:lol:
Sharapova does indeed have more desire and intensity than probably all the other players. And yet she still lost 0&2 to a midget in Paris.

That says it all, really. She's the most competitive of them all and she can lose that easily having won some tough matches up until then.

Seriously, the game has never been so bad. It's sinking in shit creek.


Then why are you still watching if it's so bad? And didn't you say some time ago that you would leave this board, too? :p

Slutiana
Jun 19th, 2009, 10:27 AM
Step.
to this. :bowdown::inlove:

Slutiana
Jun 19th, 2009, 10:33 AM
The WS are sooo overrated :yawn:





Then why are you still watching if it's so bad? And didn't you say some time ago that you would leave this board, too? :p
:spit::help:

Dorcas Monjimbo
Jun 19th, 2009, 11:41 AM
I think the article means to say the Williams spice up the WTA and make it more interesting or fascinating to watch. They are ranked 2nd and 3rd and we must admit when in top healthy form, are tough to beat. Serena pulled out of Charleston just before RG because of a knee problem and got to the 1/4 finals in th RG, lost in 3 sets and I think that's a good performance.

Amanda
Jun 20th, 2009, 04:51 AM
Venus and Serena topics are #1 on this board and every other tennis board.....We love it!

Volcana
Jun 20th, 2009, 05:28 AM
Sharapova has bigger contracts then Williams sisters.None of that contract information helps the WTA in any way.

There are two ways player help the WTA. Ticket sales and TV viewership. Those are the two things that directly translate into money for the tour, not individual player. It's difficult to measure ticket sales vs individual players at the slams At the slams, things sell out, especially second week. Fortunately, for puprpose of discussion, TV ratings show more variation based on who's playing. If you want to know who delivers more money to the tour, consider viewership of the 2007 OZ final vs the 2008 OZ final.

Or look at the US Open, (for which I conveniently have a stat source).

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/sports/us-open-historic-television-ratings/

You'll have to scroll down to the chart, and it only goes to 2007, but it does show TV viewership. Specifically, check out the AA% column.

If your point is that advertisers have more faith that Sharapova will sell refrigerators and poodles, I totally concede that. But my arguement is that more people want to watch Venus or Serena play tennis.

Volcana
Jun 20th, 2009, 05:51 AM
The WS are sooo overrated For starters, that would depend on how they're rated, right?

Name me one tennis professional, current or former, who wouldn't agree that Serena Williams is one of the ten best all-time female players. Most of them put Venus in that group too, althoug by some measures she's only top fifteen. Either way, no one is walking around saying Venus Williams was better than Steffi Graf.

Venus has the Wimbledon title, and the YEC. Serena has OZ and the US. In both cases backing up already impressive career resumes.

Are we supposed to look at that and conclude they suck? Cuase if we do, then everybody who accomplished less sucks too. Seles, Henin, Goolagong, Davenport, Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis, Capriati ... that's a whole lot of sucking.

DOUBLEFIST
Jun 20th, 2009, 05:54 AM
Sharapova has bigger contracts then Williams sisters.

Maria Sharapova leads the list of the highest earning female sports figures with an endorsement portfolio that includes big names such as Pepsi, Colgate-Palmolive, Nike, Canon and Motorola. Her total earnings are now estimated at $26 million per year.

Before Sharapova became a teenage sensation in 2004, Serena Williams held the distinction of being the richest female athlete. Now, eight years later, she is second behind Sharapova, but still brings home $14 million.

2008 Wimbledon champion Venus Williams is just behind her younger sister Serena with $13 million.

Serena and Venus are way behind :wavey:

:scratch: ...so..., COMBINED The Williams Sister contracts and endorsements ARE bigger than Sharapovas.

:lol: Which is EXACTLY what the article was about, ie, the Williams SISTERS and exactly the standard you used for your post- the Williams SISTERS.

So, thanks for the research and proving the point of the article, or maybe just UNproving yours. ;)




(and yes I know the correct term is "disproving," but "unproving" seemed to fit.)

Vaidisova Ruled
Jun 20th, 2009, 07:04 AM
:lol:
Sharapova does indeed have more desire and intensity than probably all the other players. And yet she still lost 0&2 to a midget in Paris.

That says it all, really. She's the most competitive of them all and she can lose that easily having won some tough matches up until then.

Seriously, the game has never been so bad. It's sinking in shit creek.

So, it's been 4 weeks that Maria is back, and the fact that the "game has never been so bad" is her fault? Maria didn't play for 9 months. It's absolutely not her fault. In fact, if the "game has never been so bad", it's maybe because Maria (one of the three "big stars") was out.
So stop saying bullshits like that.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jun 20th, 2009, 07:09 AM
If your point is that advertisers have more faith that Sharapova will sell refrigerators and poodles, I totally concede that. But my arguement is that more people want to watch Venus or Serena play tennis.
Sure, in the US.
They want to see an american. In france, they will show Alizé Cornet (if she wasn't losing so early), because she is french, or Gael Monfils. And they will be also good ratings. But, if people in France knew tennis, they wouldn't want to watch Alizé and Gael. In france, they will only show french players. And since most of them are really boring, it sucks that we can't watch some good matches, because they have to show french players.

It's the same in every country. Now, what non american player get the highest ratings?

:scratch: ...so..., COMBINED The Williams Sister contracts and endorsements ARE bigger than Sharapovas.

:lol: Which is EXACTLY what the article was about, ie, the Williams SISTERS and exactly the standard you used for your post- the Williams SISTERS.

So, thanks for the research and proving the point of the article, or maybe just UNproving yours. ;)

You really have a problem in maths. If I earn 35 000 $ per year, and if the person I live with earns 20 000 $, is that better than one person earning 50 000$, alone? :scratch:

DOUBLEFIST
Jun 21st, 2009, 07:31 PM
Sure, in the US.
They want to see an american. In france, they will show Alizé Cornet (if she wasn't losing so early), because she is french, or Gael Monfils. And they will be also good ratings. But, if people in France knew tennis, they wouldn't want to watch Alizé and Gael. In france, they will only show french players. And since most of them are really boring, it sucks that we can't watch some good matches, because they have to show french players.

It's the same in every country. Now, what non american player get the highest ratings?



You really have a problem in maths. If I earn 35 000 $ per year, and if the person I live with earns 20 000 $, is that better than one person earning 50 000$, alone? :scratch:

What are you, stupid or somethin'?

13+14=27 > 26