PDA

View Full Version : What Can Be Done To Make Women's Tennis More Popular?


Certinfy
Feb 25th, 2011, 10:58 PM
Well clearly it's well behind men's tennis in terms of how popular it is and we all know it won't get anywhere near men's tennis any time soon, so anyway what can be done to make women's tennis more popular? Surely there are some ways?

Mary Cherry.
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:09 PM
I think it's already one of the most, if not the most popular women's spectator sports around at the moment tbh. And considering tennis itself isn't the most popular sport in general, it's great that women's tennis is doing so well against other women's sports.

Shafanovic.
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:10 PM
Get the girls to play naked :) to get the straight guys into it.

Because apparently it's a gay sport.

Wiggly
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:13 PM
Women's tennis needs star power.

Serena, Venus, Maria are all injuried/playing part-time.
Kim is cherry picking about 5 tournaments a year.

Vera, Caroline and cie are all nice girls but they lack the je ne sais quoi that true stars have.

The Tour would benefit for having a native English speaker making it big.
Robson is 17 years old and she's giving more entertaining interviews than pretty much anyone but Serena.

goldenlox
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:14 PM
Its by far the most popular womens sport. I dont know what you want.
You want a packed stadium every week for every match?
They draw very well. The next stop is Indian Wells, where hundreds of thousands will be there.

The main change I'd like to see is to spread prizemoney more, because the players who get big prizemoney also have endorsements. The players who lose early need a bigger share of the pie.

Dodoboy.
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:19 PM
It wasn't always the case!
We need an exciting new player, or a set of them!

A new game style, will be hard.

Shonami Slam
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:26 PM
nothing needs to be done - it will emerge naturally.
in the meantime - we need to learn patience.

Payam
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:31 PM
More media coverage would be the best option imho. The more people see the tennis players, the more they become interested in following them, and the sport.

cellophane
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:33 PM
Baby Anci back at number 1 in the world :sobbing:

MisterMan
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Lower the cost of tickets to events. It completely turns off the public, as you hear crickets chirp when you watch on tv. Love watching the winner go to the center of the court and wave thankyou to the 7 people in the stands hahaha

Beny
Feb 25th, 2011, 11:37 PM
It´s just an unlucky period with a lot of 'stars' injured. If it ever gets good again is not sure.

Sharapova, Ivanovic and Venus will probably never be the same again.
Clijsters is playing few tournaments and retiring soon.
Henin is gone.
(Like this, you already lose rivarlies/match-ups like Clijsters-Henin, Clijsters-Sharapova, Ivanovic-Henin, V.Williams-Henin)
Serena is the biggest factor. She should be healthy soon. And even if she is, as long as she doesnt have anyone comparably good against her, women´s tennis might still be a bit boring. Watching Serena thrash Jankovic, Safina, Zvonareva in grand slam finals is not as exciting as a Henin-Williams final.

A Wozniacki-Zvonareva final will never attract many viewers.
If only Stosur, Kuznetsova, Schiavone got more consistent, women´s tennis might get popular. But only Wozniacki can keep being solid it seems. There is no competition for her basically. Serena, Venus and Kim injured/resting and the rest is just too up&down. You just have too many Na Li´s, Pennetta´s etc. etc. atm.

What can be done? Kim and Serena should be healthy :) , Stosur should work on her movement, return and backhand and she will beat Kim and Serena regularly. Wozniacki shouldnt change a thing.
These four players can make the WTA tour exciting and attract as many people as it used to have. With occasional Schiavone-Kuznetsova GS marathon WTA might be comparable to ATP.

Nothing can be done, it´s just a bad period. It might change soon hopefully.

new-york
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:38 AM
Baby Anci back at number 1 in the world :sobbing:

And feeling exciting. :inlove:

zhengjieforever
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:51 AM
seeing the crowd at the doha peng shuai schiavone match was just pathetic. there was like literally 5 fans. and they still bothered to announce the players' names :eek:

Annie.
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:54 AM
More players like Serena, Jankovic, & Hingis. All great players w/ fun, dramatic personalities.(in Jankovic's case a decent player)Let's face it, the WTA is never going to rival the ATP in terms of quality tennis. We need rivalries and bitchiness to make it fun. The most popular time was when Hingis, the WS, Davenport, Capriati, and the Belgians were all playing.

Cp6uja
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:02 AM
Womens Tennis >>> Womens Soccer + Womens Basketball + Womens Hockey (Ice + Field) + Womens Volleyball + Womens Handball + Womens Athletic + Womens Gymnastic...

Actually ATP should learn from WTA ;)

RenaSlam.
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:08 AM
Serena.

Vikapower
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:24 AM
Womens Tennis >>> Womens Soccer + Womens Basketball + Womens Hockey (Ice + Field) + Womens Volleyball + Womens Handball + Womens Athletic + Womens Gymnastic...

Actually ATP should learn from WTA ;)

Mmmm... I don't know where you get your facts but women's tennis is not as overwhelmingly more popular than women's volleyball or women's athletics as you say...

...and women's athletics has to me much more entertaining personalities than the WTA especially with Jamaicans like Shelly-Ann Frazer, Kerron Stewart or the high-jump Petkorazzi Croatian Blanka Vlasic...

...in the past we had (because she's from Guadeloupe too :worship:) Marie-José Perrec, in a lesser extent Kostadinova... these girls brought lots of crowd just like how Bolt does right now.

slamchamp
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:41 AM
The only thing I can think of is that the girl should play naked.

duhcity
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:43 AM
Mmmm... I don't know where you get your facts but women's tennis is not as overwhelmingly more popular than women's volleyball or women's athletics as you say...

...and women's athletics has to me much more entertaining personalities than the WTA especially with Jamaicans like Shelly-Ann Frazer, Kerron Stewart or the high-jump Petkorazzi Croatian Blanka Vlasic...

...in the past we had (because she's from Guadeloupe too :worship:) Marie-José Perrec, in a lesser extent Kostadinova... these girls brought lots of crowd just like how Bolt does right now.

Crowds that deliver on the weekly basis in the way women's tennis does? Those sports really can't compete.

Tickets need to be cheaper, and the sport has to move away from the stereotype of being a rich, white, country club sport. That's still how it's viewed by many in the United States

zhengjieforever
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:46 AM
Crowds that deliver on the weekly basis in the way women's tennis does? Those sports really can't compete.

Tickets need to be cheaper, and the sport has to move away from the stereotype of being a rich, white, country club sport. That's still how it's viewed by many in the United States



crowds of 5 people on a weekly basis :sobbing:

Jane Lane
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:04 AM
crowds of 5 people on a weekly basis :sobbing:

Maybe if we didn't have tournaments in Doha, Baku and Malaysia we wouldn't have this problem. No disrespect, but these countries aren't tennis hotbeds. The interest is low.

It's the most popular women's sport in the world. Enough said.

Onjanae.
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:06 AM
I actually think it's improved a bit. Caroline as number one isn't as :unsure: as Safina as number one. Her game is more pleasant on the eye than Dinara's IMO, and the media seem to like her.

Francesca Schiavone is growing in notoriety somewhat, and people enjoy her style of play and energy. Plus she's going quite deep into many tournaments so that's a plus also.

So I think all that is need now, is for the other elite players to get healthy or get a bit of confidence back into their games. Serena, Venus, Maria, Ana, Jankovic and Kuzzy to just get back into the swing of things. That will provide competetive matches between known names, and that's all the tour needs right now. It seems so basic, but it's been lacking.

I can totally see the tour in healthy shape by years end. Point being, I think this 'intervention' talk is late and overly pessimistic (it's not that bad). I could understand this in 2009 maybe, but things really seem to be picking up by comparison. Like shionami said, patience. :)

Vikapower
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:15 AM
Crowds that deliver on the weekly basis in the way women's tennis does? Those sports really can't compete.

Tickets need to be cheaper, and the sport has to move away from the stereotype of being a rich, white, country club sport. That's still how it's viewed by many in the United States

Ok well yes if you take it in that sense and regular basis well obviously women's tennis wins by far...

...but how much crowd does a USO/RG/Wim/USO women's final or any big WTA event opposing the 2 very best of the game bring in front of the World Championship women's 100m final in track & field !?

...furthermore in Italy every week, the seats of the different women's volleyball teams are jam pack full and it's one of the reasons as an assideous women's volleyball follower I love watching the Italian league - they really know how to make plenty of noise too... :lol:

Maybe their stadiums aren't as big as the WTA's but I prefer have 500 hot fans in 500 seats than 10 000 seats with only 500 cold followers...

Matt-TennisFan24
Feb 26th, 2011, 03:38 AM
Actually I think that what can make women's tennis more popular is the marketable players doing well (Sharapova, Ivanovic, etc) and we need them to do well at the big stages, like having them to play in Grand Slam finals, cause those matches are broadcasted all around the world, and receive lots of attention. These women can attract men (I know my friends, for example, dont watch womens tennis cause: 1.women play boring tennis 2.almost none of them is hot) -- and we all know sex sells

It's not just about attracting the men, we need different players that can attract women too, players they can look up too and like their playing style. It would also be good to have fun personalities in the tour.

ATP is so popular right now because they have all of this I have explained:, girls watch it because all of the spaniards they consider "hot", and the men watch it for the great game-style each player has, getting amazed (I do) by what Federer, Nadal & Djokovic are able to do in the court. There are also great personalities there (Djokovic) so there you get all the conditions to make tennis popular:
· Marketable stars
· Diversity of play (entertaining tennis)

AnomyBC
Feb 26th, 2011, 03:42 AM
The way I see it, there are basically two ways to make women's tennis more popular:

1. Have more interesting, compelling players and more exciting, high quality matches.
2. Toplessness.

The 2nd option is probably more immediately achievable, but it carries the downside of women's tennis being taken less seriously as a sport. That being said though, it would be wise to keep all options open for the post-Williams, post-Belgians era :)

zhengjieforever
Feb 26th, 2011, 04:46 AM
tennis definitely needs more coverage..men and women's tennis. i remember seeing a picture of the williams sisters in a got milk poster at summer PE a few years ago and i was like hm, i think they seem familiar (they were even carrying their tennis racquets and i didn't completely recognize them). and my english teacher from a few years ago mentioned how much she loved nadal, and i was like 'who is he?'

and i doubt it's only me. tennis' coverage is really that bad. oh, i don't think i knew any tennis player at all, literally. well, maybe except federer.

i didn't really get into tennis till i saw zheng jie on CCTV. they didn't give her name (:mad:), and so i remember googling 'chinese tennis players' and finally matching a face to hers. and then i forgot about tennis until my psychology teacher ranted about kanye west and serena williams' foot fault outbreak during the school year. and then i forgot about tennis again. then i turned on the tv one day and whimsically turned it to the tennis channel to find williams playing azarenka in the AO. that's when i really started to get into tennis. :) how did jie get absolutely destroyed by henin :sad: if only henin hadn't come back jie might've been the first to a GS final :sad:

and 2008 wimbledon against serena she had so many chances to force a 3rd set, being 2 points away a couple of times... if serena could've just not aced the stupid tennis ball every single time :sad: and jie was one of the fastest players then i think. jie was winning the rallies from the parts i saw :o that was probably jie at her best :sad: i hope she can return to that form.. if only she were younger, healthier, and thinner :sad::sad:

fantic
Feb 26th, 2011, 06:01 AM
Pliskova sisters vs Kichenok sisters rivalry :lol:

tea
Feb 26th, 2011, 06:09 AM
Caroline is already taking care of this. Young, beautiful, funny, classy champion in the making will take tennis to the unseen heights.:worship:

perseus2006
Feb 26th, 2011, 06:15 AM
To make Women's tennis more popular:

1. Get misogynistic commentors to shut up about the women and the women's game. Commentators that come immediately to mind are John McEnroe, Mary Carillo and Patrick McEnroe, often times. The badmouthing of the women and women's game is viral! Who wants to get into a sport when it's commentators mock and denegrate it at every opportunity on air? The worst is JMac and so many try to emulate him. I have seen JMac completely ignore a women's match, for which he was supposedly the commentator, and spend his time talking up Nadal and Murray.

2. Stop talking about the "Real #1"! The Real #1 is the player who earns the most points on court. Period. There is only one #1, it's the one with the most points. You may want a given player, even a good player, like Kim or Serena, to be #1, but if that player is not interested in or not durable enough to get on court and win matches, then that player is probably not going to accumulate enough points to be #1.

3. Quit the incessant whining and muling about "pushers" in the women's game! Both #2 Kim and #1 Woz are pushers. Learn to enjoy that game. Many Men's fans have learned to enjoy their pushers: #1 Nadal and #4(?) Murray.

4. Quit trying to sell Serenka as a glamerous sportswoman and role model. It just doesn't sell: she obviously isn't from one's first experience with her. She is a self absorbed whiner who is incapable of giving credit to an opponent, enjoys bullying opponents and linespeople on court and off court engages in namecalling and self aggrandizing behavior. She's a bitch. That sells. Every sport needs its baad girl. The better the player, the nastier the baad girl can be.

5. Tennis is full of stats. It's like baseball that way. Why not use them to spice up the commentary, like serve speed, direction, depth. I would bet that an annual "baseball card" for each of the top 100 players would be a good seller: nice player picture on the front and stats on the back...

6. Tournament personnel should be required to preview each day's matches when the order of play is posted: who will be playing, h2h, what do they have to do to win, prospects and prognoses in view of current issues, etc.

7. The commentators should sell the sport! Make people want to follow it, see it, play it. Tell the audience in the tournament area where they can get lessons, rent courts, find other players, etc.

Sp!ffy
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:01 AM
More Sharapova.

pav
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:36 AM
This saying bloody Serena as the answer is just rubbish, I don't even bother to watch her unless I'm interested in the other player, to her fans she might have some attraction, but saying three or four players have star power is ridiculous.

Njalle
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:45 AM
From following a few sports besides football I have learnt that every sport is constantly trying to - or at least thinking of - renew its product. People will always say that things were better in the good old days, that there were more spectators, that the sportsmen were better et cetra. So really, is it necessary to do something about womens tennis?

fantic
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:49 AM
Ok well yes if you take it in that sense and regular basis well obviously women's tennis wins by far...

...but how much crowd does a USO/RG/Wim/USO women's final or any big WTA event opposing the 2 very best of the game bring in front of the World Championship women's 100m final in track & field !?

...furthermore in Italy every week, the seats of the different women's volleyball teams are jam pack full and it's one of the reasons as an assideous women's volleyball follower I love watching the Italian league - they really know how to make plenty of noise too... :lol:

Maybe their stadiums aren't as big as the WTA's but I prefer have 500 hot fans in 500 seats than 10 000 seats with only 500 cold followers...

:secret: do tell me some hot stars so I can have a peek :lol:

simonsaystennis
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:50 AM
Get rid of AER. The tour was most exciting when teens were breaking through. There's no way this can happen now with girls taking longer to transition to pros. If they were able to play more than 16ish tournaments a year, I think some young teen girls (Laura Robson particularly comes to mind) would be ranked in the top 50 right now.

fantic
Feb 26th, 2011, 07:52 AM
From following a few sports besides football I have learnt that every sport is constantly trying to - or at least thinking of - renew its product. People will always say that things were better in the good old days, that there were more spectators, that the sportsmen were better et cetra. So really, is it necessary to do something about womens tennis?

the exception being KBL(Korea Basketball League), foreigners get better in that league, not Koreans :help:

Mistress of Evil
Feb 26th, 2011, 08:27 AM
A couple of Supernovas. :)

Slutiana
Feb 26th, 2011, 10:17 AM
Get rid of AER. The tour was most exciting when teens were breaking through. There's no way this can happen now with girls taking longer to transition to pros. If they were able to play more than 16ish tournaments a year, I think some young teen girls (Laura Robson particularly comes to mind) would be ranked in the top 50 right now.
People always say this, but the Age Eligibility Rules have been in since 1994. Venus was the last top pro player to skip it, turning pro and playing her first event in order not to be subjected to it (even though she still played only a few tournaments).

Serena and Anna K came in through it. Kim, Justine, Jelena D, Maria, Tatiana, Nicole and so many more young talents came through it. The problem is that the current young players just aren't good enough. Robson is a brilliant ballstriker, but her game isn't overly imposing and she is one of the least athletic players on tour and all the others have a similar amount of flaws.

None of the current young crop are anywhere near as good as the top players were at their age. I agree that we need great young players with dynamic and entertaining games (and personalities too) to rise to the top of the game and create hype, rather than the WTA just clinging on to the "glamour" (which after sitting at the presser in Paris where Oriflame was officially announced, completely repulses me). but the AER isn't the problem.

Iceland
Feb 26th, 2011, 10:29 AM
But didn't they recently shorten the amount of tournaments a youngster can play? I thought that before a 17 yo girl could play more than 16 tournaments a year... which is ridiculously low.

At the moment youngsters do breakthrough later like Jovanovski or Watson this year for example. Some of them need match play to start building consistency which they can't get because of the AER. I don't think they should get rid of it but they should definitely allow 17 yo girls to play up to 20 tournaments a year. At this age, girls have no point into playing juniors anymore. They would rather encourage them to focus on the tour.

thegreendestiny
Feb 26th, 2011, 10:38 AM
I remember 2006 was a pretty awesome season all in all. WTA needs Hingis and Mauresmo-like players with their appeal and game plus a peak Sharapova and of course bring back the eternal blonde double fault Goddess and you will have an exciting tour. :bounce:

GoofyDuck
Feb 26th, 2011, 11:14 AM
Some exciting not bad looking girls with a great game.

Vikapower
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:07 PM
:secret: do tell me some hot stars so I can have a peek :lol:

In volleyball ? Katarzina Skowronska and Francesca Piccinni are/were defintively the hottest stars of the league (Kat doesn't play in Italy anymore but in Fenherbaçe), Jacqueline Carvalho, there's also this Dutch middle-blocker who plays for Bergame or Pesaro...

There are plenty of new up-rising stars and talents... and women's volleyball isn't only about hot girls :lol: but there's passion and plenty of talent too. ;)

Where I live in the carribbean Volleyball is cultural with soccer, track and field then fencing and boxing... tennis generates very very little interest here and this is really unfortunate...

They inaugurated an ATP 250 event wich will be playing from the 15th to the 20th of March... I'll be very curious to see how much people will be concerned...

terjw
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:18 PM
Women's tennis was never really popular compared to the men's game. The idea that there was a golden age is a myth. The most popular person in women's tennis was Kournikova - and it wasn't for her tennis. It's fine as it is.

It's actually an interesting period for those who do follow women's tennis as to when the transition from the old guard to the next generation actually takes place. And will we see it in terms of matches between them or will the old guard simply retire before they are opertaken.

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:52 PM
Get rid of AER. The tour was most exciting when teens were breaking through. There's no way this can happen now with girls taking longer to transition to pros. If they were able to play more than 16ish tournaments a year, I think some young teen girls (Laura Robson particularly comes to mind) would be ranked in the top 50 right now.

Won't help.

AER has been around almost 15 years now. The decline in the amount of teenagers in the game has been occuring progressively over the last 10 years several years after the introduction of AER. Even five years ago there were far far more highly ranked teenagers in the game than now. And there was AER then too.

The reason there are no girls ranked in the top 100 under the age of 19, and only 6 under the age of 20, is that the depth in the lower ranks has gotten much greater and as a result it requires young players a lot longer to develop their games to a standard that can compete on a top 100 level. The main reason for this is simply that the game has gotten a lot more physical and a lot more work and effort is required to simply maintain a top 100 standard than was the case a few years ago. Young, still physically maturing girls simply can not stand up to the current physical demands needed to maintain a top 100 ranking.

The only way, as things now stand, that you could get more teenagers into the top 100 would be to forcibly retire all those players currently ranked between 75 and 200 and over the age of 20. Problem is, to say that would not be in the best interest of the sport would be a gross understatment on a scale rarely seen.

The future of the game is one where 18 year olds reaching the top 100 is likely to be a very rare thing for the foreseeable future. So you will just have to live with it because this isn't going to change.

sammy01
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:58 PM
no offence to caro but her being number 1 isn't helping. obviously people know i love tennis, so anyone remotely intrested that i know tries to talk to me about it (normally around slam time). i always get the usual questions 'how can wozniacki be number 1 when she has never won a slam?'. i have to tell them she basically cleans up the smaller tournaments that kim and serena don't play or give a toss about.

whether you want to blame serena and kim, or caro, or the ranking system, the whole situation looks frankly crap for the wta.

something else i get asked often is 'doesn't the grunting piss you off, there is no need for it'. again i cant really defend it, and i have to admit it isn't attractive. i am used to it now, but as a casual fan i can imagine turning on a vika match and turning it off after 5 mins in just horror.

i don't really have the answers to these things, but i know they are a turn off to prospective viewers/fans

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 12:58 PM
Women's tennis was never really popular compared to the men's game. The idea that there was a golden age is a myth. The most popular person in women's tennis was Kournikova - and it wasn't for her tennis. It's fine as it is.

It's actually an interesting period for those who do follow women's tennis as to when the transition from the old guard to the next generation actually takes place. And will we see it in terms of matches between them or will the old guard simply retire before they are opertaken.

That's the big question. Obviously it would be better for the game, in terms of the tour's future credibility if the new generation can actually win it off the old guard but with the old guard breaking down quite rapidly this is looking less and less likely.

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:07 PM
no offence to caro but her being number 1 isn't helping. obviously people know i love tennis, so anyone remotely intrested that i know tries to talk to me about it (normally around slam time). i always get the usual questions 'how can wozniacki be number 1 when she has never won a slam?'. i have to tell them she basically cleans up the smaller tournaments that kim and serena don't play or give a toss about.

whether you want to blame serena and kim, or caro, or the ranking system, the whole situation looks frankly crap for the wta.

something else i get asked often is 'doesn't the grunting piss you off, there is no need for it'. again i cant really defend it, and i have to admit it isn't attractive. i am used to it now, but as a casual fan i can imagine turning on a vika match and turning it off after 5 mins in just horror.

i don't really have the answers to these things, but i know they are a turn off to prospective viewers/fans

Ridiculous. The casual fan couldn't give a damn whether the world number 1 has won a Grand Slam or not. This sort of malarkey only gets discussed in tennis forums by nerdish tennis fans like err....us.

The casual fan simply wants to see players they have heard of. If they are stars that they are familiar with and have seen before they are happy. Of course, it is true, nothing helps a player become a star more than winning a slam. But in the case of Wozniacki, being an attractive blonde, she will have no problem achieving star appeal once she wins a Slam title or two. Nobody is born a star. You become a star over a period of time and there are certainly young players in the game right who once crowds become more familiar with them will achieve star status.

sammy01
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:24 PM
Ridiculous. The casual fan couldn't give a damn whether the world number 1 has won a Grand Slam or not. This sort of malarkey only gets discussed in tennis forums by nerdish tennis fans like err....us.

The casual fan simply wants to see players they have heard of. If they are stars that they are familiar with and have seen before they are happy. Of course, it is true, nothing helps a player become a star more than winning a slam. But in the case of Wozniacki, being an attractive blonde, she will have no problem achieving star appeal once she wins a Slam title or two. Nobody is born a star. You become a star over a period of time and there are certainly young players in the game right who once crowds become more familiar with them will achieve star status.

oh really! from my facebook -

Andy Macleod - Tony Wills
So what are your predictions for oz open?
Was going for Hewitt and Safina but that went tits up lol, so going for my Wimbledon predictions Nadal and Wozniacki

Tony Wills Fed and kjisters

Sam 'Mentor' Broughton who is kjisters?????? lol

my picks are nadal and clijsters, wont even comment on someone picking wozniacki lol

Tony Wills I pissed my self with safina

Andy Macleod Wozniaki needs to step up to the plate now she's no.1. Or she'll go down the shitter like Safina and get her ass kicked. Did clisters even break a sweet?

Sam 'Mentor' Broughton no kim was in total cruise control. wozniacki doesn't have the weapons to win slams in my opinion. she is incredibley consistent from the ground but when put up against a clijsters, henin or williams sister she comes up short as they can match her in every department and then each have a little special something extra. i think her h2h collectively vs those four players is 0-9

Tony Wills Plus yas best wozniwotsit :o)

Andy Macleod I agree. The last few no.1's have been shite and not in the same class. Round 1, Safina - out, Ivanovic - out etc. Grand slams only get hard in the quarters or semis


so you get the jist, even to non crazies who just casually follow slams the last set of number #1's and now caro just look bad for the sport.

every article about woz for the oz open had she was number 1 without winning a slam in it, not in a positive way.

GoofyDuck
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:25 PM
Ridiculous. The casual fan couldn't give a damn whether the world number 1 has won a Grand Slam or not. This sort of malarkey only gets discussed in tennis forums by nerdish tennis fans like err....us.

The casual fan simply wants to see players they have heard of. If they are stars that they are familiar with and have seen before they are happy. Of course, it is true, nothing helps a player become a star more than winning a slam. But in the case of Wozniacki, being an attractive blonde, she will have no problem achieving star appeal once she wins a Slam title or two. Nobody is born a star. You become a star over a period of time and there are certainly young players in the game right who once crowds become more familiar with them will achieve star status.

exactly,

for example my parents have no clue who caroline wozniacki or victoria azarenka are because they simply have not done great things in grandslams.
They do know who Serena Williams, Kim clijsters and Justine Henin are.
Jelena Jankovic they know aswell, but then again she has been on the top for a long time and just simply isn't forgotten easily.. :lol:

Break My Rapture
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:27 PM
Lower ticket prices + more exposure for the real stars in the game, as in they need to be healthy again and play a full schedule. How many times were players like Serena, Venus, Maria (who already pretty much withdrawed from a certain event) still listed on the official website entry list just to get more exposure and better ticket sales? It happens all the time.

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:35 PM
oh really! from my facebook -

Andy Macleod - Tony Wills
So what are your predictions for oz open?
Was going for Hewitt and Safina but that went tits up lol, so going for my Wimbledon predictions Nadal and Wozniacki

Tony Wills Fed and kjisters

Sam 'Mentor' Broughton who is kjisters?????? lol

my picks are nadal and clijsters, wont even comment on someone picking wozniacki lol

Tony Wills I pissed my self with safina

Andy Macleod Wozniaki needs to step up to the plate now she's no.1. Or she'll go down the shitter like Safina and get her ass kicked. Did clisters even break a sweet?

Sam 'Mentor' Broughton no kim was in total cruise control. wozniacki doesn't have the weapons to win slams in my opinion. she is incredibley consistent from the ground but when put up against a clijsters, henin or williams sister she comes up short as they can match her in every department and then each have a little special something extra. i think her h2h collectively vs those four players is 0-9

Tony Wills Plus yas best wozniwotsit :o)

Andy Macleod I agree. The last few no.1's have been shite and not in the same class. Round 1, Safina - out, Ivanovic - out etc. Grand slams only get hard in the quarters or semis


so you get the jist, even to non crazies who just casually follow slams the last set of number #1's and now caro just look bad for the sport.

every article about woz for the oz open had she was number 1 without winning a slam in it, not in a positive way.

These people are not casual tennis fans. They are your friends and as such are influenced by your opinions. I am talking about the kind of casual tennis fan who might sometimes watch a big event on tv but couldn't possibly be bothered about writing their tennis opinions online or bothering to read other's opinions. These individuals you quote clearly do not fit the bill. I absolutely stand by what I said.

PhilePhile
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:46 PM
Talent(for example)...

DeFgCQC4o8E


Better yet, talents representing a big market (ie, Serena for tennis, the U.S.A. team below for football) ...

uos71JHj6nE

Certinfy
Feb 26th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Does anyone know if television audiences will be recorded for the Doha final today? Would love to compare it to the men's Dubai final and see what we have, seems quite fair as both finals are around the same time and the women's side has the world number 1 vs world number 3 and the men's have the world number 2 vs the world number 3. Of course I'm expecting the mens to be a lot higher but I'm just curious how big the difference is.

young_gunner913
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Ridiculous. The casual fan couldn't give a damn whether the world number 1 has won a Grand Slam or not. This sort of malarkey only gets discussed in tennis forums by nerdish tennis fans like err....us.

The casual fan simply wants to see players they have heard of. If they are stars that they are familiar with and have seen before they are happy. Of course, it is true, nothing helps a player become a star more than winning a slam. But in the case of Wozniacki, being an attractive blonde, she will have no problem achieving star appeal once she wins a Slam title or two. Nobody is born a star. You become a star over a period of time and there are certainly young players in the game right who once crowds become more familiar with them will achieve star status.

Casual fans actually do take notice. Since most casual fans pay attention to the slams, they really don't know about Caro winning titles in Beijing, Tokyo, Dubai, New Haven, etc. So when they realize that she hasn't won any of the 4 slams, it has them scratching their heads wondering why the world's number 1 and titled "best in the world" hasn't won the biggest tournaments.

The Dawntreader
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:08 PM
If Wozniacki can't transcend as a number 1 to a casual fan, then the WTA has problems. The overkill hyperbole that gets wrapped around Wozniacki does her no favours too. It's as if the WTA knows ultimately that her world number 1 status is invalidated in terms of the maximum results (slams), so they are trying to over-compensate, and act like she is some saviour for the tour.

I think in general, the WTA has tried to market the sport to death, trying to cover the glaring cracks that have appeared due to the loss of several high-profile players.

goldenlox
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:37 PM
I can only see Caro at #1 as a good thing.
She is the next star of the tour, and she shows week after week how good she is and how consistent she is
Sveta got 4 games, Flavia&Marion 2 games.

I think you'd better get used to her, because this level of play will take her very deep in every tournament, and she's still an improving kid.

mariavikafan
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:47 PM
I can only see Caro at #1 as a good thing.
She is the next star of the tour, and she shows week after week how good she is and how consistent she is
Sveta got 4 games, Flavia&Marion 2 games.

I think you'd better get used to her, because this level of play will take her very deep in every tournament, and she's still an improving kid.

Well, I want to see her results on clay first. But right now, no doubt on HC it's very effective.

fantic
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:58 PM
In volleyball ?

There are plenty of new up-rising stars and talents... and women's volleyball isn't only about hot girls :lol: but there's passion and plenty of talent too. ;)

Where I live in the carribbean Volleyball is cultural with soccer, track and field then fencing and boxing... tennis generates very very little interest here and this is really unfortunate...

They inaugurated an ATP 250 event wich will be playing from the 15th to the 20th of March... I'll be very curious to see how much people will be concerned...

oooh, thx ;)
and FENCING is popular than tennis? :eek:

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 02:59 PM
Casual fans actually do take notice. Since most casual fans pay attention to the slams, they really don't know about Caro winning titles in Beijing, Tokyo, Dubai, New Haven, etc. So when they realize that she hasn't won any of the 4 slams, it has them scratching their heads wondering why the world's number 1 and titled "best in the world" hasn't won the biggest tournaments.

They might wonder. But do they care?

young_gunner913
Feb 26th, 2011, 03:03 PM
They might wonder. But do they care?

For 8 weeks a year, yes.

tejmeglekvár
Feb 26th, 2011, 03:15 PM
uhm, there were "experts" on this board who didn't know nothing about Dinara's injury. then what do you expect from causal fans?

first thing should be to send Bodo & Co. into workcamp to digging rocks 18hour/day.

one player can't and won't make miracle, so doesn't matter who is #1.

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 03:15 PM
For 8 weeks a year, yes.

No. The casual fan couldn't give a damn what any of these players is ranked. They just watch the matches that are shown. If they are familiar with the names of the players they might be more inclinded to watch, yes. But by the later rounds of a big event even that doesn't matter so much.

zhengjieforever
Feb 26th, 2011, 04:56 PM
i really doubt the "casual" fan cares about rankings... at all. all they care about is a good showing that excites them the every blue moon tennis shows up on espn2. if the fan is actually looking up rankings and comparing players online etc i would not define him as "casual."

Vikapower
Feb 26th, 2011, 05:17 PM
oooh, thx ;)
and FENCING is popular than tennis? :eek:

Well because in Guadeloupe we've had great fencing champs like Laura Flessel who built a fencing complex not far from where I live and it works very well... she had a damn great personality too... :lol:

If Montfils was much more successful then maybe tennis would have had a better image here...

Unfortunately we've never had a good woman carribbean french player just like for the boys and Jamie Mina who seems to be promising.

Stamp Paid
Feb 26th, 2011, 05:24 PM
More outreach and accessibility.
The girls who grow up with amazing athletic ability end up playing other sports too often.

fantic
Feb 26th, 2011, 05:42 PM
Well because in Guadeloupe we've had great fencing champs like Laura Flessel who built a fencing complex not far from where I live and it works very well... she had a damn great personality too... :lol:

If Montfils was much more successful then maybe tennis would have had a better image here...

Unfortunately we've never had a good woman carribbean french player just like for the boys and Jamie Mina who seems to be promising.

Oh I see. Thx ;)

fantic
Feb 26th, 2011, 05:43 PM
Televise more of Zvonareva's sexy coach :hearts: :lol:

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 26th, 2011, 05:53 PM
i really doubt the "casual" fan cares about rankings... at all. all they care about is a good showing that excites them the every blue moon tennis shows up on espn2. if the fan is actually looking up rankings and comparing players online etc i would not define him as "casual."

Exactly. :yeah:

Dominic
Feb 26th, 2011, 06:56 PM
How about not have Zvonareva and Wozniacki in finals

Rollo
Feb 26th, 2011, 09:22 PM
Some ideas.


1. Change the rankings to reflect quality over quantity.

While I agree to some extent that the "casual" fan won't care-people making that argument are missing two points IMO.

A. The "casual" fan is a bit more likely to stay casual if they think the ranking is just stupid.

B. More importantly it gives the press something to else to write about. If the press isn't writing about the ranking controversy they can actually help promote the game:)

2. Look into more events on various (Fast or indoor) surfaces.


Women's tennis needs more variety, not less.

One of the dumbest things the WTA did IMO was to take the YEC out of Madison Square Garden back arounf 2001. The women always got good crowds there. Now the indoor carpet season is dead and the YEC tends to be just another hard court event.

Bring back the carpet. Add a couple of grass court events after Wimbledon.
do every freaking thing possible to promote tennis that doesn't look cookie cutter with every top tenner having a two-handed backhand. On this front God bless Francesca Schiavone!:worship:

3. Promote the game in Africa.

Why not spend a few million on promoting talent if Africa? They could start in South Africa and look into other places that look promising. I'm talking a ten year project. It wouldn't pay off now, but years down the road it could pay off mightily.

4. Market a personality or them every month.

They could get creative here by marketing personalities, regions, or even themes. March could be serve and volley month for example.

5. Take a serious look at why injuries are so numerous

Has the WTA done studies on this? I suspect part of blame goes back to the rankings. Before they changed the ranking system back in 1996 the women only had to play 12 events. It's been as high as 18 and now stands at 16. When Kimiko Date quit the tour at the end of 1996 she said her body couldn't take the added events. Time has proven her right.

Surface may be another factor. The tour used to have a variety of surfaces. Now it's basically a hard court tour most of the year. It's the worst surface for your body.

The women just can't take the pounding on their bodies the way the men can. You'd think the tour would adjust to this fact-they haven't.

simonsaystennis
Feb 26th, 2011, 09:46 PM
But didn't they recently shorten the amount of tournaments a youngster can play? I thought that before a 17 yo girl could play more than 16 tournaments a year... which is ridiculously low.

At the moment youngsters do breakthrough later like Jovanovski or Watson this year for example. Some of them need match play to start building consistency which they can't get because of the AER. I don't think they should get rid of it but they should definitely allow 17 yo girls to play up to 20 tournaments a year. At this age, girls have no point into playing juniors anymore. They would rather encourage them to focus on the tour.

This is what I'm talking about. The girls with the biggest potential SHOULD NOT be stuck playing in juniors because they can only play a shortened amount of tournaments.

To address the points made earlier about girls breaking through under AER, yes it did happen. Serena, Maria, Justine, Kim, Nicole, and others all did it. But as was pointed out the game has gotten a lot more physical, and it takes more time to get used to playing in the pros. It will take these girls with the most promise playing 16-18 pro events a year in order to breakthrough at young age. I definitely think teenagers breaking through is possible, but not under the current AER.

clementine
Feb 26th, 2011, 10:14 PM
Play better and smarter, get rid of on-court coaching, stop choking, and stop acting like drama queens. Women's tennis in the 80/90s was so much more watchable than it is today.

Rollo
Feb 26th, 2011, 10:28 PM
This is what I'm talking about. The girls with the biggest potential SHOULD NOT be stuck playing in juniors because they can only play a shortened amount of tournaments.

To address the points made earlier about girls breaking through under AER, yes it did happen. Serena, Maria, Justine, Kim, Nicole, and others all did it. But as was pointed out the game has gotten a lot more physical, and it takes more time to get used to playing in the pros. It will take these girls with the most promise playing 16-18 pro events a year in order to breakthrough at young age. I definitely think teenagers breaking through is possible, but not under the current AER.

I wonder if the current restrictions make them go overboard when they are of age.

Mr.Sharapova
Feb 26th, 2011, 10:36 PM
Well, Tennis is to become popular if the players who play the sport are popular :shrug:. And of course if the quality of the tennis shown is watchable and interesting.

Thats why our only hope its to invent a time capsule and turn back at the 2006/07 season which the addition of Serena and Venus at their highest form there :yeah:. Now that would make Tennis more popular than ever :)

sammy01
Feb 26th, 2011, 11:19 PM
tbf to the WTA they have tried a few things, such as those pointless interviews before matches and on court coaching, but well even for a die hard fan those seriously aren't needed.

also with the WTA following the ATP in where they play the stadiums are sometimes far too big for the women and they fail to fill them and it looks horrible on tv to watch. the good old days of watching lovely intimate tournaments like AI and san diego, with great crowds that make a great atmosphere in the right sized stadium seems to have gone. instead we have momo vs sugi playing infront of their coach and mother in a steal box in madrid.

from a personal viewpoint ban toweling down. it is painful in both the mens and womens game, do it at the change of ends and wear sweatbands.

young_gunner913
Feb 26th, 2011, 11:44 PM
No. The casual fan couldn't give a damn what any of these players is ranked. They just watch the matches that are shown. If they are familiar with the names of the players they might be more inclinded to watch, yes. But by the later rounds of a big event even that doesn't matter so much.

It's not like we're talking about some player ranked 5th, or 13th or 21st, we're talking about the World's #1. Casual tennis fans will take notice because according to her ranking, she's the best in the world. They don't know about the ranking system and the back story of how Caro got there, they just know what they see: the world #1 has not won a slam. It's utterly ridiculous to think casual fans are so dense they don't take notice of those things.

goldenlox
Feb 26th, 2011, 11:48 PM
If they know Caroline hasnt won a slam, they must see she's winning title after title. Still stuck on 6 since Wimbledon.
Its not some controversy. The top 2 players have by far the best results. And the #2 is a mom who doesnt play a full schedule.

sammy01
Feb 26th, 2011, 11:53 PM
It's not like we're talking about some player ranked 5th, or 13th or 21st, we're talking about the World's #1. Casual tennis fans will take notice because according to her ranking, she's the best in the world. They don't know about the ranking system and the back story of how Caro got there, they just know what they see: the world #1 has not won a slam. It's utterly ridiculous to think casual fans are so dense they don't take notice of those things.

exactly it is even more strange to casual fans as they don't know, like us, that wozniacki whores up every tournament she can and usually wins them against depleted fields.

young_gunner913
Feb 27th, 2011, 12:00 AM
If they know Caroline hasnt won a slam, they must see she's winning title after title. Still stuck on 6 since Wimbledon.
Its not some controversy. The top 2 players have by far the best results. And the #2 is a mom who doesnt play a full schedule.

Like I wrote earlier, they must know that she's winning, but casual fans don't really know/care about Montreal, Beijing, Tokyo, Dubai etc... For 8 weeks a year they pay attention to tennis, so if Caro isn't winning Melbourne, Paris, London, or NYC, chances are they don't really know what she's done to get to #1, they just know she hasn't won a slam which is the biggest tournament.

Rollo
Feb 27th, 2011, 12:13 AM
If they know Caroline hasnt won a slam, they must see she's winning title after title. Still stuck on 6 since Wimbledon.
Its not some controversy. The top 2 players have by far the best results.

Sorry-it is a controversy. Every time I see a Wozniacki or Clijsters match on TV the announcers spend time talking about the ranking. They usually end up talking about "real" #1 vs a computer #1.

This month's Tennis magazine in the US has an editorial by Chris Evert basically saying the WTA should change the ranking system.

Look, if Caroline had a year like Hingis did in 2000 her ranking would be defensible. Hingis won about 10 events, was RU at the Aussie and won the YEC Championships. By contrast Wozniacki won just 6 events (1 more than Clijsters) and couldn't make it past the semis of slam OR win the YEC. It took her twice as many events to acheive less than Clijsters did in 2010.

She's sweet, tries hard, and has a good top ten game. As a #1 she's a joke though.

And the #2 is a mom who doesnt play a full schedule.[/

The #2 mom with 2 slams and the YEC-don't forget that.

Lets talk about what constitutes a full schedule.

Kim currently has 12 events counting towards her ranking. Frankly that should be enough for a full schedule. That avergaes out to one event per month-slightly more when we consider that the tour ends well before December. I realize that 12 sounds low, but consider this:

* 12 events was considered a full schedule up until 1996.

* There were a lot less injuries then.

* Using today's loopy rankings system Concita Martinez would be your current #1 in 1995-96-just forget about someone by the name of Steffi Graf.

* Making only 12 events count towards the ranking doesn't punish those who wish to play more events.

*Lowering the events that count towards the ranking might actually tempt the big guns (Clijsters and Serena for starters) to play acouple of extra events as they might then have a realistic chance of finishing #1.

Rollo
Feb 27th, 2011, 12:23 AM
Like I wrote earlier, they must know that she's winning, but casual fans don't really know/care about Montreal, Beijing, Tokyo, Dubai etc... For 8 weeks a year they pay attention to tennis, so if Caro isn't winning Melbourne, Paris, London, or NYC, chances are they don't really know what she's done to get to #1, they just know she hasn't won a slam which is the biggest tournament.

Exactly :worship:


The tour should be using the slams to promote the players. If I were the WTA I would promote the hell of Schiavone.

PhilePhile
Feb 27th, 2011, 01:11 AM
Exactly :worship:


The tour should be using the slams to promote the players. If I were the WTA I would promote the hell of Schiavone.

The "Slams" and the WTA are separate entities and have their own interests. In may ways, they are actually competing against each other.

Wiggly
Feb 27th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Yeah, promoting the hell out of Schiavone is excellent.

She has one of the nicest game on Tour, a fun personality and people can relate to her.
She isn't an IMG/PR corporate robot by any means.

homogenius
Feb 27th, 2011, 01:26 AM
Lets talk about what constitutes a full schedule.

Kim currently has 12 events counting towards her ranking. Frankly that should be enough for a full schedule. That avergaes out to one event per month-slightly more when we consider that the tour ends well before December. I realize that 12 sounds low, but consider this:

* 12 events was considered a full schedule up until 1996.

* There were a lot less injuries then.

* Using today's loopy rankings system Concita Martinez would be your current #1 in 1995-96-just forget about someone by the name of Steffi Graf.

* Making only 12 events count towards the ranking doesn't punish those who wish to play more events.

*Lowering the events that count towards the ranking might actually tempt the big guns (Clijsters and Serena for starters) to play acouple of extra events as they might then have a realistic chance of finishing #1.

I disagree.12 is not enough imo.Even in the nineties, top players like Graf, Sanchez or Seles weren't playing only 12 events but more like 15/16 each year (and the players were less injured cause there was less depth at the time and the tour is much more physical now.It's not just a question of number of events played).If players like Serena and Kim want the n°1 spot they have to play more (and Serena actually did it in 2009).

More generally, the ranking system is reduced to a "quality vs quantity" question and I'm not sure that's the point.I understand why some think that Woz's results are not indicative of her being the best player in the world, but I don't think a player who would only show up in the slams(with the clear advantage of being a lot fresher physically and mentally than the others who are dedicated to the tour from January to November)deserves to be n°1.The n°1 should have both consistency and some big wins (and/or at least being competitive against the others top2/3 players). Kim got that over the past year, except for the fact she missed the entire clay season; including the FO (that's 25% of the season and that's why I don't think it's outrageous to see her being only n°2 atm).

terjw
Feb 27th, 2011, 01:58 AM
Like I wrote earlier, they must know that she's winning, but casual fans don't really know/care about Montreal, Beijing, Tokyo, Dubai etc... For 8 weeks a year they pay attention to tennis, so if Caro isn't winning Melbourne, Paris, London, or NYC, chances are they don't really know what she's done to get to #1, they just know she hasn't won a slam which is the biggest tournament.

The #1 ranking and whether she has a slam is totally irrelevant to the casual fan. The casual fan will always take some interest in the home slam - but that's about it. Here it's Wimbledon. There is no coverage on the terrestial channels of the women at other slams and only diehard tennis fans are going to go to the specialist sports channels for which you have to pay - and the casual fan is not paying extra to watch that. I doubt that most casual fans could correctly name the women winners at the other slams unless it's a big story bumped up in the news like Kim's comeback as a Mum and winning the 2009 USO.

At Wimbledon - when they read out emails from viewers - there's pretty well no emails on the #1 without a slam question. The two biggest subjects the BBC get emails from the casual fan are:

The noise with the shrieking - that something should be done and it puts them off watching the women.
Equal Pay (well it used to be up to a couple of years ago)Actually penalising players when they make an excessive noise and start warning players and if they continue deducting points etc. would be very very popular with the casual fan. That could and should be done. But can't go back from equal pay. That's been settled.

simonsaystennis
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:02 AM
I wonder if the current restrictions make them go overboard when they are of age.

This is true... a good point that I never considered.

And the WTA is fooling themselves if they think that AER is going to prevent burnout... they are just encouraging girls to travel the world playing tons of junior tournaments instead of gaining real experience by play pros.

For example, An-Sophie Mestach, the current junior number one, still played 19 tournaments ALL over the world, but only six of those were pro events.

Another top ten junior, Yulia Putintseva, played 20 events, and only five of them were pro events.

These girls are still traveling all over the world and playing full schedules... they're just doing it on the junior level. Time for WTA to loosen the reins on AER... I firmly believe that if the top teens played more pro events, they would be having the breakthrough results the last few generations have had. The game has gotten more physical, so LOGICALLY it takes more time to get used to the pro game... something that won't happen unless more events are available to be played.

sammy01
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:04 AM
I disagree.12 is not enough imo.Even in the nineties, top players like Graf, Sanchez or Seles weren't playing only 12 events but more like 15/16 each year (and the players were less injured cause there was less depth at the time and the tour is much more physical now.It's not just a question of number of events played).If players like Serena and Kim want the n°1 spot they have to play more (and Serena actually did it in 2009).

More generally, the ranking system is reduced to a "quality vs quantity" question and I'm not sure that's the point.I understand why some think that Woz's results are not indicative of her being the best player in the world, but I don't think a player who would only show up in the slams(with the clear advantage of being a lot fresher physically and mentally than the others who are dedicated to the tour from January to November)deserves to be n°1.The n°1 should have both consistency and some big wins (and/or at least being competitive against the others top2/3 players). Kim got that over the past year, except for the fact she missed the entire clay season; including the FO (that's 25% of the season and that's why I don't think it's outrageous to see her being only n°2 atm).

isn't this a contradiction? you say that it is tougher now because of the depth in womens tennis, yet you expect serena and kim to play more to be number 1?

ok lets go with the stronger depth in womens tennis, surely that is a reason to count less tournaments to rankings so that the top players don't feel they have to force themself to push it too hard week in week and and get injured.

!VamosRafa!
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:09 AM
Actually I think that what can make women's tennis more popular is the marketable players doing well (Sharapova, Ivanovic, etc) and we need them to do well at the big stages, like having them to play in Grand Slam finals, cause those matches are broadcasted all around the world, and receive lots of attention. These women can attract men (I know my friends, for example, dont watch womens tennis cause: 1.women play boring tennis 2.almost none of them is hot) -- and we all know sex sells

It's not just about attracting the men, we need different players that can attract women too, players they can look up too and like their playing style. It would also be good to have fun personalities in the tour.

ATP is so popular right now because they have all of this I have explained:, girls watch it because all of the spaniards they consider "hot", and the men watch it for the great game-style each player has, getting amazed (I do) by what Federer, Nadal & Djokovic are able to do in the court. There are also great personalities there (Djokovic) so there you get all the conditions to make tennis popular:
· Marketable stars
· Diversity of play (entertaining tennis)

Matt,lol,just lol!
That's not true at all...Female tennis fans are not that shallow;)
I told you I started following Rafa because I just liked him and that didn't have anything to do with his physique...And now after many years of rooting for him I've grown emotionally to him and I really like him a lot like a close friends or a family member minus the strong physical attraction which started in 2008 XD
I think the reason why the ATP is more popular is because of the very competitive top 10-15 players and very good matches!Also it has global stars like Federer & Nadal who are both active...

The women's game needs more glamorous champions like Serena Williams,Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova...It also needs more competitive matches and higher quality tennis and more talented players!The WTA is so boring at the moment,it;s unbelievable...

terjw
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:17 AM
isn't this a contradiction? you say that it is tougher now because of the depth in womens tennis, yet you expect serena and kim to play more to be number 1?

ok lets go with the stronger depth in womens tennis, surely that is a reason to count less tournaments to rankings so that the top players don't feel they have to force themself to push it too hard week in week and and get injured.

:haha:at the idea that having a season of just 12 tournament will somehow make the WTA more popular and that casual fans will flock to the WTA as a result. Casual fans and the media are interested in Wimbledon here and not much else. That's the case now and always has been.

There's one thing in a country that generates interest more than anything else. A top player from the country doing well. When Ginny Wade won Wimbledon. Even Jamie Murray winning the mixed with JJ generated interest and many were more interested in that than the Willies battling it out. I'm sure Caro in Denmark and Fran in Italy have done more to generate interest in their country than anything else.

homogenius
Feb 27th, 2011, 02:38 AM
isn't this a contradiction? you say that it is tougher now because of the depth in womens tennis, yet you expect serena and kim to play more to be number 1?

ok lets go with the stronger depth in womens tennis, surely that is a reason to count less tournaments to rankings so that the top players don't feel they have to force themself to push it too hard week in week and and get injured.

yes I expect players who are paid millions to play more than 12 events a year.They're not just out there to sell outfits and stuff and do photoshoots.It's their job to be fit enough to play a full schedule (Woz and most of the others do it after all), and I won't cry over the top players who complain about the roadmap but still manage to put some useless exhibitions at the worst moment in their schedule(or accept to play some events just for the apparence fees)just cause they want even more money.
Someone like Kim has been dedicated to the tour, has even overplayed at one point (single and doubles, around 100 matches a year few years ago :help:)and is now older and a mum so it's understanble she don't to play a lot.
Serena is clearly another story.She almost never played what I'd called a full schedule (so her injuries weren't due to a stressfull schedule but more of her not always being as fit as she could etc...)and generally tried to really peak at the slams.It worked quite well but despite her 13 slams, she didn't spend that much time as #1 in her career.Her choice.I don't know why we should blame the ranking system for that.

Obviously, there is more depth right now and the top players need to be carefull with their schedule, but there's a difference between playing 25 events a year and only 12.You can't expect to be n°1 with such a limited shcedule.

sammy01
Feb 27th, 2011, 03:07 AM
I have no problem with say 14 tournaments as the standard for rankings. i think it should be 4 grand slams, 4 mandatories, and any 6 turnaments of any size to make up the rest.

the 4 mandatories should be called masters, then have tier 1, 2 and 3 after. lets make this simple again, half the posters on this forum have no idea still what size tournament what is with the new tier system. this will force tournaments to attract the top players not demand them and they turn up and tank.

winning a slam should automatically qualify you for the YEC.

ChriS.
Feb 27th, 2011, 03:12 AM
1. It is never going to be as popular as men's tennis.
2. Someone new needs to win multiple slams, get to number one and stay there for a while.
3. Ana or Maria need to win more slams because they look good.
4. The top four players need to be more consistent and to dominate the rest of the tour.

is1531
Feb 27th, 2011, 05:51 AM
I love the WTA,but not many people do. It's not fun watching a match with 300 fans in the stands. It happens far too often. If we only had 50 more players like Carla Suarez Navarro,we would have to close shop permanently.It could get worse if Annabel Guarigues catches fire.

Dominic
Feb 27th, 2011, 06:01 AM
1. It is never going to be as popular as men's tennis.


What on earth are you talking about? it used to be more popular than men's tennis and not that long ago.

hellas719
Feb 27th, 2011, 06:16 AM
More Americans, Brits, French, and Aussies at the top :shrug:
These are the traditional countries :shrug:

And less people from countries that don't care about tennis, like Italy or even Russia :shrug:

Max565
Feb 27th, 2011, 10:54 AM
1. The top playerS (plural) have to dominate more. The GS semifinalists should ideally be the star players or the top 4 seeds. It's great to see players like Kvitova or Pironkova reach GS semis... but in Pironkova's case, will the casual fan ever see her again or even remember her? We have players like Ivanovic who clearly have a high profile but people just don't care much for her as she doesn't consistently reach the later rounds of GS... Morever, as the top players don't reach the GS semis and finals, there isn't much room for the development of rivalries. There was a period of a few years during the late 90s and early 00s when women's tennis was clearly more popular than the mens. That popularity was partly due to the great rivalries (Williams v Hingis, Davenport v Hingis, Williams v Davenport etc.). Today, there isn't a obvious rivalry.

2. It's a transition period right now. The old guard (ie, the established stars of the game): Clijsters, Venus, Sharapova, Serena are either fading or will retire in a few years. We have to look ahead at our future stars - Wozniacki, possibly Azarenka, Stosur, Li (maybe)... actually, I'm having a hard time naming potential superstars..............

sammy01
Feb 27th, 2011, 01:28 PM
1. The top playerS (plural) have to dominate more. The GS semifinalists should ideally be the star players or the top 4 seeds. It's great to see players like Kvitova or Pironkova reach GS semis... but in Pironkova's case, will the casual fan ever see her again or even remember her? We have players like Ivanovic who clearly have a high profile but people just don't care much for her as she doesn't consistently reach the later rounds of GS... Morever, as the top players don't reach the GS semis and finals, there isn't much room for the development of rivalries. There was a period of a few years during the late 90s and early 00s when women's tennis was clearly more popular than the mens. That popularity was partly due to the great rivalries (Williams v Hingis, Davenport v Hingis, Williams v Davenport etc.). Today, there isn't a obvious rivalry.

2. It's a transition period right now. The old guard (ie, the established stars of the game): Clijsters, Venus, Sharapova, Serena are either fading or will retire in a few years. We have to look ahead at our future stars - Wozniacki, possibly Azarenka, Stosur, Li (maybe)... actually, I'm having a hard time naming potential superstars..............

isn't li older than kim, and stosur only a year younger and vera. the only up and coming 'star' is caro and she has one of the most boring games ever. it would be like ASV being the only player to break through in the late 80's early 90's. she was a nice addition to graf, seles ect, but having her only as the only one of her age range to break through would have been dire.

Monica_Rules
Feb 27th, 2011, 01:32 PM
I think the tour needs a new up and coming youngster to come along and dominate the tour a la Federer, and then for someone to come and challenge their dominace a la Nadal, the rest of the tour would then have to play catch up and the general standard of play would improve.

Prior to Fed dominating mens tennis was in a bad state but at that point the womens tour was at its peak.

Olórin
Feb 27th, 2011, 04:07 PM
And less people from countries that don't care about tennis, like Italy or even Russia :shrug:

Well perhaps Italy on the whole isn't interested. But the Italian Open is one of oldest and often one of the most enjoyable tournaments :shrug:

As for the traditional tennis countries, I agree. Perhaps add in Germany. We need more players from those countries otherwise who knows what will have become of women's tennis 100 years from now :shrug:

Smitten
Feb 27th, 2011, 04:10 PM
More drama and we need frequent high-quality meetings between former slam winning #1s.

harloo
Feb 27th, 2011, 06:20 PM
1. The top playerS (plural) have to dominate more. The GS semifinalists should ideally be the star players or the top 4 seeds. It's great to see players like Kvitova or Pironkova reach GS semis... but in Pironkova's case, will the casual fan ever see her again or even remember her? We have players like Ivanovic who clearly have a high profile but people just don't care much for her as she doesn't consistently reach the later rounds of GS... Morever, as the top players don't reach the GS semis and finals, there isn't much room for the development of rivalries. There was a period of a few years during the late 90s and early 00s when women's tennis was clearly more popular than the mens. That popularity was partly due to the great rivalries (Williams v Hingis, Davenport v Hingis, Williams v Davenport etc.). Today, there isn't a obvious rivalry.

2. It's a transition period right now. The old guard (ie, the established stars of the game): Clijsters, Venus, Sharapova, Serena are either fading or will retire in a few years. We have to look ahead at our future stars - Wozniacki, possibly Azarenka, Stosur, Li (maybe)... actually, I'm having a hard time naming potential superstars..............

:worship::worship:YEP!!

The late 90's-early 2000's was one of the best periods in women's tennis. Their were so many rivalries and great personalities on tour and each of them could back it up on court. During that period you had to really earn your place at the top rather than playing numerous tournaments and ascending to the top 10. It was not only more competitive but everyone was more interesting off court.

I think several factors have contributed to the decline of the tour:

1. Young players are hounded by sponsors after one successful upset or win. Monica Seles alluded that the focus of coaches has changed from, "Does she have talent?" to, "How much money can she make?". I feel like some of the young players are given major sponsorship to soon and it only adds more pressure. Even the one's who have potential can't seem to keep it together on court.

2. The old guard is injured, playing badly, or retired. Their are no more long-standing rivalries or drama filled matches played by the marquee players everyone is interested in. Ex: Caro vs. Kim or Francesca vs. Sveta isn't necessarily going to draw in casual fans.

3. The WTA has repeatedly tried to manufacture a GREAT WHITE HOPE to appeal to Americans instead of focusing on expanding to other markets by promoting minorities. PRIME EXAMPLE: Ashley Harkleroad and Melanie Oudin.

4. BRING BACK QUALITY POINTS!! The current ranking system is a joke. Safina and Caroline have both proved it doesn't make sense to reward quantity over quality. When Safina lost to Venus 6-1, 6-1 at Wimbledon as the #1 player it was not only embarrassing to the game but shocking to casual fans. It wasn't the fact that she lost but more so how she lost.

zhengjieforever
Feb 27th, 2011, 06:45 PM
i can't believe how difficult it is to watch a match. like, so many tournaments either don't have coverage until the finals or only have coverage for 1 court. why can't they give internet coverage for all the courts :o i have to pray that i'll be waking up at 3 in the morning (on a school day too), because even that might not be enough to watch them :sad: i'd have to actually be there at that deserted tournament and be one of those five fans in the crowd to actually get to fully watch :rolleyes:

¤CharlDa¤
Feb 27th, 2011, 07:53 PM
I think where the WTA totally went wrong is with their incredible push at 'emerging' markets, such as Dubai-Doha-Istanbul, and Asia. It's obvious there is a lot of money to be done there, but we still haven't seen the good repercussions of it yet: nothing major with sponsorships, crowds aren't that great and they are losing fans everywhere else.

The WTA had some very strong markets in the US and Europe, and right now, they are losing them because they are going for where there is money, and not where there is interest.

Getting rid of the indoors european season was a big mistake, and now nobody cares at anything post-Us Open. Moving the YEC from NY-LA to Doha and now Istanbul just makes things worst.

Volcana
Feb 27th, 2011, 11:27 PM
A) Tennis was a very popular SPECTATOR sport ... 40 years ago. Just to give you an idea, tennis was uch more popular than NBA basketball pre-1980. Mixed doubles exhibitions played on NETWORK TV in the 1970's. While the famed 'Magic-jumped-center' very first Magic-Bird NBA final, was on tape delay. The NFL wasn't dominant in the states then.
It's hard to make women's tennis bigtime when tennis isn't bigtime. Unless you go another way. Women's golf is the one major women's sport that is both financially viable, AND has accepted their lesbian fan-base. (The WNBA fails on 'financially viable.)

If you want to make the WTA more popular, you have to take some risks. And that means risking being the going-on-60 male wet-dream. Only problem is, those are the guys who sign the checks. But anything else is nibbling the crust.

If you want to sell athletes, you have to sell power. The question is, who WANTS powerful women? 'Sell-Me-Sex' has proven it has a short self life. A long shelf life has to come another way.

sammy01
Feb 27th, 2011, 11:31 PM
I think where the WTA totally went wrong is with their incredible push at 'emerging' markets, such as Dubai-Doha-Istanbul, and Asia. It's obvious there is a lot of money to be done there, but we still haven't seen the good repercussions of it yet: nothing major with sponsorships, crowds aren't that great and they are losing fans everywhere else.

The WTA had some very strong markets in the US and Europe, and right now, they are losing them because they are going for where there is money, and not where there is interest.

Getting rid of the indoors european season was a big mistake, and now nobody cares at anything post-Us Open. Moving the YEC from NY-LA to Doha and now Istanbul just makes things worst.

This! to add to it, most of us fans of womens tennis play tennis to. so when you chase money and plonk a tournament in doha where there are very few people playing the sport it is tough to convert them into fans.

Matt-TennisFan24
Feb 28th, 2011, 04:15 AM
Matt,lol,just lol!
That's not true at all...Female tennis fans are not that shallow;)
I told you I started following Rafa because I just liked him and that didn't have anything to do with his physique...And now after many years of rooting for him I've grown emotionally to him and I really like him a lot like a close friends or a family member minus the strong physical attraction which started in 2008 XD
I think the reason why the ATP is more popular is because of the very competitive top 10-15 players and very good matches!Also it has global stars like Federer & Nadal who are both active...

The women's game needs more glamorous champions like Serena Williams,Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova...It also needs more competitive matches and higher quality tennis and more talented players!The WTA is so boring at the moment,it;s unbelievable...

lol haha well you are right

WTA matches are really boring lately, sometimes even I get bored of them (a tennis fan) so imagine if a non-tennis-fan is watching TV and runs into a women's tennis match... he/she wont watch for more than 2 minutes :p

we need a big rivalry and we also need greater slams finals, I mean, we havent had a 3-set-final in the French Open and the US Open like since forever. And we all know Slam finals are the matches the world pays more attention to.

P.S: I still dont believe the Rafa story ;)

Sp!ffy
Feb 28th, 2011, 04:24 AM
I think where the WTA totally went wrong is with their incredible push at 'emerging' markets, such as Dubai-Doha-Istanbul, and Asia. It's obvious there is a lot of money to be done there, but we still haven't seen the good repercussions of it yet: nothing major with sponsorships, crowds aren't that great and they are losing fans everywhere else.

The WTA had some very strong markets in the US and Europe, and right now, they are losing them because they are going for where there is money, and not where there is interest.

Getting rid of the indoors european season was a big mistake, and now nobody cares at anything post-Us Open. Moving the YEC from NY-LA to Doha and now Istanbul just makes things worst.

Completely agree. This swing of the tour seems so dull and awkward.

Volcana
Feb 28th, 2011, 04:29 AM
More grass court tournaments, with faster grass.
More green clay tournaments.
Get rid of at least half the hard court tournaments.

Or maybe our expectations are off. Maybe most of the top players being over 25 is the new norm.

thegreendestiny
Feb 28th, 2011, 04:56 AM
Clone 5 Sharapovas who can serve.

wayitis
Feb 28th, 2011, 02:08 PM
What on earth are you talking about? it used to be more popular than men's tennis and not that long ago.

this is a misconception that seems to survive only in internet tennis forums... Kournikova was a marketing phenomenon that became a bigger celebrity and better known athlete than any of her male counterparts, but she was individually recompensated for that popularity through endorsements and Media appearances... for all the star studded power of the WTA "Golden Years" of the 90's, tennis fans and sponsors would still flock more to the ATP events, which were always better attended and had higher prize money, paying sometimes twice as much as a similar WTA tournament, something that still happens today... The Corporations understood the marketing power of a few particular female stars and the general public bought them up like dolls, but there was only a small trickle down effect to the general women's tour, and the ATP has always attracted more money and interest, bar the celebrity induced one...

John.
Feb 28th, 2011, 02:49 PM
I think where the WTA totally went wrong is with their incredible push at 'emerging' markets, such as Dubai-Doha-Istanbul, and Asia. It's obvious there is a lot of money to be done there, but we still haven't seen the good repercussions of it yet: nothing major with sponsorships, crowds aren't that great and they are losing fans everywhere else.

The WTA had some very strong markets in the US and Europe, and right now, they are losing them because they are going for where there is money, and not where there is interest.

Getting rid of the indoors european season was a big mistake, and now nobody cares at anything post-Us Open. Moving the YEC from NY-LA to Doha and now Istanbul just makes things worst.

This! Especially the last paragraph

DefyingGravity
Feb 28th, 2011, 03:33 PM
What precisely is wrong with only counting 12 tournaments? It would place a lot of girls in pretty damn good positions, not just the top players. I mean, Caroline's top results were:

USO SF
RG QF
Beijing W
Montreal W
YEC F
Tokyo W
New Haven W
Wimbledon 4R
AO 4R

That would get rid of the smaller points, yes, but Caroline could legitimately still be if not number 1 for sure top 3 with that. NO ONE ELSE really has consistently good results period. With a 12 tournament system, she would still be rewarded for consistency.

I think it would encourage more top players to play more and also play smarter. It's logical to play 12-16 tournaments a year tops. It gives you time to recover during the season and manage injury. Trying to play 20+ tournaments is stupid. By counting the best 12 events you participate in, it enables the player to play 16 and discard the 4 worst results on a YTD. That way you can still be rewarded for playing loads of events, as your points average would probably level out to a high amount of points.

Also, I agree with women's tennis marketing themselves to established tennis nations, as you know they have a populace that plays tennis and will gain fans. But you have to expand and make new markets, because economics (like most things) is cyclical and investors that look to globalization will help build a future for tennis in general.

Our biggest problem is that with the men's game...there are evident styles of play that are radically different from each other. For example, I wouldn't say that Nadal and Murray play the same at all. Federer and Djokovic don't play the same either. You've got some players that are stylish all court players, defensive-minded grinders, defensive all court players, full on aggressive players...there's variety and the personalities are all so clearly defined and charismatic. Women's tennis suffers from the "well, if this works for someone I'm gonna do it too" mindset. It can only hurt in the long run as we get a homogenized product and you get boring error-fests for the most part. The only two players that looked like they were good foils for each other in the past few years were Dementieva and Serena...we need more encouraged styles of play...not one universal style.

terjw
Feb 28th, 2011, 09:39 PM
A) Tennis was a very popular SPECTATOR sport ... 40 years ago. Just to give you an idea, tennis was uch more popular than NBA basketball pre-1980. Mixed doubles exhibitions played on NETWORK TV in the 1970's. While the famed 'Magic-jumped-center' very first Magic-Bird NBA final, was on tape delay. The NFL wasn't dominant in the states then.
It's hard to make women's tennis bigtime when tennis isn't bigtime. Unless you go another way. Women's golf is the one major women's sport that is both financially viable, AND has accepted their lesbian fan-base. (The WNBA fails on 'financially viable.)

If you want to make the WTA more popular, you have to take some risks. And that means risking being the going-on-60 male wet-dream. Only problem is, those are the guys who sign the checks. But anything else is nibbling the crust.

If you want to sell athletes, you have to sell power. The question is, who WANTS powerful women? 'Sell-Me-Sex' has proven it has a short self life. A long shelf life has to come another way.

Womem's tennis was never very popular. The idea that it was 40 years ago is a nonsense. And as for the LPGA - the WTA is in much better shape than the LPGA. Here - I get to see WTA tennis on Eurosport. There is no coverage now of the LPGA on TV. It certainly is nowhere near as financiallly viable as the WTA. It's true that it's not going down the tube - but it's lost a lot of tournaments.

As for your crap about accepting it's lesbian fanbase - just completely meaningless words.The LPGA and WTA as you well know do not have anything to do or say about the sexuality of their fans - and it's the last thing that should and does concern them. Although on matters of sexuality I should point out that the LPGA managed to shoot itself in the foot taking a stand on not allowing transvestites to play on the tour and getting sued for discrimination - something the WTA has managed to avoid. So if anything - it's the WTA that comes out better on matters of sexuAlity.

Rollo
Feb 28th, 2011, 11:39 PM
What precisely is wrong with only counting 12 tournaments? It would place a lot of girls in pretty damn good positions, not just the top players. I mean, Caroline's top results were:

USO SF
RG QF
Beijing W
Montreal W
YEC F
Tokyo W
New Haven W
Wimbledon 4R
AO 4R

That would get rid of the smaller points, yes, but Caroline could legitimately still be if not number 1 for sure top 3 with that. NO ONE ELSE really has consistently good results period. With a 12 tournament system, she would still be rewarded for consistency.

Exactly. And #3 is really about where she belonged in 2010 with her slam results and 6 tour wins. If she had won tons of regular tour events with no slam I could buy her as #1, but only 4 of her event wins were premier or higher.

I think it would encourage more top players to play more and also play smarter. It's logical to play 12-16 tournaments a year tops. It gives you time to recover during the season and manage injury. Trying to play 20+ tournaments is stupid. By counting the best 12 events you participate in, it enables the player to play 16 and discard the 4 worst results on a YTD. That way you can still be rewarded for playing loads of events, as your points average would probably level out to a high amount of points.


I agree completely. Counting the best of 12 allows those who like to play more the freedom to do so and help their rankings, but it also factors in quality.

The problem with the post 1996 rankings was that it raised the number of mimimum events from 12 to 18 in an era when opportunities to play events have declined. For starters the season is now a few weeks shorter than it used to be. In addition Fed Cup has gone from being a one week event to taking up 3 weeks in the calendar.

With the added events in a shorter span of time is it any wonder that injuries have soared and the top players have basically bailed on actively trying to obtain a #1 ranking?

denny5576
Mar 1st, 2011, 12:16 AM
Any prove the women's tennis is not popular now? I did not read any proof, only read opinions. But they contradict the facts.
Globally the women's tennis was never so popular like it is now. Does not matter that the TV audience in USA is less now then was before. Even if in US the viewers are 2-3 million less in China they are 100 million more now then before. Never before women's tennis had so many millions fans in India, Malaysia and other East Asia countries. Losses of fans in US are well compensated by the Serbian fans. And why do you forget East Europe? When before there were so many tennis fans in Eastern European countries? Never.
The empty seats in Dubai and Doha mean nothing because they are measured by thousands. But the TV tennis viewers in Middle East are important because they are measured in hundreds thousands.
If women's tennis is not popular now why the TV time is increasing every year? Why many tournaments have record attendance? Why the money in the women's tennis is at the highest level?
Why 300,000 more Australians watched the women's AO 2011 tennis final than the men's? Li Na and Kim out-rated the men's final by 21%.
Of course the women's tennis can be more popular. And WTA has a lot do. But that's another subject...

Olórin
Mar 1st, 2011, 09:54 AM
Any prove the women's tennis is not popular now? I did not read any proof, only read opinions. But they contradict the facts.
Globally the women's tennis was never so popular like it is now.

Riiight:
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=430110&page=3
Empty stadium and entry is free! Can we stop spouting nonsense as if the WTA has already become some sort of international phenomenon. It still remains a very Western sport in terms of its loyal fanbase. This transition into the "emerging markets" is looking very precarious.

I think women's tennis needs to remembers its roots - before Chris Evert and all the endorsements. The WTA was formed as a spectator sport. TV ratings fluctuate, they are a fickle measure of popularity. Fans that will attend a tournament every year, every day for a week - parting with weeks worth of wages are a true measure of the sport's popularity. And the WTA seems to be losing the battle for those fans right now. I love the WTA and it breaks my heart to see all these empty stadiums.