PDA

View Full Version : Why is the WTA not successful as ATP tour...


Morrissey
Mar 8th, 2006, 01:52 AM
Although new teen players like Ivanovic, Viadasova, Kirlenko, Mirza, Golvin,and so on..have gotten press...why haven't they really made a breakthrough at a slam..or at a big tier I event? Yet on the ATP tour.where there is tougher competition..the teen boys such as Murray..he just beat Roddick and Hewitt to win a title, Monfils is in the top 30 and has a title, Gasquet is in the top 20 he has a title, and of course Nadal is only 19 and he is no.2 in the world. I am surprised that Maria Sharapova is the only teen that has really brokenthrough and reached the top by winning a major..and yet she still only has one grand slam title. I remember back in the late 1990s and early 2000..Women's tennis really had so much excitement with the Williams Sisters, Kournkova, and Hingis,..and 3 out the 4 girls actually did become champions and live up to their potential. Is the press..making too big a deal out of these girls? Are they the real deal? And which one will finally breakthorugh? Women's tennis needs some new excitement..No one is dominating..there are so many injuries...and the WTA stars..are taking advantage of the tour by dropping out of events..and facing ludicrous fines...I also feel the WTA is not selling the product right. I hear a lot about this Viadasova kid..yet she hasn't done anything big yet..Yes I know she is only 16...but for someone that gets so much hype..where is the big results..Same for Mirza and Ivanovic..they haven't done anything yet people keep on saying they are the next big thing....I guess only time will tell..

anlavalle
Mar 8th, 2006, 02:09 AM
well, Murray, Monfils, Gasquet and even Berdych did not did well at the Oz this year and in general in the past slams, here in latin america there is only coverage of the ATP and I think is because "machismo", personally I don`t find the Atp more exciting than the wta. Roger and Nadal are way too much for the rest of the guys, i hope Safin will stay healthy because i like him a lot, but the rests specially Andy and Leyton are going down and down and down

Havok
Mar 8th, 2006, 02:34 AM
Gasquet held his seeding for 3 of the 4 slams last year (3r RG, 4r Wimbledon, 4r USO) and had the worst draw possible at this year's AO drawing Haas in his 1r. The rest did suck in slams, but the Slams are a hell of a lot tougher than the wmeon since they play best 3/5 sets.

You said it yourself in your original post. Gasuet beat Federer last year (one of 4 people to do so) won a title that year and got to a TMS final. Berdych really didn't do much all year then was a surprise winner at TMS Paris. Murray got a whole lot of hype simply because he's British and he's like their only prospect right now and he is good (winning memphis I think beating Roddick then Hewitt). Monfils got a whole lot of hype because he simply owned the juniors event and has made a nice jump from juniors to the real tour.

Mightymirza
Mar 8th, 2006, 02:34 AM
well, Murray, Monfils, Gasquet and even Berdych did not did well at the Oz this year and in general in the past slams, here in latin america there is only coverage of the ATP and I think is because "machismo", personally I don`t find the Atp more exciting than the wta. Roger and Nadal are way too much for the rest of the guys, i hope Safin will stay healthy because i like him a lot, but the rests specially Andy and Leyton are going down and down and down
:yeah: So true..

MakarovaFan
Mar 8th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Although new teen players like Ivanovic, Viadasova, Kirlenko, Mirza, Golvin,and so on..have gotten press...why haven't they really made a breakthrough at a slam..or at a big tier I event? Yet on the ATP tour.where there is tougher competition..the teen boys such as Murray..he just beat Roddick and Hewitt to win a title, Monfils is in the top 30 and has a title, Gasquet is in the top 20 he has a title, and of course Nadal is only 19 and he is no.2 in the world. I am surprised that Maria Sharapova is the only teen that has really brokenthrough and reached the top by winning a major..and yet she still only has one grand slam title. I remember back in the late 1990s and early 2000..Women's tennis really had so much excitement with the Williams Sisters, Kournkova, and Hingis,..and 3 out the 4 girls actually did become champions and live up to their potential. Is the press..making too big a deal out of these girls? Are they the real deal? And which one will finally breakthorugh? Women's tennis needs some new excitement..No one is dominating..there are so many injuries...and the WTA stars..are taking advantage of the tour by dropping out of events..and facing ludicrous fines...I also feel the WTA is not selling the product right. I hear a lot about this Viadasova kid..yet she hasn't done anything big yet..Yes I know she is only 16...but for someone that gets so much hype..where is the big results..Same for Mirza and Ivanovic..they haven't done anything yet people keep on saying they are the next big thing....I guess only time will tell..


Huh,arent/havent Ivanovic,Vaidisova,Golovin and Kirilenko all been top 20(cept maybe Kirilenko)...Vaidisova and Mirza have titles and all have been in tour finals(cept Golovin...Ivanovic has beaten mauresmo TWICE and got to Grand Slam QF....Vaidisova's been in several slam RD16 s....so what do u mean???(in regards to the first part when comparisons to the young guys)

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 8th, 2006, 04:47 AM
So let me get this straight. Because it's hard to find many overhyped teenagers winning important titles when the big girls are playing, the WTA tour is somehow less successful than the ATP tour.

Isn't this a total non sequitur? :scratch:

Zauber
Mar 8th, 2006, 06:53 AM
overall males follow sports more than females.
Most males seem to have a preference for male sports.
therefore the followers of men's sports are usually larger than women's sports.
Its just simple numbers.

Veritas
Mar 8th, 2006, 07:15 AM
Let's be honest here. People watch sport because of the action. And there's plenty of that on the ATP. OK. So there isn't a male Kournikova to have sponsors swarming into the sport. But sex appeal can only stretch out for so long. Most people would either buy a swimsuit mag, go to red carpet premiers or hang out at practice courts to get a close-up to the Kournikovas. Once people pay their tickets to see a match on court, they expect grunts, sweats, long rallies, amazing shots, cramps, athleticism...none of which are as common on the women's side.

Plus the men's side is far more competitive. How many times have we seen the likes of HH, Davenport, Sharapova and co. delivering bagles and breadsticks? It's f*cking boring, especially when it's my faves that are at the receiving end of the beating. We don't see as much of that from the guys, and their matches tend to be closer as well. That's why I like Dementieva. Say what you want about her inconsistency, but there's always tension and drama in her matches.

The women don't have that many options really. They can have best of 5 matches and stretch their court times, but since we have so many stories about injuries plagueing the WTA, I guess that option's out of the question :tape: Or they could raise the standard and make their best-of-3 set matches much more physical, but I also don't see that happening anytime soon.

Hayato
Mar 8th, 2006, 07:19 AM
Although new teen players like Ivanovic, Viadasova, Kirlenko, Mirza, Golvin,and so on..have gotten press...why haven't they really made a breakthrough at a slam..or at a big tier I event? Yet on the ATP tour.where there is tougher competition..the teen boys such as Murray..he just beat Roddick and Hewitt to win a title, Monfils is in the top 30 and has a title, Gasquet is in the top 20 he has a title, and of course Nadal is only 19 and he is no.2 in the world. I am surprised that Maria Sharapova is the only teen that has really brokenthrough and reached the top by winning a major..and yet she still only has one grand slam title. I remember back in the late 1990s and early 2000..Women's tennis really had so much excitement with the Williams Sisters, Kournkova, and Hingis,..and 3 out the 4 girls actually did become champions and live up to their potential. Is the press..making too big a deal out of these girls? Are they the real deal? And which one will finally breakthorugh? Women's tennis needs some new excitement..No one is dominating..there are so many injuries...and the WTA stars..are taking advantage of the tour by dropping out of events..and facing ludicrous fines...I also feel the WTA is not selling the product right. I hear a lot about this Viadasova kid..yet she hasn't done anything big yet..Yes I know she is only 16...but for someone that gets so much hype..where is the big results..Same for Mirza and Ivanovic..they haven't done anything yet people keep on saying they are the next big thing....I guess only time will tell..

Contradictions alert...You say that women's tennis needs some excitement but then you say nobody is dominating. Well, surely WTA tennis is more exciting when nobody is dominating! :p

Veritas
Mar 8th, 2006, 08:35 AM
Okay, now you've got me imagining Lindsay with Nadal-sized biceps, and Clijsters serving up Roddick-sized serves. :help: :tape:

That'd be nice :)

Uh, the Clijsters with the Roddick serve, that is. I like Lindsay the way she looks just fine.

Hachiko
Mar 8th, 2006, 09:55 AM
And to think the WTA was once critised for it's lack of debth...

alfajeffster
Mar 8th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Although new teen players like Ivanovic, Viadasova, Kirlenko, Mirza, Golvin,and so on..have gotten press...why haven't they really made a breakthrough at a slam..or at a big tier I event? Yet on the ATP tour.where there is tougher competition..the teen boys such as Murray..he just beat Roddick and Hewitt to win a title, Monfils is in the top 30 and has a title, Gasquet is in the top 20 he has a title, and of course Nadal is only 19 and he is no.2 in the world. I am surprised that Maria Sharapova is the only teen that has really brokenthrough and reached the top by winning a major..and yet she still only has one grand slam title. I remember back in the late 1990s and early 2000..Women's tennis really had so much excitement with the Williams Sisters, Kournkova, and Hingis,..and 3 out the 4 girls actually did become champions and live up to their potential. Is the press..making too big a deal out of these girls? Are they the real deal? And which one will finally breakthorugh? Women's tennis needs some new excitement..No one is dominating..there are so many injuries...and the WTA stars..are taking advantage of the tour by dropping out of events..and facing ludicrous fines...I also feel the WTA is not selling the product right. I hear a lot about this Viadasova kid..yet she hasn't done anything big yet..Yes I know she is only 16...but for someone that gets so much hype..where is the big results..Same for Mirza and Ivanovic..they haven't done anything yet people keep on saying they are the next big thing....I guess only time will tell..

It's quite simple, really, and I'll paraphrase a writing from Jim Morrison- cinema was created by men, for the express enjoyment of men (and necessarily, the exploitation of women). The ATP is more successful because it's based on the tennis, whereas the WTA tour is pocked with media darlings, with only a small handful at or near the top who are worth watching play tennis. When you think about it, men have a greater sexual drive, while women have a greater sexual capacity. The average attention span stays longer with tennis than it does with a picture of this month's calendar girl.

bellascarlett
Mar 8th, 2006, 12:00 PM
At least the WTA can have a Tier One Event
which does not have to Publish the Draw Three times
before they get it correct ;)

I know what was up with that?

skindeep
Mar 8th, 2006, 12:01 PM
i dont know, but i never watch atp, i dont find it interesting

mauresmofan
Mar 8th, 2006, 12:06 PM
Okay, now you've got me imagining Lindsay with Nadal-sized biceps, and Clijsters serving up Roddick-sized serves. :help: :tape:

Ha! Amélie could take Nadal in an arm wrestling match!

Simplicity
Mar 8th, 2006, 12:14 PM
The WTA tour is more successful :o

Alvarillo
Mar 8th, 2006, 12:18 PM
Let's be honest here. People watch sport because of the action. And there's plenty of that on the ATP. OK. So there isn't a male Kournikova to have sponsors swarming into the sport. But sex appeal can only stretch out for so long. Most people would either buy a swimsuit mag, go to red carpet premiers or hang out at practice courts to get a close-up to the Kournikovas. Once people pay their tickets to see a match on court, they expect grunts, sweats, long rallies, amazing shots, cramps, athleticism...none of which are as common on the women's side.

Plus the men's side is far more competitive. How many times have we seen the likes of HH, Davenport, Sharapova and co. delivering bagles and breadsticks? It's f*cking boring, especially when it's my faves that are at the receiving end of the beating. We don't see as much of that from the guys, and their matches tend to be closer as well. That's why I like Dementieva. Say what you want about her inconsistency, but there's always tension and drama in her matches.

The women don't have that many options really. They can have best of 5 matches and stretch their court times, but since we have so many stories about injuries plagueing the WTA, I guess that option's out of the question :tape: Or they could raise the standard and make their best-of-3 set matches much more physical, but I also don't see that happening anytime soon.

:worship: agree with every word

anlavalle
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Gasquet held his seeding for 3 of the 4 slams last year (3r RG, 4r Wimbledon, 4r USO) and had the worst draw possible at this year's AO drawing Haas in his 1r. The rest did suck in slams, but the Slams are a hell of a lot tougher than the wmeon since they play best 3/5 sets.

You said it yourself in your original post. Gasuet beat Federer last year (one of 4 people to do so) won a title that year and got to a TMS final. Berdych really didn't do much all year then was a surprise winner at TMS Paris. Murray got a whole lot of hype simply because he's British and he's like their only prospect right now and he is good (winning memphis I think beating Roddick then Hewitt). Monfils got a whole lot of hype because he simply owned the juniors event and has made a nice jump from juniors to the real tour.

That`s my point they did great things but not in GS, Gasquet and Berdych beat Roger in the past but when it really matters (GS) they didn`t go to far

No Name Face
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:12 AM
the ATP is wayyyy better than the WTA. i just like this board more.
but re: the topic --- any male player can lose to any other on any given day. i sorta like that about men's tennis. well...any male player except fed. but yeah, you get the point.

SAEKeithSerena
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:14 AM
i'd watch the wta on television ANY day over the atp. I LOVE women's tennis, it's so much more exciting i think.

tennisjay
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:19 AM
Plain and simple, none of the teen queens you mention have any talent. Back when the 4 divas came on the scene they where intersting, and very good tennis players. At 14 and 15 the 4 divas where given the top players like Graf, Seles, Testude (sp) and etc trouble. I remember how Testude(sp) and Serena use to throw down.

Greenout
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:20 AM
HH- delivering breadsticks to teens? :tape:

Sorry, but her matches have not been bagels, and breadsticks with Ivanovic, Nicole, Golovin and Peng Shuai.

Your not looking at the real picture here. Aren't Andy and Hewitt on a severe slump? Isn't that why Murray defeated the Aussie?

The reason the Golovins don't break through is because the lower half of the top 10 players, and the 25 big floaters usually defeat the teens. I think it's more telling about how solid the other female players are. The men's outside of Roger, and Nadal seem really shaky nowadays.

The mens tour is more hyped than the women's IMHO. You can be a one slam wonder, and hyped to high heavens. You can be a no slam winner, and hyped to heavens, and make a career out of it.(Tim, Blake, Murray, Scud, Paradorn, Dent, Coria, Nalbandian, Lopez, Haas) The women's tour is uber critical, and every match is looked upon as a potential make it or break it moment.

The WTA is more successful for tennis fans then the ATP. Look at the membership numbers for the two forums. WTAworld surpases MTF.

I dont' see the sort of passion, and keen interest for Davydenko compared to Maria or Elena, and he's a solid tennis player. I know you'll say only people hung up about looks go for Maria, but then how can you explain the
fanbase of Justine or even Kim that aren't Belgians?

The very fact that you have to post this on a women's tennis board to get response from tennis fans sort of tells the story. Bigger audience.

hablo
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:51 AM
And to think the WTA was once critised for it's lack of debth...
exactly...it's just baffling :haha:
no matter what the WTA gets criticized :help:

and I've seen breadsticks and bagels in men's game too :tape:

Kirt12255
Mar 9th, 2006, 03:55 AM
:wavey: The Womens draw had more attention at the AO than the Mens...it's starting to turn...Mens tennis is boring at the moment :wavey:

Volcana
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:01 AM
First off, with the exception of figure skating, the men's version of EVERY sport is popular than the women's version. Even when Hingis, Venus and Serena were dominating, and Kournikova was still pretending to be a singles player, it was individual players who were popular, not the sport as a whole.

Kuznetsova vs Clijsters is a matchup of young GS champs. But is it 'must-see TV'? As for Ivanovic, Vaidisova, etc, they aren't even on the radar of the general sporting public.

At this point, the best thing that ould happen to the WTA would be Ivanovic beating Sharapova in the Wimbledon final. Of course, what I want is for Venus to win another Wimbledon, but that wouldn't increase the popularity of the sport any. I think the Williams sisters have transcended the sport, from a celebrity perspective. They're the kind of 'B' list celebrities who always rate a mention, but nobody notices if they aren't thee.
"You will find my name on every list,
And when it's missing, it is never missed..."

- 'The Extra Man', Cole Porter



Although a Hingis-Venus GS final would raise some nostalgic hostility.

clark.kent
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:15 AM
The ATP is more popular than the WTA? This is news to me. I have always been under the impression that the WTA is more popular. Most people that I know say they only like women's tennis, not men's tennis. Strange. I watched men's tennis when Sampras/Rafter/Agassi were winning, but today's players are very boring in general. I will watch Agassi and Federer play but there is no other player today worth watching. Just my perspective though, I know every male tennis player has his fans. :drive:

Volcana
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:21 AM
The ATP is more popular than the WTA? This is news to me. I have always been under the impression that the WTA is more popular. Most people that I know say they only like women's tennis, not men's tennis. Put bluntly, that has more to do with the circles you travel in. Certain female players (and a very few) are extremely popular, but there's a reason the the last match of every GS tournament is a men's match. And, outside of matches involving the Williams Sisters, men's GS finals always get better ratings the women's GS finals.

hablo
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:28 AM
Put bluntly, that has more to do with the circles you travel in. Certain female players (and a very few) are extremely popular, but there's a reason the the last match of every GS tournament is a men's match. And, outside of matches involving the Williams Sisters, men's GS finals always get better ratings the women's GS finals.
Are we talking about ratings in the U.S.A ?
or is this true for everywhere in the world ? :p

Havok
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:36 AM
That`s my point they did great things but not in GS, Gasquet and Berdych beat Roger in the past but when it really matters (GS) they didn`t go to far
Agasin Gasuqte has 2 4r appearances. The other Wta youngsters haven't made it past the 4r with the exception of Ivanovic's Qf at RG last year. The girls aren't doing stellar at the slams either considering they've been seeded for quite some time now while the guys are fresh off being seeded (slight exception being Gasquet).

darrinbaker00
Mar 9th, 2006, 05:31 AM
the ATP is wayyyy better than the WTA. i just like this board more.
but re: the topic --- any male player can lose to any other on any given day. i sorta like that about men's tennis. well...any male player except fed. but yeah, you get the point.
You may want to forward that memo to Rafael Nadal and David Nalbandian. They obviously haven't gotten it yet. ;)

alfajeffster
Mar 9th, 2006, 11:34 AM
men's GS finals always get better ratings the women's GS finals.

It's better quality tennis, pure and simple. How many tennis fans will tune in to see Svetlana Kuznetsova and Elena Dementieva slamming balls from the baseline for an hour when they can watch Federer and Agassi playing spectacular and creative point-counterpoint tennis from all over the court?

clark.kent
Mar 9th, 2006, 12:15 PM
It's better quality tennis, pure and simple. How many tennis fans will tune in to see Svetlana Kuznetsova and Elena Dementieva slamming balls from the baseline for an hour when they can watch Federer and Agassi playing spectacular and creative point-counterpoint tennis from all over the court?

Exactly! The problem: Agassi and Federer rarely meet. There is no matchup in men's tennis anywhere near as interesting as Agassi vs Federer. The next best matchups are actually all in women's tennis, some awesome rivalrys between the top players in WTA :bounce: :fiery: :p

alfajeffster
Mar 9th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Exactly! The problem: Agassi and Federer rarely meet. There is no matchup in men's tennis anywhere near as interesting as Agassi vs Federer. The next best matchups are actually all in women's tennis, some awesome rivalrys between the top players in WTA :bounce: :fiery: :p

Mauresmo vs. Henin-Hardenne I'll get excited about (which is why I was so disappointed with the Australian final), and maybe a Davenport/Hingis match, or (much like Federer) Hingis vs. anyone because she uses the whole court and most of the game of tennis, but the plethora of Russian baseliners or virtually any of the army of baseline bashing amazons out there just don't fire the tennis imagination (for me). I actually like watching players like Roger Federer and Tim Henman dissect someone like Andy Roddick. It's precision all-court tennis like you just don't see from the women, unfortunately.

Kirt12255
Mar 9th, 2006, 12:45 PM
:confused: Federer....Nadal....mind If I choke here and say there is no-one else? Roddick will never win another slam while Roger is about....nor will Hewitt!!...ummm...then who is a steady tour player? Seriously? Who????:confused:

Volcana
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:23 PM
Are we talking about ratings in the U.S.A ?
or is this true for everywhere in the world ? :pI can't answer that question for every country in the world. I the made that exception because I know that SOME of the finals involving one or both Williams sisters had better ratings than the men's finals both in the USA and worldwide. Not all of them though. The 1999 US Open women's final didn't get higher ratings than the men's, if I recall correctly. And I'm sure there are places where any men's final gets better ratings regardless of who the participants are on the women's side. Some places just don't take women's sports seriously.

The men's final may have gotten better ratings at wimbledon in 2005. That's hard to measure since they did re-broadcast the women's final two days later, an indication of some demand among the viewing public.

Volcana
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:29 PM
:confused: Federer....Nadal....mind If I choke here and say there is no-one else? Roddick will never win another slam while Roger is about....nor will Hewitt!!...ummm...then who is a steady tour player? Seriously? Who????:confused:'steady tour player'? Blake.
Threat to win a slam? Nalbandian. Safin. Coria's a punk, but he could still win the French.

vutt
Mar 9th, 2006, 01:36 PM
It's better quality tennis, pure and simple.

Wise words, wise words... :worship:

Belco
Mar 9th, 2006, 02:10 PM
ivanovic will win Indian Wells :D

ToeTag
Mar 9th, 2006, 04:25 PM
I don't think tennis in general, women's or men's, is popular. If I mention that I watch tennis to a friend or a co-worker, I always get the same reaction. A smirk or a blank stare.
Face it, in the real world, tennis is not popular with most ppl; they either think its a bore , or its silly, or both!

miffedmax
Mar 9th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Even though I'm a guy, I've always followed the WTA tour more closely. (No, not because I have a huge cheesy celebrity crush on Dementieva, despite how it might appear).

I grew up in a family that didn't participate in sports, watch sports or go to sporting events. When I was a kid, tickets to most sporting events were well out of reach (for me anyway--we were actually fairly affluent and it was, as I said, just a matter of famliy priorities), except one of my best friends could score us free tickets to what was then the old Virginia Slims Tour in Dallas and to Dallas Tornado soccer games. So the two sports I grew up playing and watching were soccer and tennis, and in tennis I always knew more about the women players because I got to watch them live once a year.

So anyway, I'm always mystified why the WTA isn't as popular with sports fans as the ATP. But really, I'm more the odd man out.

Corswandt
Mar 9th, 2006, 10:24 PM
The mere fact that the WTA is actually big enough to even get compared to the ATP is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for the huge success of women's tennis. In other sports, the women's variant flies undetected below the radar of the media and the public at large.

Women's tennis seems to have a more devoted (borderline obsessed, at times) fanbase than men's tennis. I wonder if the situation won't become much the same with the viewing public at large one day, now that there's little doubt that tennis is on its way to become a niche sport. Football won the battle to become the only true global sport, the sport people think about when the word "sport" is mentioned, by default.

So anyway, I'm always mystified why the WTA isn't as popular with sports fans as the ATP.

Maybe because the WTA only becomes interesting after you get to know the Tour, the players and their different styles?

You have to know something about the Tour to at least have an idea, when looking at a draw/OOP/TV schedule, of which match(es) have the potential to be more competitive and entertaining, of which players are more fun to watch (by just looking at the rankings, a viewer with little previous knowledge of the Tour won't know that, say, Stosur is fun to watch, or that Schnyder has perhaps the most entertaining game of all the top 10 players), depending of which playing style one prefers.

Because if you don't, and just pick matches at random, it's likely you'll end up watching a UE-ridden match between journeywomen, or a quick and ugly thrashing of a hapless victim by a top player.

This doesn't happen as much with the ATP, where most top 80-100 players will put a fight against the top players, and matches are consistently of a higher degree of competitiveness and quality (not that I didn't see some pretty shite performances by lower-ranked ATP players at the early rounds of the AO).

Being a fan of particular players also helps, of course, and I suppose that's the main reason most people watch the WTA. My previous paragraphs were assuming someone approached the WTA out of pure love for the game, which I suppose almost never happens. Actually, having some kind of emotional envolvement in the matches, rather than a mere "scientific" interest, is the easiest and fastest way to get hooked on to any given sport.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a fan of a player, or several players, rather than a fan of the game. Everyone knows 99,999999% of football "fans" don't give a flying fuck about the game itself, and know nothing about it from a technical POV - they just like to see their team winning.

Kimiko Latte
Mar 10th, 2006, 11:23 AM
I think that to even the most casual of tennis fans, men's tennis is more of what they're accustomed to. I'm always surprised by these casual fans because they'll know or heard of Nadal or Coris but a lot of them don't know who Dementieva or Petrova is. :shrug:

alfajeffster
Mar 10th, 2006, 12:21 PM
I think that to even the most casual of tennis fans, men's tennis is more of what they're accustomed to. I'm always surprised by these casual fans because they'll know or heard of Nadal or Coris but a lot of them don't know who Dementieva or Petrova is. :shrug:

I get that all the time from my straight (male) friends. After the U.S. Open final, it was "what was the big blonde's name who won?" They only know who Mary Pierce is because of Roberto Alomar. Maybe if the men finally wise up and start wearing short shorts again, and make the effort to promote Richard's Basket, they'll know what it feels like to be looked at as a casual fan's commodity.

Wiggly
Mar 10th, 2006, 12:43 PM
ATP layers gets usually more attention than WTA players (except if you are American or Sharapova).

So people will be much more interested in Federer vs Nadal than any others mtahc-up possible in WTA Tour. Even Serena vs Venus Wimbledon final.