Oct 5th, 2006, 02:41 PM
i was just thinking why is it that the womens side isnt so consistant were for the mens its dead set, meaning when either rodger or nadal enter a tournament ppl no they will make it to the final but with the womens its jus not certain take last weeks winners all 3 were ranked not as high, it was a diffrent tier II final. y do we think this is a reason?
Oct 5th, 2006, 04:11 PM
Well Federer and Nadal are like a tier above everyone else, and when they play, they are usually healthy. But with the women, you can technically say almost the same thing, except there is more depth on the women's side. Basically, it's if Sharapova, Henin, Clijsters, or Mauresmo entered into an event, one of them will win it. And I guess you can add the back to form Kuznetsova to the mix. The top 5 are really at a higher level than anyone else. And then there are the mixers: Hingis, Davenport, et al. But to me, that's why its funner on the women's side, when everyone is healthy. But people just don't stay healthy these days, and I can't understand why. Maybe the tour has evolved into a much more grind and tear type of tour and these are the players that are the first class to have to grind through it, and the toughest of them will hang around and stuff, who knows.
Oct 6th, 2006, 02:35 AM
yeah which is good in away for the womens cause it isnt so much getting boring that the same person wins all the time u wounder wat ppl are thinkin on the atp forums cause jus recently we had sveta gain 2 titles and goin for a 3rd and i c quite a few ppl getting bored of it already lol =p