PDA

View Full Version : Women's tennis in decline


HammerGirl
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

The same for Ivanovic.

And both of them are top 4 players.

:rolleyes:

JeremySun
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:10 PM
The Williams sisters are fastly-rising stars that will improve WTA matches in future years to come.

goldenlox
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:13 PM
Mens tennis is in much bigger trouble. 3 of their big stars lost early in Cincy, and they have a gambling scandal.

Conor
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:14 PM
The Williams sisters are fastly-rising stars that will improve WTA matches in future years to come.

:confused::weirdo::lol:

Pureracket
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:14 PM
Explain to me why top players losing is a sign of declining tennis.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:16 PM
Mens tennis is in much bigger trouble. 3 of their big stars lost early in Cincy, and they have a gambling scandal.

Yea, that is kinda pathetic. That tournie is gift wrapped for Fed now.


Consider this: ALL of the players who've beaten Federer on hardcourts since 2004 (Djokovic, Canas, Nadal, Murray, Safin) are out of the tournament.

LudwigDvorak
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:16 PM
People need to deal and realize sure, ___ isn't Graf/Seles/Navratilova/Evert/Sanchez-Vicario, whoever, but Ivanovic is going to be someone's Graf/Seles/Navratilova/Evert/Sanchez-Vicario. Things like this happen.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:17 PM
Explain to me why top players losing is a sign of declining tennis.

For an analogy: Imagine Fed losing in straight sets on hardcourts, winning less than six games. Now imagine that happening four more times.

kiwifan
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:18 PM
The Williams sisters are fastly-rising stars that will improve WTA matches in future years to come.


:lol:


:yeah:

Pureracket
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:19 PM
For an analogy: Imagine Fed losing in straight sets on hardcourts, winning less than six games. Now imagine that happening four more times.
That would mean to me that other players are getting better and that there's depth in the game.:confused:

GoDominique
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:19 PM
Well it is probably a change in attitudes.

The likes of Navra, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Williams (all at or near their best) would never have allowed themselves to get thrashed like that, no matter what.

These days it's happening more often. I don't like it, that's for sure.

Conor
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:19 PM
For an analogy: Imagine Fed losing in straight sets on hardcourts, winning less than six games. Now imagine that happening four more times.

But there is no 'Federer' on the WTA.... and certainly not Sharapova... she isnt even world number 1 :rolleyes:

HammerGirl
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Even though she's not at the top of her game, Serena isn't losing 1 and 3 to other players. Most of Justine's losses happen in 3 sets. I don't think after reaching top 4, Graf lost matches by winning only 4 games 5 times during her whole career.

Slutiana
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:20 PM
no, top players losing early is actually showing an improval in the depth of womens tennis

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

The same for Ivanovic.

And both of them are top 4 players.

:rolleyes:

It only proves that you need help ASAP.

I guess Navratilova should have retired immediately after being doublebageled by Evert in 1981 in order not to embarrass herself further by winning 16 GS titles within next nine years...

GoDominique
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:22 PM
no, top players losing early is actually showing an improval in the depth of womens tennis
Maybe, but not losing badly.

Many of today's players don't hate losing as much as most of the former champions.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:23 PM
That would mean to me that other players are getting better and that there's depth in the game.:confused:

A loss like that in the ATP means one of three things:

A top player played a wildcard or qualfier

A top player was playing godlike tennis (AO 07 semis)

A player tanked.

You just don't get 6 1 or 6 2 sets in the ATP otherwise.

sfselesfan
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Oh God!

Can we just make one of these threads "sticky" already!?! Unless every top player wins every single solitary match, all the time, threads like this will continue.

The talent in women's tennis hasn't been this deep in decades (if ever). Dominance by a single player is mind-numbingly boring. Just look at the men's tour. The only thing making it mildly interesting is that Federer has shown slight weakness of late.

I grew up hearing how awful women's tennis was because all the players lived up to their seeding and it was too predictable. Now the roles are reversed and people have the nerve to say "women's tennis is in decline." WHAT!?!

I think the fact that any top player can lose in any given match makes things much more exciting.

SF

Wayn77
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:23 PM
no, top players losing early is actually showing an improval in the depth of womens tennis

:yeah:

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:24 PM
But there is no 'Federer' on the WTA.... and certainly not Sharapova... she isnt even world number 1 :rolleyes:

Sharapova was the best hardcourt player on Earth prior to the AO finals.

HammerGirl
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:25 PM
It only proves that you need help ASAP.

I guess Navratilova should have retired immediately after being doublebageled by Evert in 1981 in order not to embarrass herself further by winning 16 GS titles within next nine years...

She lost only that match by winning less than 4 years during whole of 1981. Probably she had a problem during that match.

GoDominique
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:26 PM
I think the fact that any top player can lose in any given match makes things much more exciting.
Only if it doesn't involve sucking beyond belief from the top player. Which it does in most cases.

Conor
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Sharapova was the best hardcourt player on Earth prior to the AO finals.

Ahhhh no she wasnt... Justine took her apart in Madrid.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:27 PM
That would mean to me that other players are getting better and that there's depth in the game.:confused:
It either means that the lower ranked players are very good or that the higher ranked players aren't consistent enough. But either way, it's good for the popularity of the game if the results of the early rounds of a tournament are not a foregone conclusion.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:28 PM
Oh God!

Can we just make one of these threads "sticky" already!?! Unless every top player wins every single solitary match, all the time, threads like this will continue.

The talent in women's tennis hasn't been this deep in decades (if ever). Dominance by a single player is mind-numbingly boring. Just look at the men's tour. The only thing making it mildly interesting is that Federer has shown slight weakness of late.

I grew up hearing how awful women's tennis was because all the players lived up to their seeding and it was too predictable. Now the roles are reversed and people have the nerve to say "women's tennis is in decline." WHAT!?!

I think the fact that any top player can lose in any given match makes things much more exciting.

SF


The FO final was exciting to you?

sfselesfan
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:28 PM
Only if it doesn't involve sucking beyond belief from the top player. Which it does in most cases.

Like I said, the alternative (one player winning EVERYTHING) is mind-numbing. The fact that lower ranked players are capable of taking out top seeds is a sign that all is right with the world of women's tennis.

SF

HammerGirl
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:28 PM
Maria and Ana not only lost those 10 matches but they got thrashed badly and looked like amateurs.

We don't see Nadal losing to Lopez 6-2 6-2 6-0

goldenlox
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:29 PM
The players all have injuries, some minor, some worse.
They're all beat up like NFL players.

sfselesfan
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:30 PM
We don't see Nadal losing to Lopez 6-2 6-2 6-0

No, we see him losing in straights to Monaco.

SF

HammerGirl
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Like I said, the alternative (one player winning EVERYTHING) is mind-numbing. The fact that lower ranked players are capable of taking out top seeds is a sign that all is right with the world of women's tennis.

SF

I didn't say top players should always win but if they are top players they shouldn't lose matches 6-2 6-0.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Ahhhh no she wasnt... Justine took her apart in Madrid.

...Two hardcourt Tier I titles and a USO (which she beat Justine to get) > YEC.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:33 PM
No, we see him losing in straights to Monaco.

SF

One of those being a tiebreak. Or maybe every straight set win EVER is a bad loss.

Conor
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:33 PM
...Two hardcourt Tier I titles and a USO (which she beat Justine to get) > YEC.

:lol: That doesnt matter! The YEC was the last tournament of the year, Sharapova came in to it in the form of her life and Justine still comfortably beat her :rolleyes:

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:34 PM
:lol: That doesnt matter! The YEC was the last tournament of the year, Sharapova came in to it in the form of her life and Justine still comfortably beat her :rolleyes:

So is Bartoli a better grass courter than Henin?

Slutiana
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:34 PM
Maybe, but not losing badly.

Many of today's players don't hate losing as much as most of the former champions.

Yeah but we can't have it both ways, people are usually groaning about how one sided womens tennis is and you know that any player in the top 20 is going to be around for a couple of rounds at least. People think that its boring and the depth argument is one of the most old and tired arguments on the WTA. This year, it seems that lower players are starting to get better and making life tough and beat some of the top players on a regular basis and suddenly its ruining the game

Conor
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:36 PM
So is Bartoli a better grass courter than Henin?

No because Justine has achieved more on grass than Bartoli...shes proved shes a top player on grass consistently. And Justine has achieved more than Sharapova on hardcourts...

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:38 PM
Yeah but we can't have it both ways, people are usually groaning about how one sided womens tennis is and you know that any player in the top 20 is going to be around for a couple of rounds at least. People think that its boring and the depth argument is one of the most old and tired arguments on the WTA. This year, it seems that lower players are starting to get better and making life tough and beat some of the top players on a regular basis and suddenly its ruining the game

You're missing the point.


The number one seed demolishing a number 50 player 6-0 6-1 is bad. That's lack of depth.


A number 50 player demolishing the number one seed 6-0 6-1 is ALSO bad. That's called top players sucking.

There's no in between on the WTA. That's what's so annoying.

Slutiana
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:39 PM
Like I said, the alternative (one player winning EVERYTHING) is mind-numbing. The fact that lower ranked players are capable of taking out top seeds is a sign that all is right with the world of women's tennis.

SF

agreed.

And you can't compare the mens game to the womens because even when the men are playing soo badly, they can always hold serve a few times since the game is dominated by the serve whereas the womens game isn't. Also, the little betting scandal could put the buffers on possible big name beatdowns

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:39 PM
No because Justine has achieved more on grass than Bartoli...shes proved shes a top player on grass consistently. And Justine has achieved more than Sharapova on hardcourts...

Justine hasn't won a slam or Tier I on hardcourts in three years.

Conor
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:40 PM
Justine hasn't won a slam or Tier I on hardcourts in three years.

She won YEC didnt she? :rolleyes:

goldenlox
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:43 PM
Justine hasn't won a slam or Tier I on hardcourts in three years.
You're an idiot if you believe your own bs
Either an idiot or a troll or both.

Viktymise
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Well its obvious Womens tennis isin't as exciting as it was even 2 years ago. I think alot of that has to do with injuries. The fact that top players lose easily like once of twice a year is rather inconsequential and has no bearing on whether womens tennis is in decline. The quality of the matches is something thats more of an indicator.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Justine hasn't won a slam or Tier I on hardcourts in three years.

And Serena hasn't won a title outside hardcourts in 4 years, so what? She is Wimbledon and Roland Garros winner just like Henin is Australian and US Opens winner.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:44 PM
She won YEC didnt she? :rolleyes:

Yes, she's won the YEC.

Round robin involving eight different players =/= single elimination tournament.

Ok then, let me rephrase my comment.

Last year, if I had to bet on a player making their way through seven different random opponents over the course of two weeks, not losing a single match, I'd put my money on Sharapova over Henin.

And luckily for Sharapova, those kinds of events take up 99.9% of the season.

ico4498
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:45 PM
The Williams sisters quickly resurfaced as irresistible forces.

fixed it for yah.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:45 PM
And Serena hasn't won a title outside hardcourts in 4 years, so what? She is Wimbledon and Roland Garros winner just like Henin is Australian and US Opens winner.

Serena isn't the greatest grass court player in the world. She def. isn't the best clay court player.


What's your point?

goldenlox
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Serena hasn't won a major in over 4 years that had Justine in the draw.
There's a stat.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Serena isn't the greatest grass court player in the world. She def. isn't the best clay court player.
What's your point?

What's my point??? :scratch:

May I quote Goldenlox here?
You're an idiot if you believe your own bs
Either an idiot or a troll or both.

Comprende?

Slutiana
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:50 PM
You're missing the point.


The number one seed demolishing a number 50 player 6-0 6-1 is bad. That's lack of depth.


A number 50 player demolishing the number one seed 6-0 6-1 is ALSO bad. That's called top players sucking.

There's no in between on the WTA. That's what's so annoying.

fair enough. I can see your point but i think that top players getting taken out in beatdown style by lesser players a couple of times a year, definatly does more good to the game than a player beating down the lesser players. And i think the threadstarter was quite wrong in mentioning sharapova. I feel that in a couple of those beatdowns, mainly the AO final and the Wimbly one, Sharapova showed tremendous fight not to lose 0 and love when she could have easily done in both. I think the ones against the williamses were just a case of coming up against 2 Greats of all time who are playing well and are better at sharapova in ultimatly everything when playing well. Of course she was going to get beaten down

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:52 PM
Serena hasn't won a major in over 4 years that had Justine in the draw.
There's a stat.

How, exactly, did you manage to bring up Serena? And before the FO, Justine hadn't won a slam in which Serena was playing since 2003.

HammerGirl
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:53 PM
fair enough. I can see your point but i think that top players getting taken out in beatdown style by lesser players a couple of times a year, definatly does more good to the game than a player beating down the lesser players. And i think the threadstarter was quite wrong in mentioning sharapova. I feel that in a couple of those beatdowns, mainly the AO final and the Wimbly one, Sharapova showed tremendous fight not to lose 0 and love when she could have easily done in both. I think the ones against the williamses were just a case of coming up against 2 Greats of all time who are playing well and are better at sharapova in ultimatly everything when playing well. Of course she was going to get beaten down

Oh god yes we're grateful to Maria for not getting double bagelled again and again as world no.1 and 2 GS holder. She showed tremendous fight and lost matches 62 60 instead of 6-0 6-0.

goldenlox
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:53 PM
Because trying to use stats to say Justine isn't good on hardcourt is retarded.
She beat Sharapova at the 2006 AO and 2007 YEC. She's been as good or better on hardcourt than Sharapova.

Slutiana
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:54 PM
oh and people, can we stick to the thread topic instead of talking about the pathetic and second most boring argument on wtaworld after 'who's greater? venus or henin!??!?!?!?!11111111'

goldenlox
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:56 PM
oh and people, can we stick to the thread topic instead of talking about the pathetic and second most boring argument on wtaworld after 'who's greater? venus or henin!??!?!?!?!11111111'
There is no topic here. It's a goof thread that turned into "Sharapova has bad losses" thread.

Donny
Aug 16th, 2007, 11:59 PM
What's my point??? :scratch:

May I quote Goldenlox here?


Comprende?

Troll? I didn't even mention Serena or Henin until someone else did.

HammerGirl
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:00 AM
Some stats for you:

Serena winning less than 5 games in a match in the last 4 years: twice. One normal loss (to Lindsay, not world no.50) and one retirement.

Justine winning less than 5 games in a match in the last 4 years: once (retirement)

goldenlox
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:02 AM
Some stats for you:

Serena winning less than 5 games in a match in the last 4 years: twice. One normal loss (to Lindsay, not world no.50) and one retirement.

Justine winning less than 5 games in a match in the last 4 years: once (retirement)Nadal just quit after losing a tb. Would he quit if he won it? That's a topic.
When players have injuries, you won't see their best form.
Whether Serena beat Maria 61 62 or Maria wins 61 64 is a function of their health, and how they play on that day.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Some stats for you:

Serena winning less than 5 games in a match in the last 4 years: twice. One normal loss (to Lindsay, not world no.50) and one retirement.

Justine winning less than 5 games in a match in the last 4 years: once (retirement)

Are you aware there is no differene between losing 6-0 6-0 and 7-6 7-6? No bonus points for games won, no prize money. It's just a loss.

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Are you aware there is no differene between losing 6-0 6-0 and 7-6 7-6? No bonus points for games won, no prize money. It's just a loss.

If that was the case, why does almost single sport have terms or phrases, or rules relating to the score at the end of a match?

Bagels
Breadsticks
Shutouts
Perfect Games
No hitters
Running up the score
Mercy Rule

And so on...



Obviously, there is more to a scoreline besides win or lose.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:19 AM
If that was the case, why does almost single sport have terms or phrases, or rules relating to the score at the end of a match?

Bagels
Breadsticks
Shutouts
Perfect Games
No hitters
Running up the score
Mercy Rule

And so on...



Obviously, there is more to a scoreline besides win or lose.

Journalists cliché :shrug:

ico4498
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:24 AM
declining against who/what?

while the ATP is a good reference point for women's tennis, it wouldn't be scientific to conclude a "decline" in the WTA based on a single criteria.

gate receipts, viewer %, broadcasting revenues, endorsements, appearance fees, third party royalties, etc ... its a complicated minefield.

need more proof.

goldenlox
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Didn't McEnroe beat Connors in a Wimbledon final, something like 61 61 62?
And Connors beat McEnroe in another Wimbledon final.

Stamp Paid
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:48 AM
Williams/Henin/Williams/Clijsters should be running the ship, guiding women's tennis with Sharapova rounding out the Top 5. The most talented female players. The lack of interest from Clijsters and WS, and even from Mauresmo and Nastya Myskina and the end of Lindsay/Jennifer/Monica's careers left this huge power vacuum. Russians faded, Serbs will come and fade, I hope theres some amazingly talented girl (of Jen, Monica, V&S, Lindsay's skill level) coming up or we will have a top 10 full of unathletic groundstrokers with a few retrievers (Jankovic, Peer) sandwiched between them. Women's tennis wont be fun anymore.

GoDominique
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:50 AM
Didn't McEnroe beat Connors in a Wimbledon final, something like 61 61 62?
And Connors beat McEnroe in another Wimbledon final.
Yes. Your point being?

goldenlox
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:57 AM
That Sharapova having a bad loss in a final is not the decline of women's tennis.

JeremySun
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:59 AM
:confused::weirdo::lol:

What's so funny? Randy Orton is 27 years old and he is considered the future of WWE. Am I not right to say the Williams are fastly-rising stars of WTA? :)

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:01 AM
That Sharapova having a bad loss in a final is not the decline of women's tennis.

Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

You should restate your point.

Kworb
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:03 AM
How can you compare scores to men's tennis? It's easier to hold serve for men.

GoDominique
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Yes. Your point being?
What donnydarko said.

You come up with one lopsided score which is from 25 years ago.
Even if both players are totally even in skill and 50% to win every single point, a thrashing is still mathematically possible. So it proves nothing.
Although in that case McEnroe was indeed dominating the whole field. This happens sometimes, even with the best players.

goldenlox
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:08 AM
The onesided losses people remember have usually been in RG finals.
Is that hurting women's tennis? Sharapova has nothing to do with that.
And prizemoney is going up 30%, which is a good indication that women's tennis still is growing.

!<blocparty>!
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:11 AM
Women's tennis blows.

Men's tennis rocks.

Peak women's tennis > Peak men's tennis.

WTA World > MTF.

k thanks bye.

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:16 AM
The onesided losses people remember have usually been in RG finals.
Is that hurting women's tennis? Sharapova has nothing to do with that.
And prizemoney is going up 30%, which is a good indication that women's tennis still is growing.

How much of that is from growth in GS prize money?

goldenlox
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:18 AM
I think that's WTA growth. The slams will always go up. They make much more in profits than they pay out in prizemoney.

tennistuff
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:31 AM
Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

The same for Ivanovic.

And both of them are top 4 players.

:rolleyes:

We have new generation coming so there is hope:D

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:25 AM
I agree that women's tennis "blows." Too many players are missing too much of the time. I'm sick of the argument that today's game is soooo much more physical that players are injured all of the time.

Hell, American NFL players get their butts kicked (literally) and STILL manager to put in the time (on most days) required of their profession.

Why did Shriek walkover at Carson?! I'm just damned glad I didn't bother to spend my money on tickets like I did last year (when Serena DID manage to play).

franny
Aug 17th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Who the fuck cares. Stop watching then if you are gonna complain. Shit, if you don't like the way women's tennis is going, then go start your own tour. Stop complaining cuz you complaining ain't gonna do anything. You think Sharapova and Ivanovic care that you think women's tennis is declining? They are fucking 20 years old. They still have so much maturing and growth to do. Which top player didn't get trashed at one point or another while they are young? With experience comes knowledge of how to battle when you aren't playing well, how to get your opponents out of their rhythm. These girls still have a ways to go. They have at least 5-10 years left on tour to improve. The fact that they are even ranked so high and are winning tournaments is a testament to how far they have come already.

franny
Aug 17th, 2007, 03:10 AM
Even though she's not at the top of her game, Serena isn't losing 1 and 3 to other players. Most of Justine's losses happen in 3 sets. I don't think after reaching top 4, Graf lost matches by winning only 4 games 5 times during her whole career.

Graf got pummelled by Pierce at the French 6-2, 6-2. She also lost first round at Wimbledon. This was all while she was at the top of her game. All top players have their off days. I think that with Sharapova, it's pretty much been known that when she's off, she's off. That's why she needs to develop plan B's and C's, which will only come with age, maturity, and experience.

vadin124
Aug 17th, 2007, 04:03 AM
just seeing what my new avatar and signature looks like

vadin124
Aug 17th, 2007, 04:04 AM
...looks hot

darrinbaker00
Aug 17th, 2007, 04:11 AM
Maybe, but not losing badly.

Many of today's players don't hate losing as much as most of the former champions.
That's because most of the former champions didn't have eight-figure endorsement deals and had to come out of their own pockets for their expenses.

OZTENNIS
Aug 17th, 2007, 06:19 AM
Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

The same for Ivanovic.

And both of them are top 4 players.

:rolleyes:

I never knew women's tennis revolved around Sharapova and Ivanovic only

Sefo
Aug 17th, 2007, 06:56 AM
For an analogy: Imagine Fed losing in straight sets on hardcourts, winning less than six games. Now imagine that happening four more times.

That's a bad analogy. Fed never get injured.

hingis-seles
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:06 AM
Graf got pummelled by Pierce at the French 6-2, 6-2. She also lost first round at Wimbledon. This was all while she was at the top of her game. All top players have their off days. I think that with Sharapova, it's pretty much been known that when she's off, she's off. That's why she needs to develop plan B's and C's, which will only come with age, maturity, and experience.

Not to mention Steffi losing 6-0, 6-2 to Aranxta in the 1991 RG semis or Monica losing to Steffi 6-2, 6-1 in the 1992 Wimbledon final. More aptly, you could look at Sabatini and Martinez's lopsided losses. Gaby lost to Monica in the 1991 YEC semis 6-1, 6-1. Seles beat Martinez 6-2, 6-2 in the 1995 US Open semis, when Martinez was in the top 3.

However, I do agree with the point that the champions in the past had a lot more heart and fight than today's players. They played for pride and gave us great tennis consistently. I miss that these days.

Geisha
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:19 AM
Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

The same for Ivanovic.

And both of them are top 4 players.

:rolleyes:

In my opinion, women's tennis has been in decline ever since 2003, when Venus and Serena had long injury layoffs - Serena (eight months), Venus (six months).

Women's tennis was constantly increasing from the earlier 1990s - Graf was improving yearly, Seles had introduced a new "power game", and a whole slew of players were coming up. When Seles got stabbed and Graf started slumping, women's tennis was in a transitional period (a la 1996 and 1997). During these years, the last greats emerged - Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Serena, along with great hopes for the future in Henin, Mauresmo, and Clijsters.

The years from 1998-2003 were incredible. Players were healthy, the "power game" was evolving, fitness was becoming a great issue. In order to keep up with Hingis' consistency and the other "power players", especially the Williamses, the women had to have an incredibly high fitness level.

Venus and Serena raised the level of the sport at the beginning of their dominance. The other players (Mauresmo, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Seles, and Hingis, among others) started realizing that they needed an insane amount of power and fitness - combined - to compete with the Williamses.

When they got injured, Clijsters and Henin became #1 and #2. Since then, injuries have taken a huge bite out of women's tennis because the players have no opportunities to improve. How is anyone going to improve when they are constantly battling injuries? Venus and Serena haven't improved. Justine has played "consistently", but it is still debatable whether she is better than she was in '04. Clijsters is retired. Davenport, practically...:s Capriati is gone.

The players we have left are in a transitional period, in my opinion. Ivanovic and Sharapova are power players, but they are battling injuries all the time. What I see happening in the future are players like Chakvetadze, who are able to stay fit due to their less agressive games...they will be the types of players competing for the majors in 2010.

Geisha
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:22 AM
It either means that the lower ranked players are very good or that the higher ranked players aren't consistent enough. But either way, it's good for the popularity of the game if the results of the early rounds of a tournament are not a foregone conclusion.

I disagree.

One, I think it shows that the players at the top are not consistent enough. Mainly due to injuries and whatever, etc...

Two, I don't think it helps the popularity of the game. Men's tennis is extremely popular due to Federer's dominance and the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Fans want to see this final. They don't want Federer vs. Hrbaty, or whoever.

Geisha
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Serena hasn't won a major in over 4 years that had Justine in the draw.
There's a stat.

How many has Justine won in this period?

None from Wimbledon '03 to Miami '04. :s I doubt many in '05 and '06. :s

Petersmiler
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:32 AM
One player dominating is boring and bad for the game.

Top players losing early is boring and bad for the game.

You win some, you lose some.

Go and 'enjoy' Federer beating someone easily Hammerhead if you're that unhappy.

Matt01
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:33 AM
In my opinion, women's tennis has been in decline ever since 2003, when Venus and Serena had long injury layoffs - Serena (eight months), Venus (six months).

Women's tennis was constantly increasing from the earlier 1990s - Graf was improving yearly, Seles had introduced a new "power game", and a whole slew of players were coming up. When Seles got stabbed and Graf started slumping, women's tennis was in a transitional period (a la 1996 and 1997). During these years, the last greats emerged - Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Serena, along with great hopes for the future in Henin, Mauresmo, and Clijsters.

The years from 1998-2003 were incredible.


How convenient for you that you are leaving out the year 2002. Davenport and Hingis had long "injury layoffs", as you would say, which helped the Williams sisters to dominate.

Petersmiler
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:38 AM
One day some people round here will buy some perspective and realise that tennis exists outside of their favourite players.

I actually enjoy the sport of tennis. I get upset when my fave loses, but then I dust myself down and watch whoever is left in the tournament.

Slutiana
Aug 17th, 2007, 09:45 AM
That Sharapova having a bad loss in a final is not the decline of women's tennis.

agreed.

just seeing what my new avatar and signature looks like

:lol:

I never knew women's tennis revolved around Sharapova and Ivanovic only

:worship:

Donny
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:12 PM
One player dominating is boring and bad for the game.

Top players losing early is boring and bad for the game.

You win some, you lose some.

Go and 'enjoy' Federer beating someone easily Hammerhead if you're that unhappy.

I think the point that's been made for the past five pages is that you can have an in between.

DavenportForever
Aug 17th, 2007, 12:12 PM
The Williams sisters are fastly-rising stars that will improve WTA matches in future years to come.

fastly rising?

they cnt be rising stars they are already stars, they were already in the top 3:help:
and if u ask me, their rise to the top is kinda slow.

Geisha
Aug 17th, 2007, 01:42 PM
How convenient for you that you are leaving out the year 2002. Davenport and Hingis had long "injury layoffs", as you would say, which helped the Williams sisters to dominate.

Helped the Williamses to dominate? I beg to differ.

Lindsay and Martina were no threat to Venus or Serena leading up to their injuries in 2002.

Even if we looked at the results when Venus won her first GS at the '01 Wimbledon to Hingis and Lindsay's respective injuries.

V.Williams leads M.Hingis 4-1
2000 Wimbledon Grass QF V.Williams 6-3 4-6 6-4
2000 New York Hard SF V.Williams 4-6 6-3 7-5
2001 Melbourne Hard SF M.Hingis 6-1 6-1
2001 Miami Hard SF V.Williams 6-3 7-6
2002 Hamburg Clay SF V.Williams 7-5 6-3

V.Williams leads L.Davenport 6-1
2000 Wimbledon Grass F V.Williams 6-3 7-6
2000 Stanford Hard F V.Williams 6-1 6-4
2000 New York Hard F V.Williams 6-4 7-5
2000 Linz Carpet F L.Davenport 4-6 6-3 6-2
2001 Wimbledon Grass SF V.Williams 6-2 6-7 6-1
2001 San Diego Hard SF V.Williams 6-2 7-5
2001 New Haven Hard F V.Williams 7-6 6-4

S.Williams leads M.Hingis 4-3
2000 Los Angeles Hard SF S.Williams 4-6 6-2 6-3
2000 Montreal Hard F M.Hingis 0-6 6-3 3-0, ret.
2001 Sydney Hard QF M.Hingis 6-4 7-5
2001 Melbourne Hard QF M.Hingis 6-2 3-6 8-6
2001 New York Hard SF S.Williams 6-3 6-2
2002 Scottsdale Hard SF S.Williams 6-1 3-6 6-4
2002 Miami Hard QF S.Williams 6-4 6-0

S.Williams leads L.Davenport 3-1
2000 Los Angeles Hard F S.Williams 4-6 6-4 7-6
2000 New York Hard QF L.Davenport 6-4 6-2
2001 Indian Wells Hard QF S.Williams 6-1 6-2
2001 New York Hard QF S.Williams 6-3 6-7 7-5


Venus vs. Davenport/Hingis - 10-2
Serena vs. Davenport/Hingis - 7-4

Combined record - 17-6 for the Williamses

And one of Hingis' wins was a retirement.

Matt01
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Helped the Williamses to dominate? I beg to differ.

Lindsay and Martina were no threat to Venus or Serena leading up to their injuries in 2002.

Even if we looked at the results when Venus won her first GS at the '01 Wimbledon to Hingis and Lindsay's respective injuries.

V.Williams leads M.Hingis 4-1

V.Williams leads L.Davenport 6-1

S.Williams leads M.Hingis 4-3

S.Williams leads L.Davenport 3-1



Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous.

You're saying that Serena was leading Hingis 4:3. Fine. So of course Hingis was kind of a "threat" for Serena :rolleyes: 4:3 is hardly a big advantage :rolleyes:
And as for Davenport, she was the no.1 player at the end of 2001, of course a healthy Davenport in 2002 would hava been a threat for any player :rolleyes: If Hingis or Davenport would have won a Slam in 2002 or would have ended the year as no.1, we will never know of course.

And Venus won her first Wimbledon title in 2000 and not 2001.

And besides, my main point was something else. You said that the decline in women's tennis started in 2003 after Wimbledon when the Williams sisters got injured, right? The reality is that by your definition, the decline would have already started at least in 2002 when the elite players Hingis and Davenport were injured. At that time the fields at the Grand Slams were already depleted.

Geisha
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:36 PM
No, that isn't what I am trying to say. I said that the decline in women's tennis started in 2003. In 2002, the "elite" players, Hingis and Davenport, had already been overthrown by Venus and Serena. You could even say Hingis was overthrown by a whole slew of other players, even before her main injury.

When Venus and Serena were injured in 2003, these "lesser" players didn't have to play them for many months. This allowed less quality players to have their time in the sun while the Williamses were gone. When Venus and Serena came back, they were nowhere near the peak, not because women's tennis got better, but because they declined due to not having the pressures of facing the sisters.

Hingis vs. Serena. Serena was up 4-3 in their series from Wimbledon '00 to Hingis' main injury in '02. One of Serena's losses was in a retirement. The other two were in early '01. The last three matches (two in '02) were won by Serena, one of them 6-4 6-0 and another 6-3 6-2. Hardcore beatdowns.

The fact of the matter is that in '01, the best player was Venus. She simply did not play enough to gain the #1 ranking. But, as it has been seen on many occasions, the #1 player isn't always the "best". Venus had provided Lindsay with plenty of losses in '00 and '01. You can't prove the she was much of a threat against Venus if she had been 1-7 in matches against her during this time period, can you?...

Ntour
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:45 PM
In my opinion, women's tennis has been in decline ever since 2003, when Venus and Serena had long injury layoffs - Serena (eight months), Venus (six months).

Women's tennis was constantly increasing from the earlier 1990s - Graf was improving yearly, Seles had introduced a new "power game", and a whole slew of players were coming up. When Seles got stabbed and Graf started slumping, women's tennis was in a transitional period (a la 1996 and 1997). During these years, the last greats emerged - Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Serena, along with great hopes for the future in Henin, Mauresmo, and Clijsters.

The years from 1998-2003 were incredible. Players were healthy, the "power game" was evolving, fitness was becoming a great issue. In order to keep up with Hingis' consistency and the other "power players", especially the Williamses, the women had to have an incredibly high fitness level.

Venus and Serena raised the level of the sport at the beginning of their dominance. The other players (Mauresmo, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Seles, and Hingis, among others) started realizing that they needed an insane amount of power and fitness - combined - to compete with the Williamses.

When they got injured, Clijsters and Henin became #1 and #2. Since then, injuries have taken a huge bite out of women's tennis because the players have no opportunities to improve. How is anyone going to improve when they are constantly battling injuries? Venus and Serena haven't improved. Justine has played "consistently", but it is still debatable whether she is better than she was in '04. Clijsters is retired. Davenport, practically...:s Capriati is gone.

The players we have left are in a transitional period, in my opinion. Ivanovic and Sharapova are power players, but they are battling injuries all the time. What I see happening in the future are players like Chakvetadze, who are able to stay fit due to their less agressive games...they will be the types of players competing for the majors in 2010.

and the reason these injusries are getting worse is because this "power game" which has been sooo "good" for the tour takes a too bigger demand on the players bodies

DevilishAttitude
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Women's tennis in decline.

Yes, we get told everyone 2 months that it is.

:yawn:

Ntour
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:49 PM
No, that isn't what I am trying to say. I said that the decline in women's tennis started in 2003. In 2002, the "elite" players, Hingis and Davenport, had already been overthrown by Venus and Serena. You could even say Hingis was overthrown by a whole slew of other players, even before her main injury.

When Venus and Serena were injured in 2003, these "lesser" players didn't have to play them for many months. This allowed less quality players to have their time in the sun while the Williamses were gone. When Venus and Serena came back, they were nowhere near the peak, not because women's tennis got better, but because they declined due to not having the pressures of facing the sisters.

Hingis vs. Serena. Serena was up 4-3 in their series from Wimbledon '00 to Hingis' main injury in '02. One of Serena's losses was in a retirement. The other two were in early '01. The last three matches (two in '02) were won by Serena, one of them 6-4 6-0 and another 6-3 6-2. Hardcore beatdowns.

The fact of the matter is that in '01, the best player was Venus. She simply did not play enough to gain the #1 ranking. But, as it has been seen on many occasions, the #1 player isn't always the "best". Venus had provided Lindsay with plenty of losses in '00 and '01. You can't prove the she was much of a threat against Venus if she had been 1-7 in matches against her during this time period, can you?...


your favourite players wouldn't be venus and serena would they?
thought so

Ntour
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:50 PM
WTA in decline? no

has sharapova been in decline this year? yes

Matt01
Aug 17th, 2007, 02:52 PM
N In 2002, the "elite" players, Hingis and Davenport, had already been overthrown by Venus and Serena.

Yeah, that's probably also reason why at the start of 2002, Lindsay was #1, while Venus and Serena were #3 and #6 :lol:


The fact of the matter is that in '01, the best player was Venus. She simply did not play enough to gain the #1 ranking. But, as it has been seen on many occasions, the #1 player isn't always the "best". Venus had provided Lindsay with plenty of losses in '00 and '01. You can't prove the she was much of a threat against Venus if she had been 1-7 in matches against her during this time period, can you?...

Did I say that Lindsway was much of a threat for Venus in 00 and 01? And that was not my point anyway.

You think that Venus was the best player in 2001, other people think that Jen or Linds were the best players. Don't be so arrogant :rolleyes:

hingis-seles
Aug 17th, 2007, 03:11 PM
No, that isn't what I am trying to say. I said that the decline in women's tennis started in 2003. In 2002, the "elite" players, Hingis and Davenport, had already been overthrown by Venus and Serena. You could even say Hingis was overthrown by a whole slew of other players, even before her main injury.

When Venus and Serena were injured in 2003, these "lesser" players didn't have to play them for many months. This allowed less quality players to have their time in the sun while the Williamses were gone. When Venus and Serena came back, they were nowhere near the peak, not because women's tennis got better, but because they declined due to not having the pressures of facing the sisters.

Hingis vs. Serena. Serena was up 4-3 in their series from Wimbledon '00 to Hingis' main injury in '02. One of Serena's losses was in a retirement. The other two were in early '01. The last three matches (two in '02) were won by Serena, one of them 6-4 6-0 and another 6-3 6-2. Hardcore beatdowns.

The fact of the matter is that in '01, the best player was Venus. She simply did not play enough to gain the #1 ranking. But, as it has been seen on many occasions, the #1 player isn't always the "best". Venus had provided Lindsay with plenty of losses in '00 and '01. You can't prove the she was much of a threat against Venus if she had been 1-7 in matches against her during this time period, can you?...

One can easily claim that 2002 was not a competitive year either. Lindsay and Martina were injured. Remember Lindsay skipping the Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Martina skipping Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Hingis and Davenport had been ranked #1 and #2 from 1997-2001. Hingis lost her ranking to injuries and once Davenport became #1 at the end of 2001, she too lost her #1 ranking as a result of being injured. Serena dominated the Slams with the top two players missing in action for them. So, if Hingis suffers for 1997 not being a competitive year, the same claim can be made for Serena in 2002 can it not? After all, you guys complain Hingis had it easy in 1997 and Justine had it easy in 2003. Why give Serena preferential treatment, when it's clear she won her Slams with the top players of the past missing in action?

CaNsHi
Aug 17th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Yea, that is kinda pathetic. That tournie is gift wrapped for Fed now.

Consider this: ALL of the players who've beaten Federer on hardcourts since 2004 (Djokovic, Canas, Nadal, Murray, Safin) are out of the tournament.

Nalvandian too.

But there is no 'Federer' on the WTA.... and certainly not Sharapova... she isnt even world number 1 :rolleyes:

Problem 1: thereīs not a permanent figure that calls people to watch femele tennis.... thatīs why all the marketing behind Sharapova and not with Henin for example. Maria seems to reach more the public.

I didn't say top players should always win but if they are top players they shouldn't lose matches 6-2 6-0.

Top players in the end are Humans, and like us, they have bad days too.

Well its obvious Womens tennis isin't as exciting as it was even 2 years ago. I think alot of that has to do with injuries. The fact that top players lose easily like once of twice a year is rather inconsequential and has no bearing on whether womens tennis is in decline. The quality of the matches is something thats more of an indicator.

Exactly the quality of the matches is an indicator. The probability of loose is in every match. The matches are play because every player have 50% chances to win and 50% chances to loose. The way they use this % depends in too many factors (phisical preparation, wheather, oponent, etc.) , the point is that a player beating a top player is not sign of decline.

That Sharapova having a bad loss in a final is not the decline of women's tennis.
Is bad what iīm going to say but... Sharapova in a final is the decline of womenīs tennis. But anyway... she won the place in here, she has improve too much the last years, she deserved it so good for her.

One day some people round here will buy some perspective and realise that tennis exists outside of their favourite players.
I actually enjoy the sport of tennis. I get upset when my fave loses, but then I dust myself down and watch whoever is left in the tournament.

Never better say. Thatīs the fact in here... some of us only watch the game because we only like the player, and maybe we donīt understand anything about this sport... others ( I include my self in here) watch the game it self, trying to know more about it. Both are posiblities, no one of those are bad, those are simply diferent but not for that less important, and in the end you can do what you want and no one can judge you.

Coming back to the theme, women tennis is suffering a particular moment, but new players are growing and soon we are going to enjoy a better game or almost I hope so. The problem in Latin America is that we donīt have a program to help the players and take them into the competitions. The best tournament are play in Europe and we donīt have the money to take them to play here... different to the Russian situation, they are closer so they can go easily, and here is one of the causes of their predomination in the circuit.
I donīt like them, but the William sisters helped too much to the circuit, they create more powerful oponents.
Like they all the players induce in the others changes, this is the plataform for grown.
And the last thing... when a player wins a tournament is the best in that surface in the moment he or she wins... that not means that he/she is going to be the best forever.

Conor
Aug 17th, 2007, 03:40 PM
What's so funny? Randy Orton is 27 years old and he is considered the future of WWE. Am I not right to say the Williams are fastly-rising stars of WTA? :)

No because both have already been World Number 1... they ARE ALREADY stars of WTA. Ivanovic, for example, is a fastly-rising star of WTA...

Stamp Paid
Aug 17th, 2007, 04:17 PM
One can easily claim that 2002 was not a competitive year either. Lindsay and Martina were injured. Remember Lindsay skipping the Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Martina skipping Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Hingis and Davenport had been ranked #1 and #2 from 1997-2001. Hingis lost her ranking to injuries and once Davenport became #1 at the end of 2001, she too lost her #1 ranking as a result of being injured. Serena dominated the Slams with the top two players missing in action for them. So, if Hingis suffers for 1997 not being a competitive year, the same claim can be made for Serena in 2002 can it not? After all, you guys complain Hingis had it easy in 1997 and Justine had it easy in 2003. Why give Serena preferential treatment, when it's clear she won her Slams with the top players of the past missing in action?Because she beat Venus Williams in 3 straight slam finals in 2002.

And Justine definitely didn't have it easy in 2003.

Volcana
Aug 17th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Proof?

Sharapova already lost 5 matches this year by winning 4 or less games.

The same for Ivanovic.

And both of them are top 4 players.

:rolleyes:
So what? The rankings are just a means for seeding tournaments in a fair way. They aren't an indication of which players are better. If you want to know who the best players are, look at who won the slams. The slam winners in 2007 have 6, 6 and 8 GS singles wins. That is NOT a sign that the tour is 'in decline'. Rather, it shows that the best players are still dominant. Some of them just don't play that often.

faboozadoo15
Aug 17th, 2007, 04:52 PM
But there is no 'Federer' on the WTA.... and certainly not Sharapova... she isnt even world number 1 :rolleyes:

Exactly. And she plays injured.

Federer has had some lopsided losses in his day, too.

ico4498
Aug 17th, 2007, 06:46 PM
"Women's tennis in decline?"

yes, that's the ever living truth.

signed,

http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling.jpg

chicken little.

cmonmasha
Aug 17th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Ahhhh no she wasnt... Justine took her apart in Madrid.
and sharapova took her apart in the us open final..a more important tournamoent:kiss:

FERLKE
Aug 17th, 2007, 07:47 PM
and sharapova took her apart in the us open final..a more important tournamoent:kiss:

Henin leads 5-2 ;) :wavey:

2005 MIAMI HARD (O) Q M. SHARAPOVA 6-1 6-7(6) 6-2
2005 BERLIN OPEN CLAY (O) Q J. HENIN 6-2 6-4
2005 FRENCH OPEN CLAY (O) Q J. HENIN 6-4 6-2
2006 AUSTRALIAN OPEN HARD (O) S J. HENIN 4-6 6-1 6-4
2006 DUBAI HARD (O) F J. HENIN 7-5 6-2
2006 US OPEN HARD (O) F M. SHARAPOVA 6-4 6-4
2006 TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS HARD (I) SF J. HENIN 6-2 7-6(5)

Geisha
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:26 AM
Yeah, that's probably also reason why at the start of 2002, Lindsay was #1, while Venus and Serena were #3 and #6 :lol:



Did I say that Lindsway was much of a threat for Venus in 00 and 01? And that was not my point anyway.

You think that Venus was the best player in 2001, other people think that Jen or Linds were the best players. Don't be so arrogant :rolleyes:

The rankings have proven to be false many, many times throughout history.

Lindsay didn't win a GS in '01. Jennifer won two. Same with Venus. But, Venus beat her four times and lost none.

Geisha
Aug 18th, 2007, 05:30 AM
One can easily claim that 2002 was not a competitive year either. Lindsay and Martina were injured. Remember Lindsay skipping the Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Martina skipping Roland Garros and Wimbledon? Hingis and Davenport had been ranked #1 and #2 from 1997-2001. Hingis lost her ranking to injuries and once Davenport became #1 at the end of 2001, she too lost her #1 ranking as a result of being injured. Serena dominated the Slams with the top two players missing in action for them. So, if Hingis suffers for 1997 not being a competitive year, the same claim can be made for Serena in 2002 can it not? After all, you guys complain Hingis had it easy in 1997 and Justine had it easy in 2003. Why give Serena preferential treatment, when it's clear she won her Slams with the top players of the past missing in action?

How can you say Davenport and Hingis were the "top players" during this time period. They may have held the top rankings (although Hingis was ranked #4 at the beginning of 2002), but they were being consistently beaten by Venus and Serena, especially at the beginning of the '02 season. If Lindsay played Venus or Serena at the French Open in '02, injured prior or not, she would have lost, most likely. Hingis had just lost to Venus on clay in '02, as well. At Wimbledon, they both would have lost anyways, in all likelihood.

Serena isn't getting preferential treatment. She and Venus raised the level of women's tennis. Even when they weren't dominating, Hingis and Davenport and the other top players began training harder and getting stronger because the Williamses were too tough.

Shooter
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:38 AM
Too many players are missing too much of the time.

Not only that, it happens too frequently that they are playing injured, sick, or burnt out. It seems rare that you see two healthy, eager, women going at it and having a good match. The Ivanovic-Jankovic match was a recent exception. It was a high quality, intensely fought battle.

Why did Shriek walkover at Carson?! I'm just damned glad I didn't bother to spend my money on tickets like I did last year (when Serena DID manage to play).

That was REALLY bad for tennis locally. Like you, I'm very glad I didn't buy tickets for that Saturday evening session. It was very heavily advertised and you can bet they used Sharapova in the ads. Most of the time they didn't even mention who she was playing. That was a mistake on the part of the promoters which backfired in their face. The people who bought tickets were probably pissed off, and the people who didn't buy tickets (like me) are very glad they didn't.

However, I did go to the early rounds. I enjoy seeing the lesser known players very much, and the Home Depot Center is a great facility for that. But I'm not the kind of fan that tennis needs to draw to stay healthy.

In general, I don't think women's tennis is in decline worldwide, but it is in decline in America (which is significant). Our big stars of past years are fading fast and there aren't any new ones on the horizon. Attendance and T.V. ratings will go down without the Davenports, Williams, and Capriatis making to the late rounds. Fewer events will be held in the U.S. because it will be harder to find sites and sponsors for them. It's already happening. The WTA Championships moved to Spain, and what about the Acura? What's going to take its place? And where does that leave the U.S. Open Series? With the Sharapova w/o and the Acura going away, it doesn't look very healthy. Every 10 minutes you see a commercial on the Tennis Channel which starts with Maria filing her nails, claiming she loves the U.S. Open Series. Then she forfeits the prime time, Saturday night, semi-final. Every time someone in Los Angeles sees that commercial, they are going to cringe. I don't think people should play injured, but that was a VERY unfortunate sequence of events.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 18th, 2007, 08:43 AM
In general, I don't think women's tennis is in decline worldwide, but it is in decline in America (which is significant). Our big stars of past years are fading fast and there aren't any new ones on the horizon. Attendance and T.V. ratings will go down without the Davenports, Williams, and Capriatis making to the late rounds. Fewer events will be held in the U.S. because it will be harder to find sites and sponsors for them. It's already happening. The WTA Championships moved to Spain, and what about the Acura? What's going to take its place? And where does that leave the U.S. Open Series? With the Sharapova w/o and the Acura going away, it doesn't look very healthy. Every 10 minutes you see a commercial on the Tennis Channel which starts with Maria filing her nails, claiming she loves the U.S. Open Series. Then she forfeits the prime time, Saturday night, semi-final. Every time someone in Los Angeles sees that commercial, they are going to cringe. I don't think people should play injured, but that was a VERY unfortunate sequence of events.
In my own little country womens tennis has never been more popular than it has been for the last five years or so. But that will probably only last as long as Justine keeps playing. Even so, I think that in general womens tennis is more popular now in Europe than it has ever been before. No doubt, the fact that we have so many good players has a lot to do with that.

The US isn't doing THAT badly either really. The Williams sisters and Roddick alone would be enough to make tennis a popular game in any other country. It's just that for the US it's not enough to be a major player, they need total domination to increase public interest and those days are over, at least for the forseeable future.

Yes, the injuries are a huge problem in the womens game. They can count themselves lucky that they have so many "star attractions" at the moment. For every Serena there's a Masha, for every Justine a Ana, so they can get away with a few players dropping out. There are still enough other recognizable names to keep the public's interest. Imagine if we had been in the same situation in the mid-80's with Evert and Navratilova being injured more often than not.

TKane
Aug 18th, 2007, 08:52 AM
Ah, well. 'pova that, and 'pova this! Don't you get bored already? Me definitely is. Really, i don't care about 'pova and others 'big names'. So i do not feel myself disappointed when they are out. Tennis is sport, not a hollywood movie. I can always find someone interesting to watch.

It's wrong marketing, imho. They should advertise TENNIS, as sport. As a game interesting to watch. It's sport. Or, if they really consider fans so lazy and unable to understand something more complicated than ball-bashing-blondes, they should chose a player who is willing to playing tournaments ;) 'pova is not that kind, she prefers to concentrate on Grand Slams only.

Really, with all that 'pova related fuzz, how many people can name Top-10 in WTA tour? I've seen an article, in which Jelena Jankovic was named 'who the heck is she' and - it seems to be true... :( But Jankovic is 3rd number in the world!!! Tennis advertising, that is in decline, not the Tour.

Matt01
Aug 18th, 2007, 10:56 AM
Lindsay didn't win a GS in '01. Jennifer won two. Same with Venus. But, Venus beat her four times and lost none.

Since when is the head-to-head the deciding factor to determine the best player
of the year? :rolleyes:


Fewer events will be held in the U.S. because it will be harder to find sites and sponsors for them. It's already happening. The WTA Championships moved to Spain, and what about the Acura? What's going to take its place?

*cough* Cincinnati *cough*

gmak
Aug 18th, 2007, 02:35 PM
well, Jenn was the best player in 2001

2 GS titles + 2 GS semis is better than 2 GS titles, 1 GS semi and 1 GS 1st round loss.

i'm definitely missing 1998-2003 though :sad:
there were not too many upsets then, but we were treated with some amazing matches from QF onwards :shrug:

Shooter
Aug 18th, 2007, 06:56 PM
It's wrong marketing, imho. They should advertise TENNIS, as sport.

Absolutely correct.

vejh
Aug 18th, 2007, 07:06 PM
^totally agree!. DO you think the WTA and Larry Scott will ever get the message? Ever? They keep shooting themselves in the foot, but never learn.

I can never forget last USO. Shamfelu advertising. Vey shameful. Here Ju was playing Pova in the finals, and if I weren't following the tourny I would not know who Pova's opponent was. It was all about her. I must admit I've never seen anything like that before.

Even the ads for the USo this year are so bland. I could come up with a better marketing strategy for tennis.