PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with the WTA?


bobbynorwich
Feb 20th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Throughout the forum there are sometimes negative, but vague, comments about the WTA. If any, what specifically are the problems with the WTA or the way it manages women's professional tennis?

Sometimes I get the impression people think it is too weak, but about what issue? Maybe it's just an impossible job with players, tournaments, other federations, fans, and sponsors to satisfy. ....:confused:

Horizon
Feb 20th, 2009, 11:34 PM
Nothing :inlove:

Larry Scott is a God :hearts: :angel:

Wiggly
Feb 20th, 2009, 11:39 PM
The ATP is better in every departement than the WTA.
Even the men tour looks more glamorous.

In defense of the WTA, they don't have much to work with.
Matches are never televised, when they are they are UEs fest.
Half of the tour has no personality whatsoever.

Cp6uja
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:11 AM
The ATP is better in every departement than the WTA.
Even the men tour looks more glamorous.

In defense of the WTA, they don't have much to work with.
Matches are never televised, when they are they are UEs fest.
Half of the tour has no personality whatsoever.Tennis is only high-paid sport on this planet with equal prizes (actually no other even 25%F - 75%M example b/c always M >>>>> F in $$$) and You complain?

Also star-power status (financial, public, commercial, celebrity...) of biggest WTA Stars is >>>>> than "star-power" of all female Beijing 2008 Olympics medalists (single competitions) from all other sports T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R.

Give It Together ;)

bobbynorwich
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:16 AM
The ATP is better in every departement than the WTA.
Even the men tour looks more glamorous.

In defense of the WTA, they don't have much to work with.
Matches are never televised, when they are they are UEs fest.
Half of the tour has no personality whatsoever.

What's a "UEs fest?" UnEven contest?

Well, as to glamour on the women's side, there's Azarenka, Dementieva, Dokic, Sharapova, Kirilenko, Ivanovic, Hantuchova, Golovin, Mirza, Dechy, Wozniacki, Williams, Vaidisova, Stosur, Safina, Wozniak, to name the most notable. And for glamour the men have Haas, Safin, Lopez, Verdasco, Hewitt, Bryans and .....?

And the women usually show more leg than the men. :woohoo:

Just kidding with you, Wiggly. :rolleyes:

bobbynorwich
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:21 AM
Tennis is only high-paid sport on this planet with equal prizes (actually no other even 25%F - 75%M example b/c always M >>>>> F in $$$) and You complain?

Also star-power status (financial, public, commercial, celebrity...) of biggest WTA Stars is >>>>> than "star-power" of all female Beijing 2008 Olympics medalists (single competitions) from all other sports T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R.

Give It Together ;)

Not following the logic here....:confused:

Cp6uja
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:28 AM
Not following the logic here....:confused:
WTA is >>>> (means "WAY BETTER") in terms of success than any other international/national womans sports association/federation from any other sport and that is fact since WTA existing!

bobbynorwich
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:33 AM
WTA is >>>> (means "WAY BETTER") in terms of success than any other international/national womans sports association/federation from any other sport and that is fact since WTA existing!

Okay, thanks, now I understand --- you think WTA is doing a very good job.

DragonFlame
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:50 AM
Depends on what you compare it with.

If you compare it to other woman's sports, like Cp6uja. He's right. WTA is a very succesfull organisation. But that is in my oppinion mostly because TENNIS is very succesful.

If you mostly look at regulation for Woman's tennis. (and compare it to Men's tennis) Like the new rankingsystem(The change of system,'The doubling of 2008 points at start of 2009 season'), The on-court coaching, The irregularity in shotspot(some tournaments use it, some don't, only the big courts have shotspot in tournaments that use it.), The 'challenge' system while using shotspot, The year-round calender and the little they did to improve it, The new top10 regulations. Larry Scott's way of acting regarding Henin's retirement.

i have to go against this organisation and prefer the ATP.(I know the ATP has some of the things i said as well.) It's been way too inconsistent in their way to 'improve' the tour. And i fail to see their logic.

debby
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:50 AM
What's a "UEs fest?" UnEven contest?

Well, as to glamour on the women's side, there's Azarenka, Dementieva, Dokic, Sharapova, Kirilenko, Ivanovic, Hantuchova, Golovin, Mirza, Dechy, Wozniacki, Williams, Vaidisova, Stosur, Safina, Wozniak, to name the most notable. And for glamour the men have Haas, Safin, Lopez, Verdasco, Hewitt, Bryans and .....?

And the women usually show more leg than the men. :woohoo:

Just kidding with you, Wiggly. :rolleyes:

Azarenka? (you will be told she is average) Golovin? (don't like her nose.. sorry Slutiana and Slutati) Dechy??? :tape: :tape: Wozniacki?? :haha: Williams??? :spit: Stosur is average despite she has beautiful eyes. Wozniak :haha:

Haas, Safin, Lopez, Verdasco, Nadal, Tsonga, Simon, Federer, Djokovic, Hewitt (not for me but yeah for some people), Bryans, Clément, Gasquet (same for Hewitt), Wawrinka, Bolleli.. and I surely forgot others.

dearg
Feb 21st, 2009, 12:57 AM
There's a white male as chairperson and CEO:rolleyes:

No Really, there's a group of very passive tennis players who are quite happy for people within the WTA organisation to implement changes without much debate or rancor.

What do the player's want from the tour themselves?
Obviously lots of cash (who doesn't), a legacy (their own place in tennis history), but unlike the past there are no players who want to shape or define the tour that they are apart of (Billie Jean King, Rosie Casals, etc.)

You only get in life what you give back

bobbynorwich
Feb 21st, 2009, 02:02 AM
There's a white male as chairperson and CEO:rolleyes:

No Really, there's a group of very passive tennis players who are quite happy for people within the WTA organisation to implement changes without much debate or rancor.

What do the player's want from the tour themselves?
Obviously lots of cash (who doesn't), a legacy (their own place in tennis history), but unlike the past there are no players who want to shape or define the tour that they are apart of (Billie Jean King, Rosie Casals, etc.)



Yes, it is surprising that a man heads the WTA. I think Venus has stepped up to help define the tour. So you are saying that the women on tour are passive and accept whatever the WTA decides? Or maybe they are satisfied with the decisions? I think they have added some input to the schedule...too many events.
.

ASP0315
Feb 21st, 2009, 02:36 AM
well i can say that wta is between fair and very poor.
i'll it is below average. (it is one step way from very poor and two steps away from the worst.)

Roookie
Feb 21st, 2009, 02:47 AM
its not WTA fault. Its just an unlucky time for the tour since the best player at that time retired, the second best player got injured, the third best player got into a Grand Slump, that made a slamless player finished last year as no. 1 and people went crazy about it. The WS still around but still on and off. Plus too many russians.

bobbynorwich
Feb 21st, 2009, 01:08 PM
Depends on what you compare it with.

If you compare it to other woman's sports, like Cp6uja. He's right. WTA is a very succesfull organisation. But that is in my oppinion mostly because TENNIS is very succesful.

If you mostly look at regulation for Woman's tennis. (and compare it to Men's tennis) Like the new ranking system(The change of system,'The doubling of 2008 points at start of 2009 season'), The on-court coaching, the irregularity in shotspot(some tournaments use it, some don't, only the big courts have shotspot in tournaments that use it.), The 'challenge' system while using shotspot, The year-round calender and the little they did to improve it, The new top 10 regulations. Larry Scott's way of acting regarding Henin's retirement.

i have to go against this organisation and prefer the ATP.(I know the ATP has some of the things i said as well.) It's been way too inconsistent in their way to 'improve' the tour. And i fail to see their logic.

I'm not familiar with the "new top 10 regulations" or Larry's Scott's reaction to Henin's retirement. Could you explain?

I don't think the WTA can control the use of Shotspot, because the cost is covered by individual tournaments. It's expensive technology and some tourneys' budgets can't handle it.
.

tennnisfannn
Feb 21st, 2009, 01:20 PM
I'm not familiar with the "new top 10 regulations" or Larry's Scott's reaction to Henin's retirement. Could you explain?

I don't think the WTA can control the use of Shotspot, because the cost is covered by individual tournaments. It's expensive technology and some tourneys' budgets can't handle it.
.
He said they would not lose any sleep over Justine's retirement making it sound like there was more than met the eye.

bobbynorwich
Feb 21st, 2009, 01:29 PM
He said they would not lose any sleep over Justine's retirement making it sound like there was more than met the eye.

What a dumb thing for a director to say about any retiring player, much less the numero uno. How about: "It's unfortunate, we'll miss her, but wish her well."
.

partbrit
Feb 21st, 2009, 02:06 PM
The WTA, like every other women's sports organization, has a very uphill battle. The sports media says that people don't watch women's sports without taking into account the rather large "duh" factor--that the networks refuse to air women's sports. This chronic begging the question--which is rarely challenged (it's not like people recognize logical fallacies--look at some of the people we've elected to office), is vocalized all the time.

Having said that, I think that the WTA contributes to the problem by marketing the players as sex objects rather than athletes. Aside from the fact that the WTA organizers should be fighting sexism--not promoting it--it is a stupid tactic. The people who are interested in the players for sexual reasons are not going to buy tickets to tournaments because they are not interested in tennis.

One thing that I think would help a bit is for the players to be better trained at handling the sports media. People want to know interesting, colorful things about the players, and that's cool and fun, but ultimately--players need to talk seriously about tennis so that they can be taken more seriously.

And it goes without saying--more players need to learn how to compete.

Morrissey
Feb 21st, 2009, 02:10 PM
The WTA is a pretty racist organization that favours the white female tennis players over black women and other women of colour. Look at Larry Scott jumping the defense of the white Jew Shahar Peer yet he gives the Williams Sisters grief over Indian Wells.

C. Drone
Feb 21st, 2009, 02:55 PM
The WTA is a pretty racist organization that favours the white female tennis players over black women and other women of colour. Look at Larry Scott jumping the defense of the white Jew Shahar Peer yet he gives the Williams Sisters grief over Indian Wells.

are you angry because she's white or because she's jew? :confused:

fnuf7
Feb 21st, 2009, 03:37 PM
Have to say I think in general terms of women's sports around the world the WTA is doing a good job...it makes far more money than any other women's sport, gets more media attention (even if it isn't as much as the ATP, still more than other women's sports), has equal prize money for men & women. But if you compare the ATP to the WTA then I think the ATP do a better job in terms of running it, managing the players, marketing it etc. I personally hate some of the new WTA things that have come in recently (no.1 being the on court coaching idea...I just hate it :mad:)

And I'll agree with some previous posters who said that they should stop marketing the players solely on a sexual basis & in terms of their personal lives as oppsed to their athletic abilities, not saying they shouldn't use sex as a marketing tool at all but they are athletes first & foremost, that's their jobs so that should be the focus, if they happen to also be attractive then fine but it shouldn't be the main marketing ploy to get people interested. But overall in general terms I think they're doing ok, could do better but they aren't doing horrendously as of yet in my opinion.