PDA

View Full Version : What is wrong with the WTA tour - or is nothing wrong?


martinahfan7
Aug 14th, 2011, 08:50 PM
We are currently witnessing the astonishing sight of legend Serena Williams demolishing all opposition just 2 months in after coming back from a whole year away from the tour and a life threatening condition. Just two years ago, another legend, Kim Clijsters, won the US Open just a couple of months after returning to the tour after 3 years away. What does all this say about the current state of the WTA tour? What this tells me is that we probably have one of the poorest quality top 10's since Billie Jean King founded the WTA in 1973. In fact, personally I cannot think of a worst top 10 than the one we have at the moment. I fear for the future of the tour and something needs to be done to turn this situation around and bring forth a new generation of stars. In fact, in my view the only world class player to emerge over the last 5 years is Petra Kvitova and presently, only a fit again Kim Clijsters, Petra Kvitova (once she has got over her post Wimbledon celebrations), or a revitalised Venus could challenge Serena. Some say Sharapova could challenge - but Sharapova was clobbered by Serena at Stanford and I really cannot see Sharapova putting up a genuine challenge again against Serena, Kim, Petra, etc, with her well documented shoulder problems. Her serve is nothing like what it was. Wozniacki - forget it!

Hence, once Serena, Kim, Venus have all gone within a couple of years, the WTA tour could well face something of a slump in popularity and investment. The hope has to be that 3-4 players come along in the next few years before Serena, Kim, and Venus retire, otherwise that will leave Kvitova as the only world class player.

So what is wrong with the WTA tour - or is nothing wrong?

vixter
Aug 14th, 2011, 09:00 PM
Nothing is wrong with the tour, but yeah there is for sure less good players these days... But it's just the way it is. They are still working hard and doing their best and competing with the best of the world. The tour is the tour.

Serena and Kim are not just any players who decided to make comebacks. They are both part of the highest elite of female players, so it's not surprising they can immediately score big wins. Kim Clijsters was superfit in her return and Serena is very fit as well.

For a player ranked 100-200 to have a long break of tennis and then try to return and regain the position, well, that could be another story...

pkfan
Aug 14th, 2011, 09:17 PM
Time to get rid of the AER's

rjd1111
Aug 15th, 2011, 01:58 AM
We are currently witnessing the astonishing sight of legend Serena Williams demolishing all opposition just 2 months in after coming back from a whole year away from the tour and a life threatening condition. Just two years ago, another legend, Kim Clijsters, won the US Open just a couple of months after returning to the tour after 3 years away. What does all this say about the current state of the WTA tour? What this tells me is that we probably have one of the poorest quality top 10's since Billie Jean King founded the WTA in 1973. In fact, personally I cannot think of a worst top 10 than the one we have at the moment. I fear for the future of the tour and something needs to be done to turn this situation around and bring forth a new generation of stars. In fact, in my view the only world class player to emerge over the last 5 years is Petra Kvitova and presently, only a fit again Kim Clijsters, Petra Kvitova (once she has got over her post Wimbledon celebrations), or a revitalised Venus could challenge Serena. Some say Sharapova could challenge - but Sharapova was clobbered by Serena at Stanford and I really cannot see Sharapova putting up a genuine challenge again against Serena, Kim, Petra, etc, with her well documented shoulder problems. Her serve is nothing like what it was. Wozniacki - forget it!

Hence, once Serena, Kim, Venus have all gone within a couple of years, the WTA tour could well face something of a slump in popularity and investment. The hope has to be that 3-4 players come along in the next few years before Serena, Kim, and Venus retire, otherwise that will leave Kvitova as the only world class player.

So what is wrong with the WTA tour - or is nothing wrong?



There is nothing wrong with the WTA. There was no hew and cry

about the WTA when in '02 Serena came out and dominated everyone

including multi-slam winners like Hingis, Davenport, Jcap, etal.

Nothing said when after 8 months off with knee surgury Serena

came back and won Miami in '04, In '07 Serena won the AO in

stunning fashion after taking most of '06 off with issues. Serena

does what Serena does. She has been doing it for over a decade.

So this is not an indictment against the WTA. It is a continuing

epic of an extraordinary Woman who does Extraordinary things.



No one has been able to stop her in 12 years. It seems father time

is the only one who can do that. And so far, She's doing a pretty

good job against him too.

justineheninfan
Aug 15th, 2011, 02:13 AM
Generation Suck isnt given that nickname for nothing. That sums it up.

Jane Lane
Aug 15th, 2011, 02:59 AM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpe2xqC42E1qetbbj.gif

edificio
Aug 15th, 2011, 06:23 AM
Serena is just a phenomenon.

Mary Cherry.
Aug 15th, 2011, 06:37 AM
A combination of #2, #3 and #4 leads to #1.

Wiggly
Aug 15th, 2011, 06:54 AM
When a woman dominate, there's no depth and the Tour sucks.
When it's pure parity, the Tour still sucks.

When the entire ATP relies on only three players, it's a golden era.

It doesn't make any sense. How can someone with a 52-1 record can be exciting for a Tour?
And journalists are talking about how much the ATP is deep. Bullshit.

You take out Nadal and Federer and the WTA suddenly doesn't look so bad anymore.

Plus, Sharapova injuried her shoulder in Montreal but kept on going and was out for months.
Yet poor Novak was retiring left and right and Nadal always has an injury to either use as an excuse or to show how much he's a warrior. Way to go, boys.

The double-standard is unbelievable. Maria would never win a sportmanship award so why in the world did Nadal won one last year? Great champion, yes, great sportsman, hell no. I guess it's acceptable to grunt and take forever between points, take momentum time-outs, etc on the ATP.

Navratil
Aug 15th, 2011, 06:56 AM
We are currently witnessing the astonishing sight of legend Serena Williams demolishing all opposition just 2 months in after coming back from a whole year away from the tour and a life threatening condition. Just two years ago, another legend, Kim Clijsters, won the US Open just a couple of months after returning to the tour after 3 years away. What does all this say about the current state of the WTA tour? What this tells me is that we probably have one of the poorest quality top 10's since Billie Jean King founded the WTA in 1973. In fact, personally I cannot think of a worst top 10 than the one we have at the moment. I fear for the future of the tour and something needs to be done to turn this situation around and bring forth a new generation of stars. In fact, in my view the only world class player to emerge over the last 5 years is Petra Kvitova and presently, only a fit again Kim Clijsters, Petra Kvitova (once she has got over her post Wimbledon celebrations), or a revitalised Venus could challenge Serena. Some say Sharapova could challenge - but Sharapova was clobbered by Serena at Stanford and I really cannot see Sharapova putting up a genuine challenge again against Serena, Kim, Petra, etc, with her well documented shoulder problems. Her serve is nothing like what it was. Wozniacki - forget it!

Hence, once Serena, Kim, Venus have all gone within a couple of years, the WTA tour could well face something of a slump in popularity and investment. The hope has to be that 3-4 players come along in the next few years before Serena, Kim, and Venus retire, otherwise that will leave Kvitova as the only world class player.

So what is wrong with the WTA tour - or is nothing wrong?

I totally agree. If Serena, Kim and Venus didn't comeback the tour level would have been the lowest in history!

But I'm not sure about what you said about Sharapova. She still struggles with her serve cause she had to change it after her shoulder injury. She's one of the best players right now but still looked pretty bad sometimes against Serena or Kvitova.

moby
Aug 15th, 2011, 07:13 AM
There's nothing all that wrong, really.

Every generation (an inapposite use of term, perhaps, because generations of players overlap and at any one time there are several generations)... so let me start again.

Every few generations (roughly the span of 10 years), a superb tennis talent or two or three will emerge to dominate tennis. In the 60s we had Court, and King as the main acts. When they started to fade in the 70s, Evert picked up where they left off and was overtaken by Navratilova in the 80s. Together this duumvirate ruled the roost till the late 80s when Graf took over. Seles seemed set to perpetuate this Power of Two trend until her stabbing happened, and Graf was left unfettered as Queen of Tennis till injuries took her out.

This is when things became interesting. The removal of both Seles and Graf allowed a quick-maturing but still young Hingis to take over (and this perhaps stunted the growth of Hingis as a player). We had the Williams sisters and Henin usurp Hingis for a while before injuries and retirement took them out too.

So in conclusion, tennis uber-greats only appear a couple of times every decade. Just as the mid 70s-80s were Evert/Navratilova, I believe the late 80s-90s were supposed to be Graf/Seles and the 00s supposed to be Serena/Henin. But Seles's stabbing left a hole in the game when Graf got older and injured allowing other lesser greats to slip through in the 90s (Hingis, Davenport, even Venus). By then, it was clear that the increasingly physical nature of the game, and the distractions of the modern post-whatever age was making it harder for tennis celebrities to focus 100% on their tennis careers. The lull left by Henin's retirement and Serena's injury has allowed lesser great Kim to slip through (just as Hingis, Davenport did) before the maturation of the uber-greats of the next generation (and many think Kvitova fits that bill).

That being said, this generation does suck comparatively. At least back in the day we had some young'uns, a Capriati or a Sharapova, or some veterans aging like vintage wine, a Novotna or a Mauresmo, to keep things interesting, even if they were never going to dominate. Now there's no one even in that caliber.

Sam L
Aug 15th, 2011, 08:41 AM
We are currently witnessing the astonishing sight of legend Serena Williams demolishing all opposition just 2 months in after coming back from a whole year away from the tour and a life threatening condition. Just two years ago, another legend, Kim Clijsters, won the US Open just a couple of months after returning to the tour after 3 years away.

That's rubbish. Did you watch tennis around 1993-1996?

Monica Seles came back from being off the tour for two and half years and she wins 3 out of the 4 tournaments she enters including winning a slam and reaching a slam final including a bagel against Graf in that final.

Seles was out of shape and mentally and physically a lot worse a player than she left.

Kim Clijsters "retired" to retool her game. She came back a BETTER player than she left. Even if not physically, mentally she was a far stronger player. She's 3-0 in slam finals since her comeback but before she was a mental midget losing 4 out of the 5 finals she reached.

Serena Williams. Yes, she's been through a lot. But there's nothing to suggest to that she's a worse player than when she left the tour. If you think she got worse in any way, please tell me. Her technical game is still there, she's not fat or out of shape and if anything she's HUNGRIER than ever before.

So please, the reason why these women are winning is because their games got better in some way or other. Not because the tour is crap - even though I do agree that there are no stars aside from these.

But in Seles's case, her game got worse in EVERY way and she still beat her competition. What does that tell you about the tour in 93-96?

The worst period in women's tennis history. You bet. That was the time when Sports Illustrated infamously asked if Tennis is dead.

So please, some of us have seen FAR worse times than these.

Sam L
Aug 15th, 2011, 08:46 AM
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/SPORTS-ILLUSTRATED-5-9-94-Tennis-Dead-Aryton-Senna-/03/%21Bzrk6cwBGk%7E$%28KGrHqR,%21hoEw5OHdoIoBM%28GDTJ es%21%7E%7E_35.JPG

Sorry "is tennis dying?" 1994. The year Steffi Graf completed her meaningless Steffi slam and when a 37(!)-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches another Wimbledon final against that grass court Queen Conchita Martinez whilst the opportunist ASV sweeps up what's left and the No. 1 ranking.

BepaMaria
Aug 15th, 2011, 08:59 AM
There is nothing wrong. The new generation of Woz, Vika, Jarka, Aga and Petra just suck balls and are still inexperienced to achieve big things on the tour. Zvonareva really should have stepped up and dominated the tour, but apparently she still can't get the Aga and Pironkova monkies off her back:o

With the addition of more experienced players in the form of Sharapova, Li and Serena in god mode, there is no wonder that the youngsters are getting thrashed left and right and failing to take the titles. I'm sure we all anticipated that this was going to happen even before Serena returned to competitive play so there is really nothing to get worked up about.

Misty
Aug 15th, 2011, 09:02 AM
Nothing is wrong with the tour, but yeah there is for sure less good players these days... But it's just the way it is. They are still working hard and doing their best and competing with the best of the world. The tour is the tour.

Serena and Kim are not just any players who decided to make comebacks. They are both part of the highest elite of female players, so it's not surprising they can immediately score big wins. Kim Clijsters was superfit in her return and Serena is very fit as well.

For a player ranked 100-200 to have a long break of tennis and then try to return and regain the position, well, that could be another story...

This.

justine&coria
Aug 15th, 2011, 09:04 AM
When a woman dominate, there's no depth and the Tour sucks.
When it's pure parity, the Tour still sucks.

When the entire ATP relies on only three players, it's a golden era.
The thing is that Serena is not even playing that well. Yet, she's thrashing every one :s.

bobito
Aug 15th, 2011, 09:26 AM
I'd say most of the options listed in your poll have a part to play. However, too much can be read into a couple of veterans having a good US Open series having played little or no tennis for a year or more. At this stage of the year most of the players on tour are getting towards the end of their season, suffering from a few niggling injuries and perhaps a little mentally drained. Starting your season in July, provided a player is fit and well prepared, probably gives them an advantage.

My biggest concern for the WTA at the moment is the lack of tactical nous being shown. Let's be honest about this, for a player with a lousy forehand to be able to win 10 tournaments in a year and occupy the #1 ranking for 30-odd weeks is shameful. A crappy forehand is not a weakness you should be able to hide or cover up. Why has it taken players and their coaches so long to realise that hitting to Wonziacki's forehand as much as possible is a good idea?

Kworb
Aug 15th, 2011, 09:37 AM
That's rubbish. Did you watch tennis around 1993-1996?

Monica Seles came back from being off the tour for two and half years and she wins 3 out of the 4 tournaments she enters including winning a slam and reaching a slam final including a bagel against Graf in that final.

Seles was out of shape and mentally and physically a lot worse a player than she left.

Kim Clijsters "retired" to retool her game. She came back a BETTER player than she left. Even if not physically, mentally she was a far stronger player. She's 3-0 in slam finals since her comeback but before she was a mental midget losing 4 out of the 5 finals she reached.

Serena Williams. Yes, she's been through a lot. But there's nothing to suggest to that she's a worse player than when she left the tour. If you think she got worse in any way, please tell me. Her technical game is still there, she's not fat or out of shape and if anything she's HUNGRIER than ever before.

So please, the reason why these women are winning is because their games got better in some way or other. Not because the tour is crap - even though I do agree that there are no stars aside from these.

But in Seles's case, her game got worse in EVERY way and she still beat her competition. What does that tell you about the tour in 93-96?

The worst period in women's tennis history. You bet. That was the time when Sports Illustrated infamously asked if Tennis is dead.

So please, some of us have seen FAR worse times than these.

Clijsters was far worse in her comeback than in her prime. Just watch some of her old matches and you will "ooh" and "aah" at her astonishing defense and fantastic accurate shots. And with that play she only won one Slam. These days she is just a one-two punch player. And these days that's all it takes to be the best.

Even Serena is a shadow of her former self and yet she is poised to be more dominant than ever.

This era SUCKS.

goldenlox
Aug 15th, 2011, 10:13 AM
Clijsters was far worse in her comeback than in her prime. Just watch some of her old matches and you will "ooh" and "aah" at her astonishing defense and fantastic accurate shots. And with that play she only won one Slam. These days she is just a one-two punch player. And these days that's all it takes to be the best.

Even Serena is a shadow of her former self and yet she is poised to be more dominant than ever.

This era SUCKS.FACT is that Kim won 1 major by age 26. Now she is going for a USO 3 peat, which hasnt been done since Evert in the 70's.
So saying she is worse is very subjective & arguable.

Serena is a different story. If she loses at the USO like Wimbledon, then yes, a very good case she is much worse than she used to be. These Premiers have been poorly played by most of the top 20 so far.

bobito
Aug 15th, 2011, 10:18 AM
FACT is that Kim won 1 major by age 26. Now she is going for a USO 3 peat, which hasnt been done since Evert in the 70's.
So saying she is worse is very subjective & arguable.

Serena is a different story. Even she loses at the USO like Wimbledon, then yes, a very good case she is much worse than she used to be.

Subjective and arguable perhaps, but I'm with Kworb on this one. Kim isn't the player she was in 2005.

She's 3-0 in slam finals since her comeback but before she was a mental midget losing 4 out of the 5 finals she reached.

Agaisnt Wozniacki, Zvonareva and Li Na. Whoop de doo! :cheer: The four finals she lost were against Henin and Capriati in their prime.

marineblue
Aug 15th, 2011, 10:38 AM
Nothing is wrong with the tour. Serena is not just a nobody, she has won many titles and has got much more experience than her opponents. If you look at how players like Dokic are doing it is not the same thing is it. Also, let´s not forget that these are preparatory tournaments so the players are saving their best for the UO.
What I now miss in the tour is more consistent players like Caroline. People may harp on her all they want but if there were more like her there would be more rivalries. GS winners are not stepping it up on regular basis and it is a bit sad to have a top 10 where the most titles were not won by a GS winner.
I have to agree that compared to the 2000s generation there is a lack of variety and everyone seems to thing hitting hard is the key. The players seem to have a limited amount of tricks in their hat which is why they lose to random opponents who bring in more variety.
Also, the sportsmanship is on decline as well. All those grunts which so obviously are used to distract opponents, angry stares, taking too long to serve etc. That should not be there.

madmax
Aug 15th, 2011, 10:45 AM
the post-Wimby level of play is abysmal and we have no in-form player at the moment - Kvitova, Sharapova, Li Na couldn't find the court in the last few weeks and they seemed totally unprepared to compete. Others are simply too mediocre and too inconsistent to even start taking them seriously. It's obvious that most of the players are saving their best effort and energy for the Open and these Premier events are up for grabs for any consistent player. It's been this way for a few years now actually

marineblue
Aug 15th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Subjective and arguable perhaps, but I'm with Kworb on this one. Kim isn't the player she was in 2005.



Agaisnt Wozniacki, Zvonareva and Li Na. Whoop de doo! :cheer: The four finals she lost were against Henin and Capriati in their prime.

So, we can also deduct Serena´s victories against Safina and Zvonareva, right?:rolleyes:

Sam L
Aug 15th, 2011, 10:58 AM
Clijsters was far worse in her comeback than in her prime. Just watch some of her old matches and you will "ooh" and "aah" at her astonishing defense and fantastic accurate shots. And with that play she only won one Slam. These days she is just a one-two punch player. And these days that's all it takes to be the best.

Even Serena is a shadow of her former self and yet she is poised to be more dominant than ever.

This era SUCKS.

Clijsters was a mental midget. I always loved how I knew she had the game but she wouldn't be able to beat the big game players on the big stage. She definitely worked on this. You are extremely naïve if you think otherwise. She always had the game and obviously as an athlete you're always going to be fitter and look better when younger but the old Clijsters would've folded in the Australian Open final against Li Na. She is a lot mentally stronger these days and tennis is 90% probably more mental especially when it comes to the big stage.

Subjective and arguable perhaps, but I'm with Kworb on this one. Kim isn't the player she was in 2005.



Agaisnt Wozniacki, Zvonareva and Li Na. Whoop de doo! :cheer: The four finals she lost were against Henin and Capriati in their prime.

As much as I hate to admit this, do I need to remind you, that she beat Venus twice and Serena on her way to those titles. :rolleyes:

marineblue
Aug 15th, 2011, 11:02 AM
I'd say most of the options listed in your poll have a part to play. However, too much can be read into a couple of veterans having a good US Open series having played little or no tennis for a year or more. At this stage of the year most of the players on tour are getting towards the end of their season, suffering from a few niggling injuries and perhaps a little mentally drained. Starting your season in July, provided a player is fit and well prepared, probably gives them an advantage.

My biggest concern for the WTA at the moment is the lack of tactical nous being shown. Let's be honest about this, for a player with a lousy forehand to be able to win 10 tournaments in a year and occupy the #1 ranking for 30-odd weeks is shameful. A crappy forehand is not a weakness you should be able to hide or cover up. Why has it taken players and their coaches so long to realise that hitting to Wonziacki's forehand as much as possible is a good idea?

Well, not everything stands and falls on a good FH as you can see. :lol: Are you one of those who try to claim Wozniacki has no weapons?

Sam L
Aug 15th, 2011, 11:03 AM
Even Serena is a shadow of her former self and yet she is poised to be more dominant than ever.


Which self? Serena Slam self? She probably won't fit into that catsuit again but she is a lot more patient and there's more variety in her game. And she is a lot more experienced. On court and off court experiences have made her tougher and calmer. That is a formidable opponent. Anyone can be young and hit winners everywhere. It takes a lot more to be an experienced champion who knows how to win points and matches. If she was out of shape and huffing and puffing and can't get to balls, OK I would agree but that is not the case here.

You can't just judge on one criteria.

stevos
Aug 15th, 2011, 11:07 AM
When a woman dominate, there's no depth and the Tour sucks.
When it's pure parity, the Tour still sucks.

When the entire ATP relies on only three players, it's a golden era.

It doesn't make any sense. How can someone with a 52-1 record can be exciting for a Tour?
And journalists are talking about how much the ATP is deep. Bullshit.

You take out Nadal and Federer and the WTA suddenly doesn't look so bad anymore.

Plus, Sharapova injuried her shoulder in Montreal but kept on going and was out for months.
Yet poor Novak was retiring left and right and Nadal always has an injury to either use as an excuse or to show how much he's a warrior. Way to go, boys.

The double-standard is unbelievable. Maria would never win a sportmanship award so why in the world did Nadal won one last year? Great champion, yes, great sportsman, hell no. I guess it's acceptable to grunt and take forever between points, take momentum time-outs, etc on the ATP.

Yeah I'll just cosign on this.
I obviously voted for "there is nothing wrong with the tour".
"The tour" is a dynamic and ever-changing thing, and I am always confused why people are so intent to judge it based on some binary hierarchy of ATP vs WTA, or some other way. Do you enjoy the tour, and are you interested to see where it goes and changes from here on out? Great. Do you not feel this way? Awesome. Go out and play some tennis yourself.

Apoleb
Aug 15th, 2011, 11:30 AM
I don't care about the ATP. I don't watch men's tennis. But the WTA sucks now. There's only one player who is determined enough to bring it. The rest suck. Look at Toronto's draw. Everyone was having orgasms just looking at it - and then we didn't get a single truly exceptional match. Nothing, but injuries, terrible losses, and one-woman shows.

The WTA needs better up and coming players. Pure and simple.

vixter
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:19 PM
That's rubbish. Did you watch tennis around 1993-1996?

Monica Seles came back from being off the tour for two and half years and she wins 3 out of the 4 tournaments she enters including winning a slam and reaching a slam final including a bagel against Graf in that final.

Seles was out of shape and mentally and physically a lot worse a player than she left.

Kim Clijsters "retired" to retool her game. She came back a BETTER player than she left. Even if not physically, mentally she was a far stronger player. She's 3-0 in slam finals since her comeback but before she was a mental midget losing 4 out of the 5 finals she reached.

Serena Williams. Yes, she's been through a lot. But there's nothing to suggest to that she's a worse player than when she left the tour. If you think she got worse in any way, please tell me. Her technical game is still there, she's not fat or out of shape and if anything she's HUNGRIER than ever before.

So please, the reason why these women are winning is because their games got better in some way or other. Not because the tour is crap - even though I do agree that there are no stars aside from these.

But in Seles's case, her game got worse in EVERY way and she still beat her competition. What does that tell you about the tour in 93-96?

The worst period in women's tennis history. You bet. That was the time when Sports Illustrated infamously asked if Tennis is dead.

So please, some of us have seen FAR worse times than these.

How can you call what the poster wrote 'rubbish'? It was accurate, and it had nothing to do with Monica Seles in the 90's. Also Seles won "only one" more GS after her comeback, so one could say Kim was more successful with her comeback. With Serena you feel like there has already been one big comeback, after which she's already won multiple slams. Also Kim did not retire to 'retool her game' now that's rubbish. Yeah she came back more relaxed mentally, more careless maybe, which can happen after a longer break, you view things differently.

I'm not sure if she's that much mentally stronger. She just didn't have to face Justine Henin in the finals anymore. :) It is not mental strenght to look bored and careless on court, which has also been the case with her.

bandabou
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:20 PM
Generation suck is just generation suck. The ONLY real talent that could be expected to be a great is Kvitova and she isn't consistent yet to dominate the rankings.

So you get Caro who is consistent but can't beat anybody in form it seems...and chaos on the ranks.

HippityHop
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:25 PM
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/SPORTS-ILLUSTRATED-5-9-94-Tennis-Dead-Aryton-Senna-/03/%21Bzrk6cwBGk%7E$%28KGrHqR,%21hoEw5OHdoIoBM%28GDTJ es%21%7E%7E_35.JPG

Sorry "is tennis dying?" 1994. The year Steffi Graf completed her meaningless Steffi slam and when a 37(!)-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches another Wimbledon final against that grass court Queen Conchita Martinez whilst the opportunist ASV sweeps up what's left and the No. 1 ranking.

Dead and gone! :lol::lol::lol:

Sam L
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:26 PM
How can you call what the poster wrote 'rubbish'? It was accurate, and it had nothing to do with Monica Seles in the 90's. Also Seles won "only one" more GS after her comeback, so one could say Kim was more successful with her comeback. With Serena you feel like there has already been one big comeback, after which she's already won multiple slams. Also Kim did not retire to 'retool her game' now that's rubbish. Yeah she came back more relaxed mentally, more careless maybe, which can happen after a longer break, you view things differently.

To prove that we're not seeing the lowest point of the WTA. That was back in 93-95. Bad tennis, boring personalities. It was hell.

vixter
Aug 15th, 2011, 12:40 PM
When a woman dominate, there's no depth and the Tour sucks.
When it's pure parity, the Tour still sucks.

When the entire ATP relies on only three players, it's a golden era.

It doesn't make any sense. How can someone with a 52-1 record can be exciting for a Tour?
And journalists are talking about how much the ATP is deep. Bullshit.

You take out Nadal and Federer and the WTA suddenly doesn't look so bad anymore.

Plus, Sharapova injuried her shoulder in Montreal but kept on going and was out for months.
Yet poor Novak was retiring left and right and Nadal always has an injury to either use as an excuse or to show how much he's a warrior. Way to go, boys.

The double-standard is unbelievable. Maria would never win a sportmanship award so why in the world did Nadal won one last year? Great champion, yes, great sportsman, hell no. I guess it's acceptable to grunt and take forever between points, take momentum time-outs, etc on the ATP.

I don't know why you are trying to talk down the guys, but I think most would agree that these days it's the men who are bringing the exciting rivalries and the quality of play to the table on a regular basis. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are truly amazing players and they are still so dedicated to the sport all three of them. Serena is their only equivalent at this point in the WTA.
I have never heard Nadal blame anything on injuries and I don't know what retirements 'left and right' from Djokovic you are talking about. And why wouldn't Nadal win a sportsmansship award? He is a great sportsman, amazing athlete but also very humble, always smiling and talking to everyone.

I don't quite see the double-standard.

bobito
Aug 17th, 2011, 05:19 PM
Well, not everything stands and falls on a good FH as you can see. :lol: Are you one of those who try to claim Wozniacki has no weapons?

Try telling that to Christina McHale. The sight of Wozniacki trying to run around her forehand to hit a backhand says it all. :rolls:

madlove
Aug 17th, 2011, 05:26 PM
The tour is wide open for years now - nobody in particular is dominating. It's a good and bad: good because players like li na, schiavone etc get a chance to shine on grandslams. bad because we all need a good rivalry once in a while.

my point is, i miss the hingis/williams/davenport/capriati/clijsters/henin era. good times.

TheHangover
Aug 17th, 2011, 05:30 PM
these girls are not hungry of victories

Justin SW
Aug 17th, 2011, 05:33 PM
There are no problems... Serena is back :inlove:

MakarovaFan
Aug 17th, 2011, 05:34 PM
The thing is that Serena is not even playing that well. Yet, she's thrashing every one :s.
Losing sets to the likes of Zheng,Kirilenko and Safarova is thrashing....getting pushed by Hradecka and Georges is thrashing??

People need to calm down just a bit.

rjd1111
Aug 19th, 2011, 02:57 AM
There's nothing all that wrong, really.

Every generation (an inapposite use of term, perhaps, because generations of players overlap and at any one time there are several generations)... so let me start again.

Every few generations (roughly the span of 10 years), a superb tennis talent or two or three will emerge to dominate tennis. In the 60s we had Court, and King as the main acts. When they started to fade in the 70s, Evert picked up where they left off and was overtaken by Navratilova in the 80s. Together this duumvirate ruled the roost till the late 80s when Graf took over. Seles seemed set to perpetuate this Power of Two trend until her stabbing happened, and Graf was left unfettered as Queen of Tennis till injuries took her out.

This is when things became interesting. The removal of both Seles and Graf allowed a quick-maturing but still young Hingis to take over (and this perhaps stunted the growth of Hingis as a player). We had the Williams sisters and Henin usurp Hingis for a while before injuries and retirement took them out too.

So in conclusion, tennis uber-greats only appear a couple of times every decade. Just as the mid 70s-80s were Evert/Navratilova, I believe the late 80s-90s were supposed to be Graf/Seles and the 00s supposed to be Serena/Henin. But Seles's stabbing left a hole in the game when Graf got older and injured allowing other lesser greats to slip through in the 90s (Hingis, Davenport, even Venus). By then, it was clear that the increasingly physical nature of the game, and the distractions of the modern post-whatever age was making it harder for tennis celebrities to focus 100% on their tennis careers. The lull left by Henin's retirement and Serena's injury has allowed lesser great Kim to slip through (just as Hingis, Davenport did) before the maturation of the uber-greats of the next generation (and many think Kvitova fits that bill).

That being said, this generation does suck comparatively. At least back in the day we had some young'uns, a Capriati or a Sharapova, or some veterans aging like vintage wine, a Novotna or a Mauresmo, to keep things interesting, even if they were never going to dominate. Now there's no one even in that caliber.



the 00s supposed to be Serena/Henin????


I don't know where you get Henin from.


During the Serena slam time NOBODY was beating Serena or Venus

in the slams, so its not a stretch to say that if Serena was not

around then Venus would have 12 or more slams. Venus and Henin's

records are too close for you to exclude her and if you don't

cherrypick stats and count their whole career Henin is not even

close to Venus. ( 7-2 h2h )( 14 gs dbls ) ( 3 Olympic golds )

vozas
Aug 19th, 2011, 03:51 AM
The noughties really were an amazing time for tennis. I love Hingis and loved her dominance, but the period of 2002-2007 was the best tennis era ever. The Sisters, Henin, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Davenport, Clijsters, it was awesome. Not to mention, there were some awesome players rising and putting up fights, like Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Petrova, the Serbs, etc. Those were the days, and we can't really expect to have so much diversity and different gamestyles and personalities any sooner. It was the golden era of female tennis.

justineheninfan
Aug 19th, 2011, 03:57 AM
To prove that we're not seeing the lowest point of the WTA. That was back in 93-95. Bad tennis, boring personalities. It was hell.

The only exciting thing to happen that period was Pierce's emergence as a star in 94-early 95 but that fizzled out in a huge way.

debopero
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:04 AM
You get the feeling that no one in the new generation works as hard as Serena, Venus, and Henin, and even Sharapova did.

Caesar1844
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:24 AM
The WTA has suffered in the same way as the ATP with slower and higher bouncing courts and balls designed to stretch out rallies, and provide more and more assistance to the defensive baseliners.

Unfortunately, due to the women being far poorer athletes, the problem is even more pronounced. Women are so much weaker and shorter than the men that variants like a heavy serve or net game are ordinarily more difficult to play and they are naturally predisposed to defensive baselining. Thanks to the changes in the surfaces, racquets and balls this has only been encouraged to the point that 90% of tour players are useless once they come inside the court.

All of which means the game ceases to be a meaningful tactical duel. Previously, if a player couldn't match up on power baseline exchanges they could pick different tactics (like Majoli and Hingis) and still put up a good match. Now, the cards are all stacked in one direction - play baseline, hit hard, and the hardest and most consistent wins. As a result you have a couple of players who do that really well (like the Williams sisters and Clistjers) who dominate. The others are either forced to play above their own level with the resultant mental strain and unforced error count, or they turn into pushers like Woz.

Speed up the courts to reward players who don't just defend and/or try to knock the cover off the ball, and you might get a bit more variety back into the game.

le bon vivant
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:33 AM
That being said, this generation does suck comparatively. At least back in the day we had some young'uns, a Capriati or a Sharapova, or some veterans aging like vintage wine, a Novotna or a Mauresmo, to keep things interesting, even if they were never going to dominate. Now there's no one even in that caliber.Too many good players have been lost prematurely (for whatever reason). We should have Henin, Hingis, Kournikova, Myskina etc. as those wily veterans keeping things interesting, and also teaching the younger girls a thing or two. Generation Suck only have eachother to practice on, and no one is really getting better. :lol:

Serbian girls fell apart, Belgians quit or resorted to playing half time, Sharapova is an inconsistent mess, Kuznetsova refuses to become a great player, and there dont appear to be any elite players on the horizon.

Smitten
Aug 19th, 2011, 04:49 AM
I can't wait for Legend to come back before the Olympics.

perseus2006
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:02 AM
After listening to a decade of John McEnroe and Mary Carillo bash Women's Tennis as commentators in nearly every match played, people began to believe it! That's the biggest problem.

Bonfire
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:17 AM
Nothing is wrong with WTA. If it was such a mess...we wouldn't even bother having this discussion. We wouldn't be still visiting this site non-stop to debate about how WTA is over. This reminds me of people discussing how "the world is gonna end" for decades now. If internet existed from the start of the tennis open era...I could imagine a poster asking this same question even back in the 70's. WTA is fine.

Caesar1844
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:23 AM
Popularity doesn't equal quality. Formula One is more popular than ever but you won't find a single person who thinks it's as good as it was prior to computers coming in.

People will continue to watch the WTA regardless of what dreck is served up - let's face it, if they were just interested in good tennis they would have switched to the ATP long ago. That doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with the Tour.

goldenlox
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:23 AM
The only negative I see is injuries. Just look at last week where Venus pulled out & Kim retired. Those players were in the USO SF last year.

You would like to have them healthy playing, but the sport has gotten very physical, and every player seems to have long injury layoffs.

Those are the best players in Toronto. This is the highest level of womens tennis out there. They wont all be in form at the same time

Wiggly
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:33 AM
After listening to a decade of John McEnroe and Mary Carillo bash Women's Tennis as commentators in nearly every match played, people began to believe it! That's the biggest problem.

This.

All the journalists are bashing the Tour instead of pimping out the new players.
Jankovic vs Schiavone was played in front of a packed house.

Would Ferrer vs Soderling have been? Doubt it.

The WTA has much more depth in games and personalities than the ATP.

Caesar1844
Aug 19th, 2011, 05:41 AM
The WTA has much more depth in games and personalities than the ATP.
:facepalm:

Personalities, maybe. But who gives a shit about that?