View Full Version : What does a match need to have to be considered "appealing" for you?

Apr 2nd, 2012, 12:58 AM
It got me thinking, that last year everyone was claiming that WTA tennis needed some variety, and that players like Aga Radwanska were the only ones to "save" the WTA.

Yet now that Aga won a big tournament like Miami, everyone's saying she was unworthy of the final 'cause she made only 1 winner in the set of the final, and because it was won by Maria's errors. Despite Aga playing with variety, nobody considers her recent matches as interesting.

So what do you think a match needs to have to be interesting?

Perfect ball-bashing?

Counterpuncher vs Agressive player?


I know we aren't getting many good matches, so what does there need to be? Werent people hoping for matches between counter-punchers like Aga vs an agressive baseliner like Maria or Vika?

I'd like to know your opinions.

Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:49 AM
For me it is the drama that counts the most. Whether a point is won by UE or a Winner matters not to me. As the kind of matches I enjoy watching, for sheer drama the 2nd round match at last year’s Wimbledon between Sabine Lisicki and Na Li was a great example.

To set the scene Li was coming off a surprise victory at RG and was Runner-Up at the AO to Clijsters; accordingly she was seeded #3 in the world and for the tournament. Usually a 2nd round match in a Slam for a high seed is a cake walk, but knowledgeable tennis fans knew that this would be a tough match notwithstanding that Sabine was a WC entrant to the draw.

Sabine had reached Wimbledon QFs in 2009 but she had suffered a severe ankle injury in 2010 which incapacitated her for some five months and she was ranked #96 at the end of that year. She started coming back in 2011. She had a match point at 5-2 in the third set against Zvonareva at RG; but lost it and lost the set and match at 5-7. Despite such a crippling loss, Sabine went on to win the Wimbledon tune-up tournament at Birmingham to establish the point that she was a force to be reckoned on grass. Yes indeed this was not your typical 2nd round match between a high seed and a wild card entrant.

In the match the two players traded sets with Sabine winning the first at 6-3 and Na winning the second at 6-4. Then in the dramatic third set Na Li got the initial break of serve and Sabine was serving at 3-5 to stay in the match. She found herself down 15-40 and therefore was facing two match points. At this point one got the sense it was all over, Sabine had given it a great go but she was wilting to the relentless and presumed superior Na Li.

But surprise! Surprise! Sabine came up with two service winners to get to deuce; each serve was in excess of 120 MPH (presumably over 200 KPH). Then to win the game Sabine served consecutive aces each serve also over 120 MPH. You could sense that those four consecutive serves took the breath away from the fans in the stands. And with Na Li subsequently serving for the match at 5-4, I got the feeling that no spectator of the match was too shocked that Na Li lost this service game.

However the drama was not yet over. Inexplicably Sabine was broken in the 11th game to give Na Li yet a second opportunity to serve for the match. This time I believe the consensus was that Na Li would now finally prevail; certainly the commentators of the televised match thought so. However to everyone’s disbelief Sabine came through and broke Li’s serve again. Then when Sabine held her serve in the 13th game you got the premonition that it was all she wrote for Li. Sure enough Na Li lost her third consecutive service game but this one cost her the match. An interesting factoid: those two match points in the 9th game were the only match points Li possessed in the match despite subsequently serving for the match twice.

There have been other matches equivalent in drama and certainly there will be future matches that fall in such category. To my mind these kinds of matches are what causes me to enjoy watching women’s tennis. I believe one not need to despair over the state of the sport.

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:14 AM
Aggressive shotmaking, short rallies, many ventures to the net, variety, few service breaks, lots of winners.

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:25 AM
It got me thinking, that last year everyone was claiming that WTA tennis needed some variety, and that players like Aga Radwanska were the only ones to "save" the WTA.

Nothing of the sort ever took place at the TennisForum.

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:42 AM
Wardrobe malfunctions. :shrug: