PDA

View Full Version : Womens Tennis is Predictable and Boring


sportpunter
Jul 1st, 2003, 10:09 AM
Just to get a few of the comment from the people out there that obviously like womens tennis (maybe better than mens), because after all you are on thsi website!

1. Womens tennis is predictable.
Just look at the quarterfinalists for Wimbledon:
Davenport, J. Capriati, V.Williams, S.Williams, J. Henin-Hardenne, K. Clijsters, S. Farina Elia and S. Kuznetsova.

Well done S. Kuznetsova for making to the quarters by being seeded 33. Mind you she hasn't defeated a seeded player yet. and also S. Farina Elia being seeded 27, perhaps the biggest upset in WTA history by defeating Rubin (7).

I mean seriously, by being predictable it is boring. Take a look at the "hot shots" that a lot of the TV stations play. The other day they had 12 hotshots, 11 of them from the ATP, 1 from the WTA and it was a complementory addition so as not to appear sexist.

Womens tennis is boring and predictable. How on earth they get even close to the amount that men get paid beats me.

Ruud
Jul 1st, 2003, 10:52 AM
Some of the comments are ture, there is a big gap between mens tennis and womens tennis in both technical and physical areas HOWEVER!!!!!!!!

Menís tennis is all about holding serve and breaking once or twice in a set. Watching mens tennis can be boring too, its always a fast serve to end a point or a fast serve to drive the receiver out of position and winning the point easily, we hardly see any long rallies like the womenís.
Tennis is the only sport where women and men can make the same amount of money

FromAce2Ace
Jul 1st, 2003, 11:33 AM
WTA's ranking system keeps the best players on top. That's why there are few upsets.

Look at Pete Sampras. He hasn't played since the beginning of the year. He is now ranked in the 20s, 30s.
Compare that to Lindsay Davenport who, despite the fact that she missed 9 months of tennis last year, was still ranked in the top-10.

WTA has a very stable system. Just because you missed a tournament here and there or just because you lost early in 2 consecutive tournaments doesn't mean you no longer belong in the top-10.

ATP ranking is like a hot dog contest like someone said. whoever is the hotest dog at the moment leads the pack. You miss a couple of tournament and your ranking crumbles.
The guy who beat Hewitt at Wimbledon didn't even get any Quality Points. So in the ATP, it doesn't matter whether you beat the world #1 or the #300, you get the same amount of points. That sucks.

In the WTA, it's not easy to reach the top. You have to play consistent tennis for 52 weeks. And when you get there, it's not easy to drop to a low ranking. You have to lose consistently for 52 weeks.

I hope now you understand that WTA ranking system doesn't allowed wild swing, therefore, produces few upsets.
The best are on top, the rest is at the bottom.
Thanks.

http://www.wtapredictiongame.com

danielrosario
Jul 1st, 2003, 11:57 AM
Why don't you look at the men's event too?

10 of the men in the Wimbledon round of 16 ARE ALL AMONG THE TOP 13 SEEDS.

Doesn't that seem similar?

Ruud
Jul 1st, 2003, 12:10 PM
WTA's ranking system keeps the best players on top. That's why there are few upsets.

Look at Pete Sampras. He hasn't played since the beginning of the year. He is now ranked in the 20s, 30s.
Compare that to Lindsay Davenport who, despite the fact that she missed 9 months of tennis last year, was still ranked in the top-10.

WTA has a very stable system. Just because you missed a tournament here and there or just because you lost early in 2 consecutive tournaments doesn't mean you no longer belong in the top-10.

ATP ranking is like a hot dog contest like someone said. whoever is the hotest dog at the moment leads the pack. You miss a couple of tournament and your ranking crumbles.
The guy who beat Hewitt at Wimbledon didn't even get any Quality Points. So in the ATP, it doesn't matter whether you beat the world #1 or the #300, you get the same amount of points. That sucks.

In the WTA, it's not easy to reach the top. You have to play consistent tennis for 52 weeks. And when you get there, it's not easy to drop to a low ranking. You have to lose consistently for 52 weeks.

I hope now you understand that WTA ranking system doesn't allowed wild swing, therefore, produces few upsets.
The best are on top, the rest is at the bottom.
Thanks.

http://www.wtapredictiongame.com


This is stupid....it is so obvious there are more upsets in the mens game than womens. Right now in women's tennis, there are only four women who can win a grand slam,,,,S and V williams, Kim, Henin. I bet all the money in the world that (unless all are injuried) only those four will win GS in the next 3 years.

THE ODDS at the start of WIMBLEDON FROM www.eurobet.com

WOMEN
1st seed Serena Willams = 6/4
2nd seed Kim = 2/1
5th seed DAVENPORT = 7/1 lol


MENS
1st seed Lleyton HEWITT = 4/1
2nd seed Andre AGASSI = 5/1
5th seed Andy Roddick = 5/1

danielrosario
Jul 1st, 2003, 12:14 PM
This is stupid....

:rolleyes:

I've just quoted actual statistics.

:rolleyes:

FromAce2Ace
Jul 1st, 2003, 12:48 PM
"This is stupid....it is so obvious there are more upsets in the mens game than womens."

You just displayed your ignorance.
Re-read my post. Did I say there were more upsets in the Women's game??? Read my last sentence.

"I hope now you understand that WTA ranking system doesn't allowed wild swing, therefore, produces few upsets. The best are on top, the rest is at the bottom."

Obviously you don't know how to make a point. LOL. Go back to school.

Yak
Jul 1st, 2003, 12:53 PM
If you don't like it, don't watch it!

The Guilty
Jul 1st, 2003, 12:57 PM
If you don't like it, don't watch it!

Ditto :worship:

azza
Jul 1st, 2003, 01:56 PM
Nt in history :o molik 54 beat hantchukova 10 molik 54 beat Likohsteva seeded 31st :o VAMOS MOLIK

korben
Jul 1st, 2003, 02:24 PM
also S. Farina Elia being seeded 27, perhaps the biggest upset in WTA history by defeating Rubin (7).

:lol:

Vicky88
Jul 1st, 2003, 05:04 PM
I am a fan of women's tennis but have to agree with this statement. It is always the usual suspects there at week 2 of the slams, with one roughie thrown in.

As for there being any depth in the game, I don't really think so. In the ATP a player ranked 100 will regularly beat one of the top 20, not because the top player is having an off day, but because they have the ability. In WTA a player ranked 100 will be lucky to get a few games of a top 20 player.

I follow the results but don't bother watching women's tennis much anymore. Much prefer to watch the men's matches where anything can happen.

geewhiz
Jul 1st, 2003, 05:17 PM
All sports go through times when they seem relatively stable and predictable. It just so happens that at the moment the women's game is going through such a time whilst the men's game is going through more of a transitionary period with the old-guard still going and new people coming through. It hasn't always been like that and it won't always be like that in the future.

As for whether it's boring, well I suppose it depends where you want to look. I don't imagine that Justine H-H's fans, or Serena's fans, felt Justine winning the French Open was uninteresting. The crowd, whatever you might think of them, certainly didn't. And looking beyond the top 4 there have been lots of unexpected and interesting runs at Wimbledon: Pierce, Farina Elia, Suarez, Kapros, Sharapova, etc. Before that we've had Petrova's come back, Dementieva's first title, Sugiyama's double, etc, etc. They may not have a big impact on the rankings because of the way the rankings work, but they are still intersting and unpredictable events.

sportpunter
Jul 2nd, 2003, 12:21 AM
I think there are a few logical reasons why WTA is so one sided compared to ATP.
Firstly there is probably more men playing tennis worldwide than females. I'm not just talking about western countries but everywhere. This means that there are more men to choose from and there is less likely to be amazing standouts like the williams and belgiums.

Secondly I don't have a clue why WTA have most of their tournaments with bye's in the first round, this only makes the difference that much bigger between the best and the rest. One can only fathom that it is because the top players won't play in the tournaments if they don't have a bye first up, who's running the show?

Have you seen the results to get into the semis? Wow Serena, Venus, Kim and Justine. who would have picked that!

sportpunter
Jul 2nd, 2003, 12:23 AM
And if it wasn't for Anna Kournikova, half the world wouldn't really care about WTA tennis. I know that this will put a lot of sour grapes into you guys but you guys are avid tennis followers anyway.

A.K. put WTA tennis back on the map for those who are not huge tennis followers and starting showing the world that yes, womens tennis players can earn lots of money, comparable even to the men.

Smart
Jul 2nd, 2003, 11:49 AM
If U think that women's tennis is boring, U R not forced to watch it!

Experimentee
Jul 2nd, 2003, 11:55 AM
I think its because right now the top men are so weak they cant play well throughout the whole tournament. Most of the time when top mens seeds lose its more bc they dont play well rather than the other player playing well. For example when Federer lost first round of RG it was a pathetic performance from him. The top women generally arent that mentally weak to lose so easily like that.
Also like someone said a lot of top seeds get far in the mens too, 12 out of the top 16 seeds made the round of 16, and a similar number for the women.
Mens matches are closer bc a lot of them are simply serving contests. Men have such big serves they stand almost no chance of getting broken so the matches are always close. Women on the other hand dont rely on their serves so much and have entertaining rallies and more breaks. As for the top shots or whatever you call them, the people who compile those are male, most of whom dont give a shit about womens tennis or promoting it. I have seen a lot of womens tennis matches in the last couple of weeks and seen plenty of shots worthy of the top shots but they seem to be ignored over the mens.

Benny
Jul 2nd, 2003, 12:29 PM
Here's a solution:

www.atptennis.com

Have fun.

shap_half
Jul 2nd, 2003, 06:22 PM
I don't think it's boring at all. I mean the top 4 seeds make it to the semifinals because they are better than the rest. I mean tennis is such a physical game as well as psychological that for the most part the ones at the top are those who really believe they can always win and they have the tools to back it up. and so what if the top 4 seeds win every gs till 2010!?!? who wants to challenge them? if someone does then let them do it! no one is preventing other tennis players to reach the high level of play presented by those at the top. it was a long hard road to get to be the top 4 players in the wolrd, don't try to insult them by saying that the game they play are boring because they're always where they are.

polishprodigy
Jul 2nd, 2003, 06:59 PM
I wouldn't say that women's tennis is predictable, but it certainly does lack the depth that men's tennis has. However, women's tennis for the most part is more exciting. I hate seeing aces all the time but then again I don't like the "gutsy" Rossan De los rios hit some shitty balls and lose 6-0 6-0 to kim clijsters in r1. So too much depth can be a bad thing, but I think that if women play best of 5 then they can get equal prize money. They are not doin the same amount of work, so therefore u cannot say they deserve equal pay. i will always like women's tennis more than men's tennis for the fact that it is more exciting and that even the challenger players have their own unique personalities but that reason is not enough in my opinion to justify equal pay.

Shooter
Jul 3rd, 2003, 03:28 AM
GeeWiz is right on the money with his/her remarks.

Rtael
Jul 3rd, 2003, 10:03 AM
Men lack consistency....that's why there are lots of upsets.

Troof!

BigTennisFan
Jul 12th, 2003, 03:54 AM
I wouldn't say that women's tennis is predictable, but it certainly does lack the depth that men's tennis has. However, women's tennis for the most part is more exciting. I hate seeing aces all the time but then again I don't like the "gutsy" Rossan De los rios hit some shitty balls and lose 6-0 6-0 to kim clijsters in r1. So too much depth can be a bad thing, but I think that if women play best of 5 then they can get equal prize money. They are not doin the same amount of work, so therefore u cannot say they deserve equal pay. i will always like women's tennis more than men's tennis for the fact that it is more exciting and that even the challenger players have their own unique personalities but that reason is not enough in my opinion to justify equal pay.

Why on earth do you think that work has to do with the potential of five sets? Was it Agassi who won 18 games in a row at the AO? Talk about some hard work. :fiery:

Hendouble
Jul 12th, 2003, 01:31 PM
I suppose men's and women's tennis are good for different things. If you're fans of the top women, of course you enjoy seeing them regularly compete for the big titles and being in the latter rounds of Slams. The only problem I have with it is that a lot of these "exciting rivalries" aren't really rivalries at all, because outside clay the Williams sisters are always going to win comfortably against the Belgians, Mauresmo, Hantuchova, etc.

I have to dispute Experimentee's suggestion that top male players only lose because they play badly - true, they play a part just like anyone does in their own defeat, but the way their opponent plays has a far greater bearing on the outcome of the match than it does on the WTA Tour. And I don't think they're just serving contests, certainly not on surfaces outside grass...

For me, the importance of the serve in the men's game is more interesting because it makes matches tighter and leads to exciting points during the pressure moments of every set when players have to hold serve, whereas in the average women's match the constant breaks and re-breaks and shifts in momentum make it difficult for me to follow or support one player over the other.

So, women's tennis. Predictable? Yes. Boring? No, the quality amongst the top players will always be good, but it's just a pity that no-one outside the Top 10 or 15 has a legitimate shot at winning any major titles.

azza
Jul 12th, 2003, 10:39 PM
yes

player2
Jul 12th, 2003, 10:57 PM
Womens tennis is boring and predictable. How on earth they get even close to the amount that men get paid beats me.[/QUOTE]

There is no question that the WTA does not have the
depth that the ATP has. And, you're absolutely correct
about a small number of women dominating every
tournament.

Re pay: The fact is that the women draw higher ratings
than the men!! Skill level and depth are not the issue.
High ratings=$

Fans of women players: Take a look at this forum.
People, most very young women, get so involved
that it is kind of scary. You are not going to find
men fans posting this type of stuff:
I love you Andy! Go King Mark! I talked (sigh) to
James. I have pictures of Lleyton.
Of course, these folks are not your average fans but
there still are a fair number of them. So, we are
certainly in a more than just tennis zone.

polishprodigy
Jul 13th, 2003, 02:19 AM
Why on earth do you think that work has to do with the potential of five sets? Was it Agassi who won 18 games in a row at the AO? Talk about some hard work. :fiery:

I'm sure I could come up with MANY 6-0 6-0 wins for seeded players in grand slam womens tennis, I know it was a surprise to see so little at wimbledon :rolleyes: (i can think of pierce over cargill, clijsters over de los rios)