Wta weak era?

Hello, posters. This is my first article on this 606 off-shoot though I've read through posts on the forum for several months (years if BBC606 is added to the mix).

I've also followed long enough to know weak era debates are touchy topics on here. I understand the subjective nature of the points put forward by weak era proponents particularly concerning the timing but I've always disagreed with the submission that there's no such thing as a weak era.

To avoid any Fedal dispute, I'll avoid the topic as concerns the men's tour and focus on the patently evident case of the decline in the WTA tour. Scrolling through the pages of this forum for starters shows an apparrent disinterest in the women's game with the front page having just ONE Wta related article- with 2 comments nevertheless.

It's the same with most forums but it wasn't always so. Women have in the recent past enjoyed equal, if not greater, celebrity than their male counterparts particularly in the early to mid-noughties with the presence of the likes of Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, the William sisters, Justine, Kim and the subsequent threat of the Russians.

What is blatantly obvious is the palpable lack of star power and character in the women's game currently. Even the variety, poise and technical qualities the likes of Henin and Mauresmo provided is also gone.

Watching Clijsters and Henin waltz out of retirement to immediately challenge for Slams, not to mention Serena's contemptuous dismissal of the current 'best' even after all her problems and questionable commitment to the tour is a sad indictment of the women's game. No sadder though than looking through the rankings to discover Caroline 'no weapons' Wozniacki holds an over 3000 points lead on the 2nd ranked woman.

Is there any credible argument to seriously claim this isn't a weak era in the women's game? y Fedal dispute, I'll avoid the topic as concerns the men's tour and focus on the patently evident case of the decline in the WTA tour. Scrolling through the pages of this forum for starters shows an apparrent disinterest in the women's game with the front page having just ONE Wta related article- with 2 comments nevertheless.

It's the same with most forums but it wasn't always so. Women have in the recent past enjoyed equal, if not greater, celebrity than their male counterparts particularly in the early to mid-noughties with the presence of the likes of Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, the William sisters, Justine, Kim and the subsequent threat of the Russians.

What is blatantly obvious is the palpable lack of star power and character in the women's game currently. Even the variety, poise and technical qualities the likes of Henin and Mauresmo provided is also gone.

Watching Clijsters and Henin waltz out of retirement to immediately challenge for Slams, not to mention Serena's contemptuous dismissal of the current 'best' even after all her problems and questionable commitment to the tour is a sad indictment of the women's game. No sadder though than looking through the rankings to discover Caroline 'no weapons' Wozniacki holds an over 3000 points lead on the 2nd ranked woman.

Is there any credible argument to seriously claim this isn't a weak era in the women's game?

What do you mean by weak? weak in mental strength? skills? If you are talking about athletic and physical tennis....it's never been as strong actually.

But yes, like in the mens nowadays, tennis is getting a bit one dimensional. All about muscles and lungs.

It's not something to criticise them for, but I think that the Williams sisters took the athletic bar too high for most of the other women so that we see cohorts of muscular athletic players playing similar games, burning themsleves out too quickly, and far too many of them screeching whilst they do it. I also think that the WTA are hopeless at standing up to stars - the pick-and-mix approach to the tour enjoyed by some of the bigger players has downplayed the importance of far too many of the tournaments and has lead to a series of No. 1's who aren't the best players which affects credibility of the overall structure.

Like mthierry I enjoyed watching the likes of Hingis, Henin, and Mauresmo - Kuznetsova was a joy to watch when keeping her upper lip stiff - and I used to enjoy watching Myskina too. Sharapova is probably the biggest star now - I admire her determination and she's got nice long legs - but her game is ugly and noisy and I'd never pay to watch her. I like the Clijsters story, but the fact that she can collect slams now (on a pick-and-mix schedule) and couldn't in her prime gives one a very uneasy feeling.

I think that the WTA is in deep trouble - they've got somehow to find a way of promoting artistry back into the game and reducing the importance of physicality. They are an early warning of where the ATP might go in a few years if subtle changes aren't made - the best time to fix the roof is in the sunshine..

I don't know about weak, but boring as Hell.

Like the mens game will become.

I very rarely watch the women's game anymore - just a few matches here and there and most of the slam finals. At one time I actually watched more women's tennis than the men's game and was a huge fan of Evert when I was little, I loved Graf, Sanchez Vicario, Sabbatini, Goolagong, Novotna, Hingis Henin and Mauresmo, and so many more. It has been good to see players like Li Na with true on court personality win this year, and great to see a player like Kvitova win Wimbledon (silently!!!). I actually adore watching Schiavone (even though she makes a racket - excuse pun ) because of her verve and passion on the court. The Williams sisters have been superb, but even though I have enjoyed many of Venus's matches, Serena leaves me cold because she is physically in such a different realm to the other girls that it is not an attractive contest - I know she is a great athlete but I just can't enjoy watching her game - and I absolutely detest her shrieking and growling, it's aggressive in a very unpleasant way. It is the intimidating way she employs tactics like that which ruin her game for me.

I think the men's game will go the same way too bb, though I think Djokovic, while not Federer, is still by far the most appealing player of the others in the top four by a country mile.

I somehow think Serena would have won in any era. Its not only her physicality, if you choose to overlook that (and her shrieking, ofcourse), I think that she has got a good serve and a nice all round game. She will never look as good as Henin though (oh that awesome backhand!).

If you really look at it, all women's games is basically same - if you have watched one, you have watched it all. Surfaces make no differemce, service is a starting point to kick-start a rank borefest. Standing on the baseline and hitting weak, loopy forehands and backhands with double faults thrown in between......

I diagree with Tenez, BB etc that men's game will also become like that, I think that it is already like that with few oldies (Fed, Llodra, Stepanek, Ljubo, Nalby) trying to figure out what's gone wrong. I will never understand what people will like in 'THE' Spainard's game but yeah, that's only me...

No it's not only you Fedex Of course there are many points that I have watched Rafa play that I have enjoyed, but I could say the same for many other players on the tour - for vast tracts of matches I find his basic game really boring, but then I hate slugging and grunting.

I've always thought Nadal's game is a lot more compelling viewing than he's given credit for. That said, while the style of play in the men's game tends to uniformity, I don't believe it detracts from the quality on display. The women's game is devoid of quality atm at it's top end: mental frailty from several of the East European contingent, hilarious serving from the likes of Sharapova, lack of weapons in top players like Wozniacki, Jankovic and Zvonareva, burn-out from several past champions in prime years (Hingis, Capriati, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters) and the fair-weather dedication of the William sisters.

There's no way the Atp is anywhere near that boat.

The women's game lacks serious credibility for a number of reasons:
1. Henin has retired and the returning Kim C has been injured
2. The Williams sisters don't play enough
3. The level of shrieking is interolerable and SHOULD BE STOPPED as being deemed unsporting.
4. the scoring is such that a slamless woman is comfortably ahead at number one - don't blame her, blame the system.
5. The women seem incapable of playing any other game than whack it as hard as possible from the back of the court. Witness Date-K's brilliant Wimbledon match which contained some of the best women's tennis I've seen in years, simply cos she showed finesse and came in a lot.

sirfredperry wrote:The women's game lacks serious credibility for a number of reasons:
1. Henin has retired and the returning Kim C has been injured
2. The Williams sisters don't play enough
3. The level of shrieking is interolerable and SHOULD BE STOPPED as being deemed unsporting.
4. the scoring is such that a slamless woman is comfortably ahead at number one - don't blame her, blame the system.
5. The women seem incapable of playing any other game than whack it as hard as possible from the back of the court. Witness Date-K's brilliant Wimbledon match which contained some of the best women's tennis I've seen in years, simply cos she showed finesse and came in a lot.

I agree with pretty much all of this. The shrieking is intolerable sir fred, and so is the grunting in the men's game. Sometimes an involuntary noise will escape if a player really has to reach or stretch, but the rythmical grunting and shrieking of so many seems to be an aid to time their strokes as much as to disguise the work they are putting on the ball. It should be stopped and Shriekapova should be gagged before setting foot onto the court ever again.

Men's game is getting there:

Serve is starting to become irrelevant in men's game also. And in any case, in my viewing days (1990 onwards), I certainly think it is the most irrelevant today among top rankers than it ever has been. Barring Fed, Berdych and Soderling in top 10, noone seems to use their serve as a weapon and Berdych and Soderling are about to fall off from top 10 so their will only be one player in top 10 with lethal serve!

Shrieking - well, in my viewing days, this is the worst among top players. Measure Rafa and Djoker shrieks, they will not be that off from ladies' grunts

No weapons - well, if you consider defense as a weapon then one certain Spainard has that in plenty. I fail to understand how many consider his forehand among the best when against the No 50 player in the world, the guy on the other side will always have a higher number of winners from the forehand side.

For me, it is almost there but it still makes for better viewing because ball is hit with more pace and has in display better defense almost always.

I think on-court coaching is devaluing WTA as well; but probably the most annoying fact is the "equal" pay, what a joke....

noleisthebest wrote:I think on-court coaching is devaluing WTA as well; but probably the most annoying fact is the "equal" pay, what a joke....

Yea I agree 100%. I cannot see the justification in the women getting equal pay for best of three sets at the grand slams as oppose to best of five sets for the men. To me , the pay should be directly proportional to the amount of sets played.

Interesting debate.

Seems the women's game really needs Serena to keep going a couple of years longer and maybe some cameos from Venus.

Clijsters surely will retire for good soon; Sharapova may be no. 2 in the world but slam winner againa? very doubtful; Wozniacki really needs to develop some weapons otherwise she'll be another in a growing list of slamless no. 1s.

For what it's worth Schiavone, Li and Stosur all deserve their slam wins but will they win anymore? Schiavone I doubt; Li not unless she rediscovers the kind of form that got her into two consecutive finals; Stosur? She was a revelation and if can play with that intensity again next year must have a chance of a slam or maybe two more.

Finally Kvitova. Has to be (I hope anyway) the future of women's tennis. Very powerful and (unlike certain others) not painful to hear play either. A couple of finals for her against the likes of Serena or Stosur wouldn't be a bad idea.

The pay should only be proportional to the marketability of their matches and personalities, not the number of sets. If people are more interested in watching a 3 setter between ladies than a 5 setter v the men, so be it (though thus far, that's not the case). Outside slams I believe the prizes are lower which is about right. Where ITF is a bit naughty maybe is that they force some organisers to plan a week for the ladies if they want to retain their place in the ATP calendar.

This I am sure affects the prize money of the mens tour.

I do not see many people wanting to watch them play, whether it be 3 setters or 5, so how could their game be very marketable. Where personality is concerned, I do not see anyone of them having great ones. The women players are more into stupid "modeling" than focusing on playing the game. They and their tennis are boring.

Bring back the likes of Navratilova, Seles, Graf, Henin, Sanchez-Vicario, keep the Williams sisters and then the women's game would become a bit more interesting.

sportykeppy-1 wrote:Bring back the likes of Navratilova, Seles, Graf, Henin, Sanchez-Vicario, keep the Williams sisters and then the women's game would become a bit more interesting.

Krajicek did not have much nicer words for those.

The pay should only be proportional to the marketability of their matches and personalities, not the number of sets. If people are more interested in watching a 3 setter between ladies than a 5 setter v the men, so be it

A 3 set classic between Serena and Henin would still be much lower quality than a 5 set mugfest between Almugro and Chela. Women being paid the same as men for a generally far shorter length of play is unacceptable, imo.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

The pay should only be proportional to the marketability of their matches and personalities, not the number of sets. If people are more interested in watching a 3 setter between ladies than a 5 setter v the men, so be it

A 3 set classic between Serena and Henin would still be much lower quality than a 5 set mugfest between Almugro and Chela. Women being paid the same as men for a generally far shorter length of play is unacceptable, imo.

Length of play is irrelevant. Golfers are paid much more than tennis players despite Golf being far less competitive and not as physically intense. But Golf addresses a very lucrative market with big sponsors that's why they earn more.

If Serena can sell washing machines to a female audience then so be it.

My point is not to justify why they should be paid as much. I don;t think they should. In fact they are not bar at the slams but that's because the slams have got an ethical image they need to maintain to attrack the right sponsors. They might lose out on some big sposors if they discriminate against women. It's business ruling there as ever and the equal pay is simply a business driven decision again.

Well equal pay should equal the amount of time on court! Let both men and women play 5 setters or three setters in slams. It is not fair for the men.

I can see your point Tenez, maybe I shouldn't have brought up the length of play. Rather the structure that women can't play more than 3 sets (most matches are over after the 2nd) whereas men HAVE to play at least 3. If women want to be equal with men they should be doing the same i.e bo5 in slams. Not a feminist, just feel strongly in this case that they get the same.

The problem with women's tennis is simple:

Sharapova (for example) earns bucket loads more as a clothes horse than as a tennis player.

Wozniacki gets some very nice endorsements thank you very much for being no.1 despite never winning a single slam so far.

If they actually earned all their money for meaningful performances (or at least the bulk of it) then that would be a start. Problem is that half the time it's as if there's a bunch of tennis totty playing for our enjoyment.

Give me a match up between two worthwhile players to watch any day of the week .

Schivione and Davenport are the closest to the men's not-fooling-around type of play.

I couldn't help myself copying&pasting this comment from a blog on Tennis.com:

Women in 5 setters?

That's a tough one. Does anyone really want to listen to 5 sets
of "Uhhh Hee?" On the other hand 5 sets of Hantuchova with her stiff
but endearing mannerisms sweating bullets could be fun. As a man
I'd be lying if I said that watching 2 babes clobber each other for
4 hours didn't have a certain twisted allure. Imagine Serena at
the USO losing a 5th set badly. There's no telling what she'll say
and to whom.

Is there enough Midol in the world to get Jankovic through 5 sets
when she's having her period? I ask this out of concern for Kat
Stacks. Could Sharapova make it through 5 without losing her voice
to say nothing of her serve? We've seen Kvitova and Li Na play some
of the worst tennis imaginable recently. Imagine those 2 stinking
up the joint for 5 sets.

Ultimately though I'm sure all men will agree with me when I say
that women work best in small doses and that the ideal would be
to just have them play a single set in the nude.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I can see your point Tenez, maybe I shouldn't have brought up the length of play. Rather the structure that women can't play more than 3 sets (most matches are over after the 2nd) whereas men HAVE to play at least 3. If women want to be equal with men they should be doing the same i.e bo5 in slams. Not a feminist, just feel strongly in this case that they get the same.

Frankly sometimes I think we should pay them not to play! The state of the WTA is such that I hardly watch it.

"Ultimately though I'm sure all men will agree with me when I say
that women work best in small doses and that the ideal would be
to just have them play a single set in the nude."

Now you're talking. Twould pack the place out. More seriously, I see that Caroline W has lost in a big tourney again today. Seems only to win the little ones when everyone else is resting.