WTA game without Serena even worse than before

I've been watching some women's tennis this year, in Slams as well as some smaller tournaments (BT Sports showing lots of those on WTA side).

Must say, with the exception of Serena, it's been really really poor stuff this year. This has been the case for the last few years, but for me it's even more accentuated this year.

RANKINGS ANALYSIS:
1/ Serena= 3 slams and could win at will even when below par
2/ Halep= my favourite player on WTA tour, but her results in big tournaments have not been great- only 1 Slam semi and that was a 2 set thrashing defeat
3/ Sharapova= She's been ok this year, hampered by injury, but never been at her best. Can't touch Serena in any match
4/ Kvitova= Hasn't reached a slam semi
5/ Safarova= Basically done nothing all year, no titles, but reached final of French Open somehow
6/ Wozniacki= lol
7/ Pennetta= Won the US Open, no indicator before that it was even possible
8/ Muguruza= Did you know that she spent more time on court in Wimbledon before her final than Roger Federer before his final ? BO3>>>more pay>>>BO5.
9/ Kerber= Hasn't even managed to get past R3 in a Slam all year
10/ Suarez Navarro= How is she top 10, 3 round 1 exits in Slams and 1 R3 exit

Yeah the 'chasing pack' seems even more disappointing in the women's than the men's. Why are the likes of Kvitova, Kerber, Stephens unable to consistently challenge or even challenge at all. Particulary Kvitova, who I really thought after wimb 2011 would be the next big thing. She just ball bashes and if it doesn't work out, there's no change up. Story of the women's tour really. Lisicki another good player but seems to be brainless in her strategy. Why do so few of the women employ the slice regularly. It worked for vinci against serena.

Bit of a random collection of thoughts I know.

Unofficial rule of our blatantly sexist forum is that you can't discuss WTA unless to trash it or focus on sexual attractiveness of players. I'd say your article is sufficiently negative to be acceptable, so please continue.

In terms of points Djokovic and the Men's game are in the same position. Any comments?

Henman Bill wrote:Unofficial rule of our blatantly sexist forum is that you can't discuss WTA unless to trash it or focus on sexual attractiveness of players. I'd say your article is sufficiently negative to be acceptable, so please continue.

If I was the OP, I'd be pretty peed that I've taken time to write an article and you come out with that crap. Firstly, the article is negative but it is also accurate. To your more general point,in the 80's and 90's women's tennis was good to watch. Now thanks to technology it's quite boring, mostly the only reason to watch is if they have sex appeal.

I just say things as I see it; comparisons with the men's game are fine or if people want they can start another thread on that. If people get offended, that's ok.

GG- I do find Halep entertaining to watch when she's playing well, she can play attacking tennis without ball bashing; but even though I like her I do acknowledge this year she hasn't progressed as I'd hoped and she doesn't seem to perform in the most important tournaments.

It Must Be Love wrote:I just say things as I see it; comparisons with the men's game are fine or if people want they can start another thread on that. If people get offended, that's ok.

GG- I do find Halep entertaining to watch when she's playing well, she can play attacking tennis without ball bashing; but even though I like her I do acknowledge this year she hasn't progressed as I'd hoped and she doesn't seem to perform in the most important tournaments.

Yeah I very much enjoyed her French open final against Sharapova a couple of years ago. I think she's been unlucky a few times. Also at the us open she hinted she was on her period when she lost.

So many disappointments in the women's game. Where are the fighters ? On court coaching can't help.

greengoblin wrote: ... Now thanks to technology it's quite boring, mostly the only reason to watch is if they have sex appeal.

1) You're lucky to find it boring.  I can hardly get to the boring stage without having to run away because of the loudness and nuisance of the various high pitch to lower pitch screeching and grunting.  That is the main reason why I rarely watch women's tennis nowadays apart from snippets.

2) With regard sex appeal should there be a seeding based on sex appeal - so that those of them with sex appeal go further into the meat of the tournament.  Perhaps there should be a handicap system like they have in the horse-racing but based on sex appeal: those with less sex appeal should be forced to carry weights around their waist's or given smaller head (tennis racquet)?

greengoblin wrote:

Yeah I very much enjoyed her French open final against Sharapova a couple of years ago. I think she's been unlucky a few times. Also at the us open she hinted she was on her period when she lost.

Ah, that would make sense, I was so disappointed especially after her fantastic display against Azarenka.
It's a bit of a taboo subject, BBC did a good piece on it after Heather Watson spoke out early this year.

greengoblin wrote:
So many disappointments in the women's game. Where are the fighters ? On court coaching can't help.

I really think on court coaching hinders the game, certainly the gladiatorial atmosphere.

Nore Staat wrote:
1) You're lucky to find it boring.  I can hardly get to the boring stage without having to run away because of the loudness and nuisance of the various high pitch to lower pitch screeching and grunting.  That is the main reason why I rarely watch women's tennis nowadays apart from snippets.

2) With regard sex appeal should there be a seeding based on sex appeal - so that those of them with sex appeal go further into the meat of the tournament.  Perhaps there should be a handicap system like they have in the horse-racing but based on sex appeal: those with less sex appeal should be forced to carry weights around their waist's or given smaller head (tennis racquet)?

Grunting can get annoying if excessive, but generally ok in my opinion. Hope your second point is a sarcastic joke.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:
1) You're lucky to find it boring.  I can hardly get to the boring stage without having to run away because of the loudness and nuisance of the various high pitch to lower pitch screeching and grunting.  That is the main reason why I rarely watch women's tennis nowadays apart from snippets.

2) With regard sex appeal should there be a seeding based on sex appeal - so that those of them with sex appeal go further into the meat of the tournament.  Perhaps there should be a handicap system like they have in the horse-racing but based on sex appeal: those with less sex appeal should be forced to carry weights around their waist's or given smaller head (tennis racquet)?

Grunting can get annoying if excessive, but generally ok in my opinion. Hope your second point is a sarcastic joke.

1) It irritates me - breaks my concentration - as bad as dripping water as in Chinese water torture.  That's just me. Others may be able to block it out or don't find it a nuisance - unfortunately I have to wear ear plugs or turn the sound off.  I also don't like the background funk and pop music the BBC now add to every videoed sports interview or sporting highlight on their sports website.

2) Well I picked up Greengoblin's idea and ran with it to see where it could take us.

Nore Staat wrote:
2) Well I picked up Greengoblin's idea and ran with it to see where it could take us.

Hey, I never said anything about prejudicing tournaments in favour of those nature has smiled upon. I just said it's probably the only reason a man would watch it.

greengoblin wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:
2) Well I picked up Greengoblin's idea and ran with it to see where it could take us.

Hey, I never said anything about prejudicing tournaments in favour of those nature has smiled upon. I just said it's probably the only reason a man would watch it.

Exactly. I picked up on your idea that "probably the only reason a man would watch it" from:

greengoblin wrote: ... Now thanks to technology it's quite boring, mostly the only reason to watch is if they have sex appeal.

So I picked up on your idea and ran with it in the commercial sense.  Now I am saddened.  I thought you would approve.  I was certain it would be a money spinner.  Now what will happen to women's tennis?

Nore Staat wrote:

So I picked up on your idea and ran with it in the commercial sense.  Now I am saddened.  I thought you would approve.  I was certain it would be a money spinner.  Now what will happen to women's tennis?

haha that's alright, I just didn't want to get saddled with the 'sexist' tag. Your idea is interesting but wouldn't it just be simpler for them to wear lower cut tops, to prevent overheating of course?

With regards to the grunting. It depends maybe on your state of mind when you're watching. If you're of the type that likes to sit down and relax when you watch then absolutely the level of grunting is an instant killer. If you see it a bit like boxing, watching it on edge then it sort of comes with the territory.  

The wta have done a decent job not to sex up their players. They do a lot of glam shoots but they're quite tasteful. It's s bit harsh but women's tennis could do with sere a retiring and letting new blood develop some strength in depth and new styles

I am waiting for shivfan to tell us how amazingly better the female game is compared with their male counterparts.

I actually have no problem with the article, not in isolation. Likewise, I've got no problem with other people criticising the women's game. Likewise, I've got no problem with a post that focus on a person's physical attractiveness and says nothing about their tennis. Individually, all these things are fine and no-one is really individually at fault. But collectively, I just feel the forum is sexist because we don't discuss women's tennis much unless it's to talk about it negatively or talk about sexual attractiveness of the players. I'll try to remember not to go on about it too often if I'm a lone voice.

I actually don't like women's tennis much myself at the moment so maybe I'm contributing to the above. Preferred the Graf/Sanchez Vicario and Hingis periods myself. I don't like the shrieking of many players, such as Azarenka and Sharapova, I think it's gamesmanship (whether deliberate or not) and I turn the TV off when Azarenka is playing which seems to be almost constantly. And don't get me started on Serena Williams.

At least with the women's game it is a bit more open and unpredictable.

Kerber and Lisicki are enough reason to watch WTA) was that sufficiently stereotypical?)

To be honest, I've barely watched tennis, either gender the whole year. Been a huge cricket and rugby year, which has coincided with Djokovic going scorched earth on the tour - conditions could hardly be more ideal for me not to bother watching. Thought Serena was basically the biggest story in individual sports (after Mayweather-Pacquiao. And Jordan Spieth. And the humorously over the top good vs evil 100m race between Bolt and the other guy). It's been a poor year for the chasing pack, you'd say. Contrast the matches which denied Nole and Serena calender slams, and you maybe have an idea of the current chasm in entertainment.

Henman Bill wrote:I actually have no problem with the article, not in isolation. Likewise, I've got no problem with other people criticising the women's game. Likewise, I've got no problem with a post that focus on a person's physical attractiveness and says nothing about their tennis. Individually, all these things are fine and no-one is really individually at fault. But collectively, I just feel the forum is sexist because we don't discuss women's tennis much unless it's to talk about it negatively or talk about sexual attractiveness of the players. I'll try to remember not to go on about it too often if I'm a lone voice.

I actually don't like women's tennis much myself at the moment so maybe I'm contributing to the above. Preferred the Graf/Sanchez Vicario and Hingis periods myself. I don't like the shrieking of many players, such as Azarenka and Sharapova, I think it's gamesmanship (whether deliberate or not) and I turn the TV off when Azarenka is playing which seems to be almost constantly. And don't get me started on Serena Williams.

At least with the women's game it is a bit more open and unpredictable.

Is it better to talk about it, albeit negatively, or not talk about it at all?

I do enjoy some women's matches and players. It would benefit greatly from more players proficient at the net and definitely 5 sets in the final of grand slam. Too many are over before in the blink of an eye. But at the end of the day it's suffering from the same issues the men's game is facing (and which I have been over several times so won't now).
The men's game is ahead only just imo. Since Federer declined the gap narrowed. Now Nadal is seemingly gone, the gap narrowed even further. Wawrinka saved it briefly but he's no spring chicken. If there is another dismal Murray - Djokovic A0 final, will there any hope left that it is better than the women's final. They've had 3 chances to produce even a half decent final - haven't managed it yet.

I don't think our view of the WTA is sexist. It's just that the women's game really isn't in a good state at the moment.

In fairness, nor is the men's game and there has been no shortage of criticism of it on this forum.

The attention we currently give the ATP is probably much more to do with our already established interest in particular players than the actual spectacle we've seen this year.

Not sexism, I'm just saying it as it is; and I think most people whether fans of WTA or not will agree with my analysis in the OP.

Johanna Konta is continuing where she left off at the US Open.  She has just beaten another top twenty player in straight sets in the first round of the Wuhan Open after coming through two qualifying rounds.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34373088

Ps my view is that Laura Robson will never make it back to the top 100.

I agree with your view on Laura, and feel sad to say so. But hope I'm wrong.

Think I saw a piece somewhere recently which questioned whether she herself still has the motivation/belief that she will be able to compete consistently at the top level.

So much promise as a junior. Chronic injury can be cruel to athletes. Whilst some (whether by good fortune, hard work, or a mix of both) pull through, many others never do.

Heather Watson's progress seems to have stalled too.

lags72 wrote:I agree with your view on Laura, and feel sad to say so. But hope I'm wrong.

Think I saw a piece somewhere recently which questioned whether she herself still has the motivation/belief that she will be able to compete consistently at the top level.

So much promise as a junior.  Chronic injury can be cruel to athletes. Whilst some (whether by good fortune, hard work, or a mix of both) pull through, many others never do. ...

At least one previous coach of hers complained she didn't put sufficient effort into her training. Some commentators have complained about her fitness and movement on the court as limiting her game. This was when she had no injuries. Between Wimbledon and US Open she played four matches and lost 3 of them. She hasn't played since the US Open. Time is moving on and I think it is the motivation / belief that is lacking: she needs to be playing ITF tournaments.

Johanna Konta has beaten Victoria Azarenka in the second round of the Wuhan Open, Konta was leading 6-4 1-0 when Azarenka decided to pull out. Konta was already going to take over from Heather Watson as Britains number one following her first round success against Andrea Petkovic. She is likely to play Simona Halep in the last 16.

kingraf wrote:Kerber and Lisicki are enough reason to watch WTA) was that sufficiently stereotypical?)

I'm very critical of this post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I thought it was lazy and lacked constructive ideas to improve the womens game, such as compulsory dress code including the outlawing of wearing plain lycra shorts instead of classy undies, etc.

Nore Staat wrote:Johanna Konta has beaten Victoria Azarenka in the second round of the Wuhan Open,  Konta was leading 6-4 1-0 when Azarenka decided to pull out.  Konta was already going to take over from Heather Watson as Britains number one following her first round success against Andrea Petkovic.  She is likely to play Simona Halep in the last 16.

and Konta does it! Remarkable turnaround in the last set, Konta taking the last six games from 5-1 down to take it 7-5. Great performance, another very good scalp to continue her quite brilliant run of recent form.

Venus Williams up next.

Johanna Konta beats the world no 2 in three gruelling sets.  I think Konta has arrived on the world stage.  Heather Watson is knocking on the door but has yet to produce anything as remotely as consistent as Konta is doing from around mid way of this year.  

The quarter-finals will be her 6th match of the tournament: two qualifiers and three rounds proper.  Having beaten World No 17 in the 1st round, former world no 1 in the second round (Azarenka.  Konta was leading 6-4 1-0 when Azarenka pulled out).  Now she has beaten the Current World No 2 and will meet former World No 1 Venus Williams in the quarter-finals.

Hope so NS. She's always had the game, but never quite the consistency (perhaps more of a mental issue? I know her improvement recently coincides with hiring a mental skills coach), so here's hoping this is her arrival on the big stage.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Hope so NS. She's always had the game, but never quite the consistency (perhaps more of a mental issue? I know her improvement recently coincides with hiring a mental skills coach), so here's hoping this is her arrival on the big stage.

And hopefully it will also spur on Laura Robson to put in the hard work to get back into the top 200, 100, 50.  But maybe Konta is the "real deal".  A regular top twenty British women player.

yes but what Robson needs more than anything else is time. She's been out for so long, it will take quite a while for her to get back to anything close to her best IMO, if she ever does (wrist problems can end careers, as we've unfortunately seen with Del Potro, though when I watched Robson post injury her game looked OK, thankfully).

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yes but what Robson needs more than anything else is time. She's been out for so long, it will take quite a while for her to get back to anything close to her best IMO, if she ever does (wrist problems can end careers, as we've unfortunately seen with Del Potro, though when I watched Robson post injury her game looked OK, thankfully).

That's fair enough. Laura is still only 21. As long as she remains in the game and builds herself up on the ITF circuit then hopefully she will make her way back. In the meantime hopefully Konta's progress can keep us (me) interested in the women's game.

Nore Staat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Hope so NS. She's always had the game, but never quite the consistency (perhaps more of a mental issue? I know her improvement recently coincides with hiring a mental skills coach), so here's hoping this is her arrival on the big stage.

And hopefully it will also spur on Laura Robson to put in the hard work to get back into the top 200, 100, 50.  But maybe Konta is the "real deal".  A regular top twenty British women player.

She might be many things, but she's not British. Born in Australia, moved when 14. Well done but she tells us nothing about the likelihood of a British girl getting good at tennis.

If "British" is to mean anything in these terms it must be reflect the intrinsic health of the game here; imports prove nothing, no more than Mo Farah shows how good Britain is at producing great runners

bogbrush wrote: ... If "British" is to mean anything in these terms it must be reflect the intrinsic health of the game here ...

"In 2002 age 15, Andy Murray left Britain to attend Academia Sanchez‐Casal in Spain where he trained for the next two‐and‐a‐half years, before going on to win the 2005 US Open junior title and then turning professional". [But received LTA funding for it I believe].

Andy Murray (Nov 2005): "My brother is very talented ... He was number two in the world when he was around the age of 13 and then he went down to an LTA school in Cambridge and they ruined him for a few years. It was their fault".

Well If Johanna Konta came here aged 14 and stayed here to become a British citizen in 2012 and is prepared to adopt British Values and Culture (whatever that might be) then I am happy to support her as a Brit.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

It's got zero to do with all that acceptance stuff, it's got to do with whether it has any meaning to say she's British.

At this rate all we need are transfer fees and we can have a great tennis heritage!

I'd argue that the gap between Serena (plus a fit and on form Kivitika) and the rest is wider than that of say Konta and Halep

If that doesn't motivate Robson, nothing will

Valiant effort from Johanna Konta. Venus Williams had to be at her best to beat her. Johanna Konta lost 4-6 6-3 5-7 in over two hours. Ultimately tiredness and William's power and pressure told. This was Konta's sixth match of the tournament, having come through two qualifying rounds and a gruelling match with Halep yesterday.

The big problem with the women's game is that the serving hasn't (can't ?) caught up with the return. In this era of power tennis, it's very difficult for women to have a decent serve (even more so if they wish to retain femininity). While the technology has allowed the return to improve greatly, the brute strength required to generate pace on a serve hasn't. This means many matches where returning is easier than holding serve, which completely turns tennis upside down and the constant inability to hold serve becomes tedious.

As you say GG, I think a big problem does lie in the fundamental notion of simply "holding serve". There are so many breaks of service because in matches on the women's tour because so few have developed the shot (serve) as any kind of weapon in itself. Power is one thing in a serve but so is spin and placement so I don't entirely buy the excuse that it's not possible for women to have just as potent a serve relative to men (though it sure helps if you have the whole package as Serena has shown).

I often feel like tennis coaches or scouts should try looking for the female equivalent of an Isner or even just Karlovic - someone very tall with average athleticism who they can literally just work non-stop on perfecting service mechanics. If this hypothetical woman even had average groundstrokes but was able to hold serve regularly I genuinely reckon she'd be a multi slam winner in a Serena less tour.

ALPanorak wrote:As you say GG, I think a big problem does lie in the fundamental notion of simply "holding serve". There are so many breaks of service because in matches on the women's tour because so few have developed the shot (serve) as any kind of weapon in itself. Power is one thing in a serve but so is spin and placement so I don't entirely buy the excuse that it's not possible for women to have just as potent a serve relative to men (though it sure helps if you have the whole package as Serena has shown).

I often feel like tennis coaches or scouts should try looking for the female equivalent of an Isner or even just Karlovic - someone very tall with average athleticism who they can literally just work non-stop on perfecting service mechanics. If this hypothetical woman even had average groundstrokes but was able to hold serve regularly I genuinely reckon she'd be a multi slam winner in a Serena less tour.

I get what you're saying and some of them do have better serves than others but I'm going to side with the women here and say the fault mostly lies with unchecked technology advances. There can be no women karlovic or anywhere close without the use of growth hormones. Most women are 5 ft 6 or thereabouts. Its impossible to have a good serve with that height relative to the modern return.

Henman Bill wrote:Unofficial rule of our blatantly sexist forum is that you can't discuss WTA unless to trash it or focus on sexual attractiveness of players. I'd say your article is sufficiently negative to be acceptable, so please continue.

Quite right...that's what I've noticed too.

I only have one thing to say to this predictable OP...yawn.

Yesterday, I watched a good quality, exciting match between Venus Williams and Roberta Vinci in the semi-finals of the Wuhan Open. That's more interesting to me than this boring thread....

shivfan wrote:
Quite right...that's what I've noticed too.

I only have one thing to say to this predictable OP...yawn.

Again, I'm just being honest here. It's nothing to do with sex or gender. Why don't you do the same and go to the top 10 as I have done; and if you disagree with my opinion then perhaps explain why you do so.

shivfan wrote:
Yesterday, I watched a good quality, exciting match between Venus Williams and Roberta Vinci in the semi-finals of the Wuhan Open.  That's more interesting to me than this boring thread....

I didn't catch that, but did watch Konta vs Venus, which was a great match. Venus stepped it up well when she needed to, finding some good form.
Just because I think there's poor depth at the top of the women's game doesn't mean I can't appreciate good matches, and if you find threads boring perhaps you can just ignore them.

It's true that the woman's game lacks ability to hold serve. I think the problem with this is that the commentators always try to hide the fact, talking about "breaks of serve" in women's tennis as if they matter. It's just a game won or lost. Sets with lots of breaks can be unpredictable and entertaining and don't necessarily make the games worse. I think just accept that the women's game will see lots of breaks, move on, and enjoy it.

Worth remembering that originally the serve was just meant to be a way of starting the point. In any case I don't think difficulty to hold serve makes matches less exciting, more the contrary. I mean if Raonic breaks serve you can usually (unless he's playing Djokovic or Murray) switch off for the rest of the set, not exactly exciting IMO.

I do agree with HB and shivfan that the attitudes to the women's game on this board are pretty sexist. Pretty much any talk of them at slams revolves solely around the physical attributes of the players, which is rather off-putting.

Having said that, don't think there's that much wrong with this thread in particular, since it's talking about the levels of women's tennis in general. I do however disagree with IMBL. I don't think the level of the women's game is particularly poor, it's just that you have an all-time great who's miles ahead of the rest, and then among the rest most players can on their day beat any other. Inconsistent maybe, but in general I just think the margins are very fine between players ranked 2-70. I actually think it's in a much better place than it was 5 years ago where the power-game was pretty much the only one which had a chance of success. Nowadays there seems to be a bit more variety in there, players coming to the net, using the drop shot, etc.

I would actually say that women's tennis seems to me to be on the up at the moment, in contrast to the men's game which seems to have hit a wall.

Crikey!

Some posters really do need a good shaking down, like some support groups too. Sexism and all that. Again I ask point me to where a player from the WTA is 'discriminated' against because of their sex on this forum? People seem to have this annoying knack of not being able to put 'gender' and 'discrimination' hand in hand so you actually have a case. So when some posters called Lopez Deliciano on this forum, can I apply that as being sexist? Or because it's a male it doesn't apply? I thought as much!

I see the attitude on this forum to the WTA as being one which is similar to the ATP. One person is virtually dominating the tour without sufficient competition to challenge these top players.

To me the ATP and WTA are in the same boat. It's a case do posters actually have the capacity to watch both tours when they feel the formula to the state of the game is the same?

For those who like to think they are 'Patron's' for the WTA, you see daily threads on the Slams/Other tournaments. Comment if your that interested!

I expect the female players would be mortified to hear people are discussing how attractive they are.

HM Murdock wrote:I expect the female players would be mortified to hear people are discussing how attractive they are.

They are attractive in other attires, too. The choice of this specific set itself can be objectionable to some. Please be sensitive.

Someone's search engine is getting them a divorce.

You're getting sacked in the morning
You're getting sacked in the morning

legendkillarV2 wrote:Crikey!

Some posters really do need a good shaking down, like some support groups too. Sexism and all that. Again I ask point me to where a player from the WTA is 'discriminated' against because of their sex on this forum? People seem to have this annoying knack of not being able to put 'gender' and 'discrimination' hand in hand so you actually have a case. So when some posters called Lopez Deliciano on this forum, can I apply that as being sexist? Or because it's a male it doesn't apply? I thought as much!

I see the attitude on this forum to the WTA as being one which is similar to the ATP. One person is virtually dominating the tour without sufficient competition to challenge these top players.

To me the ATP and WTA are in the same boat. It's a case do posters actually have the capacity to watch both tours when they feel the formula to the state of the game is the same?

For those who like to think they are 'Patron's' for the WTA, you see daily threads on the Slams/Other tournaments. Comment if your that interested!    

The post right below may be a good place to start

And beyond that?