2018 WTA Mutua Madrid Open

WWW Madrid?

  • Halep

  • Wozniacki

  • Muguruza

  • Svitolina

  • Ostapenko

  • Pliskova

  • Garcia

  • Venus

  • Kvitova

  • Other?

Results are only viewable after voting.
70後

70後

Hall of Fame
NaomiKonjuhPotapova said:
Love you @70後
Click to expand...

I'm only saying that imo if WTA is selling looks or sex appeal or whatever, they are promoting quite the wrong thing to boost their product, since looks and sex appeal aren't usually tennis players, whether mens or womens, strong suit. In that respect, they are not better than the rest of us on average. The only thing tennis players can be expected to be better than us is unsurprisingly playing tennis. So you have to specialise.
 
cc0509

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
70後, post: 12265640, member: 412476I don't get your point about the appealing thing. Do you mean swimsuits? Underwear? That kind of thing? We seem to be at cross purposes here. Do you mean that to sell tennis, you have to sell non tennis? You might end up selling everything but tennis. The only thing worse than Sharapova modelling is Wozniacki singing. Do you want more of that? They should definitely stick to their day job. Imo the reason why Sharapova, pre 2016 at least, had star power was her court fight, not her looks. She was just interesting as a player, even if you weren't rooting for her or if you didn't like her style, she could make a match interesting, at least in those days.
Click to expand...

So what if Sharapova, Wozniacki or Nadal model swimsuits or sell underwear? If you've got it, flaunt it.
The reason Sharapova has star power is due to a mixture of her achievements, her fighting spirit, and her looks. Don't be daft! They aren't going to promote somebody who looks like a mutt and has the charisma of a pet rock!

Androgynous individuals or otherwise can also appreciate Suarez's tennis and backhand.
Click to expand...

Suarez Navarro is completely unmarketable. Let's get real. She's a weak player who loses to top player time and time again and I don't think anybody can figure out for sure if she's male or female? :confused:

I really don't mind if players don't win big events. That isn't all tennis is about. A few big stars in the FedNadDjok way winning for long stretches so tt can argue over who is greater. There is much more to see than that.
Click to expand...

Really? Like what? Not for me and not for many people. I want to see consistency and players winning titles.

In the FedNadDjok days, I was more interested in the Dolgopolov/Tsonga matchup.
Click to expand...

:eek:

About Lendl/Z, I never said that Lendl wouldn't work with Z, only that I don't think it is worth it for Lendl. As usual, we exchange our views, disagree, and see how events unfolds.
smile.gif
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. Zverev is a young rising player with potential who makes it to the back end of tournaments week after week Yes, we have different views on many things. That's ok.

Thanks for the reply overall.
Click to expand...

You too. :)
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
cc0509 said:
Are you for real? If they did that, they'd go bankrupt! They want women players who are globally appealing. It's a business and a big business ffs! You don't have to like Sharapova but she's a female player who doesn't look like something the cat dragged in and she puts arses in seats. That's the name of the game.
Click to expand...

cc0509 said:
No, it isn't. Tennis is a global sport and it's entertainment like the movie business. They have to have appealing players to promote the sport and appeal to populations internationally. You're talking like it's some mom and pop business. You've got it all wrong about how the marketing should work IMO. Thankfully, the ATP andWTA knows what to do(if they could only get winning and appealing players!) and won't listen to your cockemamy ideas about tennis marketing!

Suarez as in Suarez Navarro? She's unmarketable unless you are catering to a conference made up of androgynous individuals! :rolleyes: As for Hsieh, let her win some big tournaments first.

Yes, and she looks pretty good to me. Compare her to some of the bow-wows on tour.

Again, tennis is entertainment. It has to sell and promote its players who have the ability to win big titles and who have the package of charisma, a certain look, etc. If you were in charge of the ATP, it would go out of business in a month! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't really appreciate your deprecating remarks about the players on tour. Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as harshly judgmental and exaggerating as it may be. Can you please enlighten me on what is "appealing" in a player, or what is that "certain look"?

Well, here's my opinion. I think all of the players on tour are beautiful. I admire their athleticism, their God-given abilities, the ability to go out and compete week after week, the hard work they put in. They are all amazing. Your idea of what is "appealing" is different than mine, obviously. Suarez Navarro is one of my favorite players, she has this wicked 1HBH that is rare on tour, and it's a joy to watch. I love her natural perm! In fact, I have this sudden urge to go buy a Wilson tennis racquet. I don't think anyone has to have a "certain look" to be successful or marketable on tour. Have you ever thought that one of the reasons Maria Sharapova is so marketable is because she won Wimbledon when she was 17 years old? Yep, 3rd youngest ever. I watched it on TV, it was cool.

Also, I'm trying to think who is charismatic on tour... that may be a valid topic. Interesting point.
 
cc0509

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
emilyhex said:
I don't really appreciate your deprecating remarks about the players on tour. Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as harshly judgmental and exaggerating as it may be. Can you please enlighten me on what is "appealing" in a player, or what is that "certain look"?

Well, here's my opinion. I think all of the players on tour are beautiful. I admire their athleticism, their God-given abilities, the ability to go out and compete week after week, the hard work they put in. They are all amazing. Your idea of what is "appealing" is different than mine, obviously. Suarez Navarro is one of my favorite players, she has this wicked 1HBH that is rare on tour, and it's a joy to watch. I love her natural perm! In fact, I have this sudden urge to go buy a Wilson tennis racquet. I don't think anyone has to have a "certain look" to be successful or marketable on tour. Have you ever thought that one of the reasons Maria Sharapova is so marketable is because she won Wimbledon when she was 17 years old? Yep, 3rd youngest ever. I watched it on TV, it was cool.

Also, I'm trying to think who is charismatic on tour... that may be a valid topic. Interesting point.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to go too deeply into this topic as what I said was straightforward. The WTA and ATP need to market their product. The best way for them to do that is to have players who can be consistent, win the big tournaments week after week and have players who can be good ambassadors of the sport, meaning they have the requisite charisma and a marketable look. If you think all players are equally marketable based on their personalities or their looks, good luck to you. But that's not how the real world works. If you want to believe Suarez Navarro is as marketable as Sharapova or Li Na was, for example, or you want to believe little green men are floating in the sky, you are entitled to think that but it isn't realistic.

The men's game and women's game need big-time players like Federer, Nadal, Serena, Sharapova, etc. to help promote the sport. It's just the way it is. This kid Shapovalov has that "it" factor and if he can keep his head on straight and win things, he can be a great asset for the ATP. What I'm saying isn't rocket science. But I always look at things from the corporate perspective. I don't live in Disney World.
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
cc0509 said:
I really don't want to go too deeply into this topic as what I said was straightforward.
Click to expand...
No, not really straightforward at all. I asked you what "certain look" and "appealing" is. Those are vague terms and you didn't address it.

cc0509 said:
The WTA and ATP need to market their product. The best way for them to do that is to have players who can be consistent, win the big tournaments week after week and have players who can be good ambassadors of the sport, meaning they have the requisite charisma and a marketable look.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of that. I'm not sure I would base a whole marketing strategy on these few sentences, but it's your opinion and fair enough.

cc0509 said:
If you think all players are equally marketable based on their personalities or their looks, good luck to you. But that's not how the real world works.
Click to expand...
I never said that, and I'm still waiting for you to define what "appealing" and "certain look" is. I don't claim to know what "certain look" is or if it exists at all. I don't deny the existence of cultural norms, but they do vary.

cc0509 said:
If you want to believe Suarez Navarro is as marketable as Sharapova or Li Na was, for example, or you want to believe little green men are floating in the sky, you are entitled to think that but it isn't realistic.
Click to expand...
It depends on what market you are talking about. Li Na may be more marketable in China, Suarez Navarro in Spain, and Sharapova might trump all of them. Who knows? I don't have access to that data.

cc0509 said:
The men's game and women's game need big-time players like Federer, Nadal, Serena, Sharapova, etc. to help promote the sport. It's just the way it is. This kid Shapovalov has that "it" factor and if he can keep his head on straight and win things, he can be a great asset for the ATP.
Click to expand...
Maybe, I like his game too.

cc0509 said:
What I'm saying isn't rocket science. But I always look at things from the corporate perspective. I don't live in Disney World.
Click to expand...
Agree, it's not rocket science. In fact, Marketing is not a science at all. It's a pity you always look at things from a corporate perspective. I would encourage you to broaden it, corporate is boring. Maybe take a trip to Orlando with the family? Not in the summer though, it's too damn hot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
I think they are both playing well, we could be in for a 3-setter :eek:
 
Fedeonic

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Great set won by Kvitova. I expect her now to cruise to victory, but it's Kvitova so everything can happen.
 
helixx

helixx

Hall of Fame
Petra never lost final where she won the first set, but seems very possible today, looks very exhausted :confused:
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
Bertens has great feel and touch. I've never seen her play this well before this tournament. Very few errors since that first set against Sharapova two matches ago.
 
P

Pagoo

G.O.A.T.
Is Kiki a servebot? Doesn't look like Petra is doing much on her serve? I am not watching just following the scores?
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
helixx said:
Petra never lost final where she won the first set, but seems very possible today, looks very exhausted :confused:
Click to expand...
She is looking more tired. She's going to have to dig deep.

Rome is looking doubtful at this point.
 
P

Pagoo

G.O.A.T.
This looks like the kind of match Kvitova loses. Kiki is usually crap all year, come clay season she starts acting like she's all that.:rolleyes:
 
S

SeeingDusk

Hall of Fame
Pagoo said:
This looks like the kind of match Kvitova loses. Kiki is usually crap all year, come clay season she starts acting like she's all that.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Petra loses for sure because I bet on her. Won first set. Should’ve went all in on Kiki to win second set to ensure I win some money back. Of course I didn’t bet on Kiki to take second set and of course she does end up winning it. Pretty sure if I took Kiki to win second set, she would’ve lost in straights.
 
cc0509

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
emilyhex said:
No, not really straightforward at all. I asked you what "certain look" and "appealing" is. Those are vague terms and you didn't address it.


I agree with some of that. I'm not sure I would base a whole marketing strategy on these few sentences, but it's your opinion and fair enough.


I never said that, and I'm still waiting for you to define what "appealing" and "certain look" is. I don't claim to know what "certain look" is or if it exists at all. I don't deny the existence of cultural norms, but they do vary.


It depends on what market you are talking about. Li Na may be more marketable in China, Suarez Navarro in Spain, and Sharapova might trump all of them. Who knows? I don't have access to that data.


Maybe, I like his game too.


Agree, it's not rocket science. In fact, Marketing is not a science at all. It's a pity you always look at things from a corporate perspective. I would encourage you to broaden it, corporate is boring. Maybe take a trip to Orlando with the family? Not in the summer though, it's too damn hot.
Click to expand...


You know what that "certain look" is and what tends to be appealing globally. It's not rocket science. The WTA wants players who can win consistently, players who have charismatic personalities, and players who have some type of outward physical appeal. Sharapova has all of those things. Don't play dumb now!

Having a corporate mindset as I do is the only way to talk realistically when you're talking about a huge business(which tennis is first and foremost.) Thinking about it in any other terms is a waste of time.
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
cc0509 said:
You know what that "certain look" is and what tends to be appealing globally. It's not rocket science. The WTA wants players who can win consistently, players who have charismatic personalities, and players who have some type of outward physical appeal. Sharapova has all of those things. Don't play dumb now!

Having a corporate mindset as I do is the only way to talk realistically when you're talking about a huge business(which tennis is first and foremost.) Thinking about it in any other terms is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Oh, right, the *nudge, nudge*, *wink, wink*, you know what the look is... I can't let my wife find out look. Is that what you mean? I seriously don't know what the look is, can you define some of the characteristics of this look? Is there a predominate hair color, nationality, height, eye color?? I mean, since you deal in marketing, you must be able to define these metrics, that's what people in marketing do. Whip out your spreadsheet and get to work, it's Saturday!!
 
D

Deleted member 293577

Guest
omg, that cross-court forehand! Bertens was mad, but that was just a great shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aussie Darcy
  • Poll
2019 WTA Mutua Madrid Open - Women's Singles General Discussion
4 5 6
Replies
252
Views
7K
ScentOfDefeat
ScentOfDefeat
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll
2018 WTA Italian Open
13 14 15
Replies
706
Views
22K
PDJ
PDJ
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll
2021 WTA Madrid Open - WTA 1000
5 6 7
Replies
315
Views
8K
volleyandfun
volleyandfun
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll
2018 Qatar Open - WTA Premier 5
8 9 10
Replies
463
Views
17K
SystemicAnomaly
SystemicAnomaly
Aussie Darcy
  • Locked
  • Poll
2017 Wuhan Open - WTA
Replies
3
Views
533
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
Top