ATP v WTA. Discuss.

ATP v WTA


  • Total voters
    46

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
On a current WTA thread (Beijing) I expressed my exasperation at the inconsistency of the results of the top women. A poster suggested that the men were not much better and therefore this negated my view. Fair enough.
However, if this is the case, does that mean you can only criticise one gender if you criticise the other?
Or, is tennis, in general, in a bad shape?
Or, is it all going swimmingly?
I'm interested in other constructive views.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
Atp is full of mugs that can't seemingly play a full season and two grandpas areally dominating them .
The two so-called grandpa's have forgotten more about playing tennis and competitive drives are better too. Federer and Nadal was never going away that easy. Just pure wishful thinking.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Atp is full of mugs that can't seemingly play a full season and two grandpas areally dominating them .
Any mug from the current top 500 would destroy any female player in history at her career best level. That's all you need to know about which is better from ATP and WTA.

What happened in the ATP tour in 2017 was a one-season only situation btw.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
WTA hardly stand a chance. A lot of people say that the women were more popular back in the 80-90's with Navratilova, Seles and Graff but since I watch tennis(2005) the ATP is far more entertaining. Probably has a lot to do with the social media and women naturaly being more inclined to disract themselfs. Compare Kyrgios and Bouchard, off the court a lot of similar issues but on court, Nick delivers far better product. Also technicaly and physicaly men would always be capable to produce better quality of tennis.
 

ibbi

Legend
Tennis is in a hole on both sides, but the quality of what is being played is obviously still infinitely superior on the mens side. Depends how you look at it. They also have a whole load of tremendous prospects just breaking on to the stage. I don't follow WTA as closely, but I don't think they have anywhere near as many, do they?
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Tennis is in a hole on both sides, but the quality of what is being played is obviously still infinitely superior on the mens side. Depends how you look at it. They also have a whole load of tremendous prospects just breaking on to the stage. I don't follow WTA as closely, but I don't think they have anywhere near as many, do they?
Possibly. But they don't win consistently enough to catch on with the general public.
Plus the 'next big thing' tends to crash and burn. Bouchard, Bencic spring to mind.
And those at the very top Kerber, Halep, Muguruza (although less so, but still not consistent) Pliskova are brittle.
Kerber, whilst no.1 for the greater portion of the year, has possibly had the worst results of a reigning no.1 ever. EVER.
Highest ranked player she beat during her tenure was possibly top twenty, if that.
 

speedysteve

Legend
Any mug from the current top 500 would destroy any female player in history at her career best level. That's all you need to know about which is better from ATP and WTA.

What happened in the ATP tour in 2017 was a one-season only situation btw.
That's hardly a reason to use in this argument. It's not like they are playing each other so it's two separate items.
I'm finding the new comers on the WTA tour challenging the more established players interesting and refreshing.
It's the unpredictability that's interesting.
Yes this year's ATP / ITF winner spilt is pretty narrow in comparison. Hope it changes soon.

I don't like the WTA hate on these forums. The fact that some guys seem to think it's acceptable to put women down at every opportunity and make out they are in the way of the men's matches is deplorable.

Love all tennis..
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Depends what you are looking for and what you consider "good" or "bad."

WTA tour is super inconsistent, but more recently, that inconsistency has been largely a factor of a bunch of 20-24 year olds going after it,
and a mix of older vets still playing good tennis.
(Obviously Serena being gone helps.)

ATP tour has become unbelievably stagnant, with 30+ athletes completely dominating and none of the young guns impacting majors. But part of that stagnation involves three (Novak not so much this year) of the all time greatest ever doing what they do best: winning.

So there are Pros and Cons for each. I personally prefer WTA at the moment, but that is a recent reversal.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
On a current WTA thread (Beijing) I expressed my exasperation at the inconsistency of the results of the top women. A poster suggested that the men were not much better and therefore this negated my view. Fair enough.
However, if this is the case, does that mean you can only criticise one gender if you criticise the other?
Or, is tennis, in general, in a bad shape?
Or, is it all going swimmingly?
I'm interested in other constructive views.
Incorrect. I suggested that the YOUNG men aren't better than the YOUNG women. There's a difference.
Forget the lostgen, both sides have them, that mid to late 20's group. IMO, right now there's more young talent on the WTA worth watching.

Your argument was that the league is a joke (the spark was Muguruza and Sloane going out). My argument is that no matter what happens it's always an indictment against the league. Ostapenko wins the FO? She's a one slam wonder (at 20 years old no less!) and the league sucks. Zverev wins 2 masters? He's the future of the game!

Of course you can criticize who you want but it would seem fair to at least apply the same criteria across the board to both leagues.

I see it as the new transition period, something the men will be facing once these dominant 30+ year olds relinquish their hold on the ATP top 30. But then you have the same name recognition problem until the dust settles and the new leaders emerge.

There's no arguing the other points some are making. The women play the women's game and the men the men's. I don't understand this need to compare them. They're different and if one doesn't like the women's game that's fine but that doesn't make make the tennis bad. And as someone who has seen a lot of the WTA up close I can tell you that most of us would love to play that bad.

As for the more money argument, the ITF run the slams, they dictate the women only play 3, so that's not the women's fault. They're able and willing to play 5. Also, the ATP and WTA independently negotiate with the ITF for prize money. The ATP has no say it what the WTA and ITF agree on. If the ATP wants more money then negotiate it, but the WTA is doing what they're supposed to do, get as much for their product as they can.
 

Thundergod

Professional
Over the past 10 years or so definitely men's has been much better. This year probably men's by a little only because of Fedal. The year has been pretty wretched once you take those two out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Any mug from the current top 500 would destroy any female player in history at her career best level. That's all you need to know about which is better from ATP and WTA.

What happened in the ATP tour in 2017 was a one-season only situation btw.
Tbf 2014-2016 AO was the same situation Federer destroyed the field apart from Djokovic.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Incorrect. I suggested that the YOUNG men aren't better than the YOUNG women. There's a difference.
Forget the lostgen, both sides have them, that mid to late 20's group. IMO, right now there's more young talent on the WTA worth watching.

Your argument was that the league is a joke (the spark was Muguruza and Sloane going out). My argument is that no matter what happens it's always an indictment against the league. Ostapenko wins the FO? She's a one slam wonder (at 20 years old no less!) and the league sucks. Zverev wins 2 masters? He's the future of the game!

Of course you can criticize who you want but it would seem fair to at least apply the same criteria across the board to both leagues.

I see it as the new transition period, something the men will be facing once these dominant 30+ year olds relinquish their hold on the ATP top 30. But then you have the same name recognition problem until the dust settles and the new leaders emerge.

There's no arguing the other points some are making. The women play the women's game and the men the men's. I don't understand this need to compare them. They're different and if one doesn't like the women's game that's fine but that doesn't make make the tennis bad. And as someone who has seen a lot of the WTA up close I can tell you that most of us would love to play that bad.

As for the more money argument, the ITF run the slams, they dictate the women only play 3, so that's not the women's fault. They're able and willing to play 5. Also, the ATP and WTA independently negotiate with the ITF for prize money. The ATP has no say it what the WTA and ITF agree on. If the ATP wants more money then negotiate it, but the WTA is doing what they're supposed to do, get as much for their product as they can.
My point was that criticising the women doesn't mean "but the men are worse", young or not. My criticism was gender specific to the relevant thread.
However, I do think you made an interesting point. Hence me creating this thread where I think there is a possibility for an interesting, constructive debate.
Which is also why I had the good manners to inform you personally that I had because I welcomed your point of view.
Re the women playing best of 5 - which they have in the past, YEC - I wonder how many people would actually welcome this?
 

Thundergod

Professional
My point was that criticising the women doesn't mean "but the men are worse", young or not. My criticism was gender specific to the relevant thread.
However, I do think you made an interesting point. Hence me creating this thread where I think there is a possibility for an interesting, constructive debate.
Which is also why I had the good manners to inform you personally that I had because I welcomed your point of view.
Re the women playing best of 5 - which they have in the past, YEC - I wonder how many people would actually welcome this?
Some women might have said they are fine with this, but this would turn out to be a disaster imo. Only in a final of a slam or YEC would make sense imo since there's really not much going on for the rest of the day. A good amount of the time though, I see some women physically and definitely mentally drained in a 3 setter. I wouldn't be able to handle seeing that in a 5 setter unless it's just the final.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
My point was that criticising the women doesn't mean "but the men are worse", young or not. My criticism was gender specific to the relevant thread.
However, I do think you made an interesting point. Hence me creating this thread where I think there is a possibility for an interesting, constructive debate.
Which is also why I had the good manners to inform you personally that I had because I welcomed your point of view.
Re the women playing best of 5 - which they have in the past, YEC - I wonder how many people would actually welcome this?
Yes but that argument is always in the relevant (women's) thread. It doesn't change my argument that it's a common refrain - the argument is always an indictment against the women's game. Zverev loses first round US Open and we don't hear it. Any assortment of bad losses can occur on the men's side and people don't jump to trash the league. Cripey, there's threads about how great Shapovalov is/will be but Muguruza wins 2 slams, both against a Williams, and it's because the leagues sucks. I just don't find that to be true. I think it's exciting to see these new faces working out who will rise to the top.

I go to the Citi Open every year and my experience is that in the early rounds people flock to matches that are in the 3rd set. Even in the qualies, men or women. I think they'd flock to it just as much in best of 5. They pay to see the spectacle and in sports that means the battle. I guess we won't know unless it happens.
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
all you have to do is count the number of players that reached #1 on the WTA in the last 10 years to see how inconsistent they are... it seems like every 6mo. a new WTA player has to defend to the press why their #1 ranking is justified
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
Current lineup for the ATP & WTA Finals:

ATP: Nadal, Federer, Zverev, Thiem, Dimitrov, Cilic, Carreno Busta, Querrey. Alternates: Anderson and Goffin
WTA: Muguruza, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina, Wozniacki, Venus, Ostapenko, Konta. Alternates: Mladenovic and Kuznetsova

On the men's tour you've got just 2 of the 10 in the race with slams and just 3 more with a Masters title in their entire career.
On the women's tour you've got 4 of the 10 in the race with slams + two former #1s and 4 more with Masters equivalent titles in their entire career.

Now you can of course argue that's because of the dominance of Fedal/others whilst the WTA has been more spread apart but with all the other big stars missing for the men, the ATP finals are going to be unbelievably boring (except for any Fedal matches and maybe Zverev v Thiem). Meanwhile, I am definitely excited to see Muguruza, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina, Wozniacki, Venus and Ostapenko all play eachother.

You can say this is a once off because Stan/Djoko/Murray are injured and they'll be back and amongst the top but they won't be around forever and the interest in half the youngsters on the mens tour is rather non-existent. Meanwhile, the women are doing the WTA a favour by having youngsters like Muguruza, Ostapenko and Svitolina (who are all under 24) winning the big titles.

The tours need to create interest in future players once the current big players are gone. For the mens tour this is when Federer, Novak, Nadal and Murray are gone and for the women's tour, this is when Serena, Venus, Maria and Vika are gone. On the women's tour we already have youngsters winning slams and Masters titles which raises awareness for these women and getting fans. On the men's tour we only have Dimitrov and Zverev. The latter who has never made a slam QF. Now most casual tennis fans only watch slams so they aren't going to know Zverev and Thiem and if the big 4 all retire in close succession, the ratings will plummet. ATP is in more dire straights than the WTA is in my opinion because they're setting themselves up in the long run whilst the men are focusing on the now which is great for Fedal slam finals but nobody gives a crap about the other slam finals (as seen by the low USO ratings of Nadal v Anderson).
 
Last edited:

sportmac

Hall of Fame
all you have to do is count the number of players that reached #1 on the WTA in the last 10 years to see how inconsistent they are... it seems like every 6mo. a new WTA player has to defend to the press why their #1 ranking is justified
If they consistently challenge each other then that means there's parity. The ATP has consistency without parity. 96% of them consistently can't make a dent against 4 players. Look at the Masters 1000's over the last decade plus. They can't even make finals, let alone challenge for no. 1. I'm not sure 4 guys dominating across generations is a desired consistency for any sport.

There are people arguing that this year was a fluke and Novak and Murray (and Stan) will be back next year. Even their hopes for the future of the game is based on the return of players over 30.
One would think that with 2 of the 4 out that some young talent would rise to the occasion, not that a 35 year old and a 31 year old would lock them out again.
 
Last edited:

Mr.Lob

Legend
On a current WTA thread (Beijing) I expressed my exasperation at the inconsistency of the results of the top women. A poster suggested that the men were not much better and therefore this negated my view. Fair enough.
However, if this is the case, does that mean you can only criticise one gender if you criticise the other?
Or, is tennis, in general, in a bad shape?
Or, is it all going swimmingly?
I'm interested in other constructive views.
Though I enjoy watching, the WTA is worse. It's spin the wheel right now as to who will be in the semis of a slam. Good for some who claim to like the "depth". I prefer 3 or 4 consistent players at the top, with the second tier of players nipping at their heels.

The ATP though, is on its way to becoming the WTA. If Djokovic and Murray can't bounce back, then it's Nadal and Fed having to anchor down the top. Inconsistency after those two.

A lot of nice young prospects in both tours. Why none can rise to the challenge is baffling. The game needs superstars!
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Current lineup for the ATP & WTA Finals:

ATP: Nadal, Federer, Zverev, Thiem, Dimitrov, Cilic, Carreno Busta, Querrey. Alternates: Anderson and Goffin
WTA: Muguruza, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina, Wozniacki, Venus, Ostapenko, Konta. Alternates: Mladenovic and Kuznetsova

On the men's tour you've got just 2 of the 10 in the race with slams and just 3 more with a Masters title in their entire career.
On the women's tour you've got 4 of the 10 in the race with slams + two former #1s and 4 more with Masters equivalent titles in their entire career.

Now you can of course argue that's because of the dominance of Fedal/others whilst the WTA has been more spread apart but with all the other big stars missing for the men, the ATP finals are going to be unbelievably boring (except for any Fedal matches and maybe Zverev v Thiem). Meanwhile, I am definitely excited to see Muguruza, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina, Wozniacki, Venus and Ostapenko all play eachother.

You can say this is a once off because Stan/Djoko/Murray are injured and they'll be back and amongst the top but they won't be around forever and the interest in half the youngsters on the mens tour is rather non-existent. Meanwhile, the women are doing the WTA a favour by having youngsters like Muguruza, Ostapenko and Svitolina (who are all under 24) winning the big titles.

The tours need to create interest in future players once the current big players are gone. For the mens tour this is when Federer, Novak, Nadal and Murray are gone and for the women's tour, this is when Serena, Venus, Maria and Vika are gone. On the women's tour we already have youngsters winning slams and Masters titles which raises awareness for these women and getting fans. On the men's tour we only have Dimitrov and Zverev. The latter who has never made a slam QF. Now most casual tennis fans only watch slams so they aren't going to know Zverev and Thiem and if the big 4 all retire in close succession, the ratings will plummet. ATP is in more dire straights than the WTA is in my opinion because they're setting themselves up in the long run whilst the men are focusing on the now which is great for Fedal slam finals but nobody gives a crap about the other slam finals (as seen by the low USO ratings of Nadal v Anderson).
While I agree with you, I'm not even sure this will happen.
Federer has already been playing way longer than many of his contemporaries. He's been playing longer than many who were younger than him.
If this trend continues, there's no reason to believe Federer (or Nadal, etc) will cease to be competitive or dominant against the likes of Zverev.
For years people have been talking about this magical day (or days) when the big 2 (or 3, or 4) will retire and leave the tour to whatever generations are left.
But when is this day coming? When will this magical day where Zverev and Thiem are winning Slams and Federer and Nadal aren't finally come?
I just don't see it. Tennis has changed in such a way that there doesn't seem to be a "natural order of things".

For a changing of the guard to happen, age needs to be a factor. But I fear it can only be a factor if the difference between the dominant generation and the challengers is 20+ years.
 

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
While I agree with you, I'm not even sure this will happen.
Federer has already been playing way longer than many of his contemporaries. He's been playing longer than many who were younger than him.
If this trend continues, there's no reason to believe Federer (or Nadal, etc) will cease to be competitive or dominant against the likes of Zverev.
For years people have been talking about this magical day (or days) when the big 2 (or 3, or 4) will retire and leave the tour to whatever generations are left.
But when is this day coming? When will this magical day where Zverev and Thiem are winning Slams and Federer and Nadal aren't finally come?
I just don't see it. Tennis has changed in such a way that there doesn't seem to be a "natural order of things".

For a changing of the guard to happen, age needs to be a factor. But I fear it can only be a factor if the difference between the dominant generation and the challengers is 20+ years.
Well whether it's 2018, 2025 or 2030, eventually they'll all be gone and interest in the game will drop. Unless someone can rise up and be a big star like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Serena, Sharapova, Venus have all been. But nobody has been doing that and it doesn't seem like anyone will anytime soon. The ATP can hang on to great Fedal matches but eventually it'll end and they need to build the next
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Well whether it's 2018, 2025 or 2030, eventually they'll all be gone and interest in the game will drop. Unless someone can rise up and be a big star like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Serena, Sharapova, Venus have all been. But nobody has been doing that and it doesn't seem like anyone will anytime soon. The ATP can hang on to great Fedal matches but eventually it'll end and they need to build the next
It will certainly drop if the tour, the media, the players and the fans remain obsessed with this idea that tennis is only about winning the most Slams and having two or three top players dominating the game for 15 years. If somehow they can be convinced that tennis could be something else (and remain just as entertaining), that we haven't necessarily reached the peak of what this sport can be (whatever that means), then there is hope for the future. If having 5 or 6 players with over 6 Slams (like in the 80's and 90's), instead of 2 or 3 with over 12 each, can be acceptable again, then I think the sport will survive. But it needs the voice of tennis fans (fans of the game itself, no matter who you happen to support) to be heard loud and clearly, and more than ever. It needs knowledgeable fans who can accept different permutations in the game, different contexts and different types of achievements, without getting obsessed with hierarchies at every turn. It needs tennis fans to be louder than fanboys. And I'm not very optimistic.
 
Last edited:

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
While I agree with you, I'm not even sure this will happen.
Federer has already been playing way longer than many of his contemporaries. He's been playing longer than many who were younger than him.
If this trend continues, there's no reason to believe Federer (or Nadal, etc) will cease to be competitive or dominant against the likes of Zverev.
For years people have been talking about this magical day (or days) when the big 2 (or 3, or 4) will retire and leave the tour to whatever generations are left.
But when is this day coming? When will this magical day where Zverev and Thiem are winning Slams and Federer and Nadal aren't finally come?
I just don't see it. Tennis has changed in such a way that there doesn't seem to be a "natural order of things".

For a changing of the guard to happen, age needs to be a factor. But I fear it can only be a factor if the difference between the dominant generation and the challengers is 20+ years.
Oh please, When Federer was not on tour last year, the younger players still didn’t win a GS. Federer or Nadal wasn’t the one who came up with the GOAT or the focus on winning the most GS titles. Ha! Ha! Federer is 36 and still waiting for him to get too old so those poor younger players can win a GS.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Oh please, When Federer was not on tour last year, the younger players still didn’t win a GS. Federer or Nadal wasn’t the one who came up with the GOAT or the focus on winning the most GS titles. Ha! Ha! Federer is 36 and still waiting for him to get too old so those poor younger players can win a GS.
How exactly are you disagreeing with me?
I described a problem related to the image of the game as it has been constructed in the last 10 years or so.
It is obviously not a criticism of the players involved.
And yes, I'm aware that the "most Slams" criterion was ignited with Sampras, but it's hardly anyone's individual "fault".
It's an outlook on the game that has been reinforced by the current dominant generation, and it makes people believe that the future should somehow reproduce this glorious past/present. By espousing this viewpoint, they become unaware that "glory" and "epicness" is always there, whether in the form of Borg playing McEnroe, Ivanisevic playing Rafter, or Federer playing Nadal. There is no quantitative difference, in my view between these epic moments in the sport. And so it should remain in the future.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
The ATP is better than the WTA right now, but if things don't shake up on the ATP side, it will be similar to the WTA when we go into the transition phase. It's quite possible we'll be stuck in that transition phase for many years, just like the WTA has been for a while now. Federer/Nadal is what's keeping the ATP alive this year. If those 2 weren't around, you'd have a WTA like tour with new winners every week and no one really dominating or becoming the "flagship" players to carry the torch. The last time the WTA was great IMO goes back to the 90's in the Seles/Graff era. If you want to draw interest in your sport, you need great players who win (people want to associate with legitimate winners, not flukes), and who have a bit of charisma in order to become fan favorites. If you have a couple of great players, then it will organically evolve into interesting rivalries and "money matches" which will deliver the experience fan wants. The Federer-Nadal-Djokovic "trivalry" took the ATP to another level for the last 10 years, but it's days are numbered and we need a replacement for that. Sadly it's nowhere to be seen.

Tennis isn't a scripted sport like professional wrestling, but the problem it's about to have is very similar. When your main event level talents retires/goes away and you're not able to create new stars, your sport suffers.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
How exactly are you disagreeing with me?
I described a problem related to the image of the game as it has been constructed in the last 10 years or so.
It is obviously not a criticism of the players involved.
And yes, I'm aware that the "most Slams" criterion was ignited with Sampras, but it's hardly anyone's individual "fault".
It's an outlook on the game that has been reinforced by the current dominant generation, and it makes people believe that the future should somehow reproduce this glorious past/present. By espousing this viewpoint, they become unaware that "glory" and "epicness" is always there, whether in the form of Borg playing McEnroe, Ivanisevic playing Rafter, or Federer playing Nadal. There is no quantitative difference, in my view between these epic moments in the sport. And so it should remain in the future.
Aye, I have yet to see a better Wimbledon final than Ivanisevic-Rafter. People can argue that the level of Fedal 2007/08 was higher and maybe that is so but as an emotional roller coaster ride with thrilling tennis, 2001 was the best. Funny, I also loved the Kuerten-Norman match so perhaps big name match ups are overrated.
 

NothingButNet

Semi-Pro
WTA is appalling...sooooo bad they don't even have a 'Next Gen' :eek:


ATP is amaaaazing (also starts with 'A')...they do have a Next Gen, but no one's quite sure who they are exactly :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

speedysteve

Legend
I just don't think either ATP or WTA are as fragile as some would like to make out.
Perhaps it's some with the mentality that they won't enjoy tennis if their hero is retired, so no body else will - that's amusing..
New talent comes in all the time.
Vacuums get filled very quickly.
Some people, most people move on. New is always needed..

Worst case, if there was a real recession in tennis, easy, they scale back the prize money, reduce the tours a bit, trim some fat, tennis will go on no problem.
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
Two goats still showing the youngsters how this game is played. How can it be worse?
Meanwhile USO champion Stephens who bageled Keys in the final getting bageled by #71 player in China. Can it get any worse than this?
 
D

Deleted member 735320

Guest
Two goats still showing the youngsters how this game is played. How can it be worse?
Meanwhile USO champion Stephens who bageled Keys in the final getting bageled by #71 player in China. Can it get any worse than this?
Muguruza has a disastrous match too, she lost right before Wimbledon on grass no less to Strychova. It is puzzling that one can win a major but not consistently handle the lower ranks and only have respectable losses.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I just don't think either ATP or WTA are as fragile as some would like to make out.
Perhaps it's some with the mentality that they won't enjoy tennis if their hero is retired, so no body else will - that's amusing..
New talent comes in all the time.
Vacuums get filled very quickly.
Some people, most people move on. New is always needed..

Worst case, if there was a real recession in tennis, easy, they scale back the prize money, reduce the tours a bit, trim some fat, tennis will go on no problem.
I am not worried about the moving on part of it. I will. Whether there will be something to move on to is still a question. I am more optimistic about the women's game than the men's game. And I think/hope they should speed up the courts, relax some of these mandatory requirements. The tour is gruelling and I think the appetite to play a ful season is not there anymore.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
...ATP: Nadal, Federer, Zverev, Thiem, Dimitrov, Cilic, Carreno Busta, Querrey. Alternates: Anderson and Goffin
WTA: Muguruza, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina, Wozniacki, Venus, Ostapenko, Konta. Alternates: Mladenovic and Kuznetsova

On the men's tour you've got just 2 of the 10 in the race with slams and just 3 more with a Masters title in their entire career.
On the women's tour you've got 4 of the 10 in the race with slams + two former #1s and 4 more with Masters equivalent titles in their entire career.
Look at it in light of the top post of the thread.... how many times has each of those respective lists suffered first round losses at tournaments this year? I'd guess the women's list looks worse than the men's in terms of losing to players they really should have beaten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I know that I don't even have to check the poll to know how Aussie Darcy voted. And I know they'll feel the same way about me.
 

mavsman149

Hall of Fame
Aye, I have yet to see a better Wimbledon final than Ivanisevic-Rafter. People can argue that the level of Fedal 2007/08 was higher and maybe that is so but as an emotional roller coaster ride with thrilling tennis, 2001 was the best. Funny, I also loved the Kuerten-Norman match so perhaps big name match ups are overrated.
If you're a real fan of the sport (which you obviously are), Ivanisevic-Rafter and Kuerten-Norman are big name matches. Casual fans who only watch for Fedal might not like it though....
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Both tours are in terrible shape but the WTA is way worse

No compelling rivalries, top players flopping left and right, fluke Slam winners galore, and the best player off the tour for a year
 
Last edited:

captainbryce

Hall of Fame
On a current WTA thread (Beijing) I expressed my exasperation at the inconsistency of the results of the top women. A poster suggested that the men were not much better and therefore this negated my view. Fair enough.
However, if this is the case, does that mean you can only criticise one gender if you criticise the other?
Or, is tennis, in general, in a bad shape?
Or, is it all going swimmingly?
I'm interested in other constructive views.
I think that if you take out Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (the three players who have dominated the game in the last decade) then any of the men ranked in the top ten has an equally unlikely chance at winning a grand slam. On the WTA, taking out Serena allows any woman in the top 20 an equally likely chance (statistically) of winning a grand slam. So in the sense that you have three dominant players on the ATP, verses only one on the WTA, the ATP is “better”. In taking the dominant players out of consideration, chances are much greater that a top ten ATP player will win a grand slam verses someone ranked 11-20. The WTA is much less predictable that way suggesting that outside of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Serena, the top men are generally more consistent than the top women.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Top