THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
He was a fool to spew his groundless tirade...but in lighter news, he's just added to his long list of loser finishes at the majors. Good show, "Tipsy."
Tipsarevic: " Junior Boy will crush Serena Williams"
- Thread starter kishnabe
- Start date
He was a fool to spew his groundless tirade...but in lighter news, he's just added to his long list of loser finishes at the majors. Good show, "Tipsy."
mellowyellow
Legend
maybe, but it was probably a classic for ESPN and was more entertaining than any womens match this tourney, and will be responsible for bringing in revenue and interest to actually play the sport not just be entertained by it.
mellowyellow
Legend
The point was that she is the most physical of the women and that plays out as we have seen this year to winning matches handily. In light of that I have just one question: WOULD THE REAL RENAE RICHARDS PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Every long match is not a "classic" (in other words, they are not all on the timeless level of McEnroe v. Borg 1980 Wimbledon, Sampras v. Becker 1996 Masters final, etc.). The large shadow of the aforementioned matches (and other genuine classics that went to the wire) forced commentators and some fans into desperately trying to invent history to help the sport, when it fails to occur naturally (see the sleep-inducing Isner match at Wimbledon). This was no classic by any stretch of the imagination, and Tipsy's matches are not known to be ratings winners.
mellowyellow
Legend
Maybe you didnt see the standing O and level of appreciation by thos attending. We will let this one slide, maybe next time if going to post about a match, pull your head out first.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
They are tennis players; not entertainers. Your argument is vapor; no matter how "astounded" you pretend to be.
Nope. I stand by my post.
I'm typing this slowly since you seem to have difficulty following spot's assertions. She claimed two tennis players were entertainers; not that the marketing and advertising "machinery" constituted "entertainment. Please pay attention.
After you. I qualified my post (unlike spot). I'm comfortable with how I expressed it.
We should have an "Atta Boy" button or something. This post deserves one.
- KK
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
You're my hero, Kaptain Karl!
No, really..
No, really..
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
oh, andfor all the poster's here equating Tipsy's level with his 'right to speak', where does that leave y'all?
Oh, right, on the couch, silly me
Oh, right, on the couch, silly me
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Translation: you resort to flames because you cannot defend your idiotic "classic" line. A standing ovation is merely a courtesy. There is no indicator tennis historians will be talking about that dull match 20 years from now, nor are they universally crowning it a genuine classic at present (as the matches noted in my previous post were in their respective eras).
At least try to post something in the realm of common sense, instead of jocking the bore-fest that thankfully ended yet another Tipsy race to nowhere.
...and while i'm slicing your thoughts:
Clearly, such a wild claim about THAT match requires proof.
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Yawn.
Please learn what business you are discussing, or walk away; tennis is entertainment and its players are handled as entertainers, like the majority of pro sports stars in the modern world (a world apparently alien to you), and is marketed by the sport's PTB as such even before a player has inked any deals elsewhere. There's no pretending the well developed theatrics of tennis events and the "name" players (all deliberately promoted with the ancillary concerns in place) are some separate entity. Whatever gross misunderstanding you have about spot's post is irrelvant to the reality of professional tennis as an entertainment enterprise, with its players marketed as stars--entertainers--for natural "exploitation" whether they are successful (Serena, Sharapova, et al) or not (Wozniacki) on the court. Similarly, in the NBA, the LeBrons, Kobes and Carmellos can fight for championships, but their conscious handling/promotion as entertainers--an integral part of a sports/entertainment property (the NBA) cannot be ignored.
Last edited:
Karl- People are playing a game this weekend and there is an 18 million dollar purse only because people find it entertaining to watch it. They are in the entertainment business. It doesn't matter how hard the players work or how well they do it- all that matters for them making a living is how entertaining people find to watch it. Jim Courier understands this which is why he started the senior tour and has made a ton of money on it. http://www.powersharesseries.com/
Maybe you want to whine about how unfair it is that people will pay to watch old people or women who aren't in the top 1000 players in the world but that is just the way it works. They picked a career that is entirely depending on the entertainment value.
Last edited:
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Timbo, thanks for the kind words.
THUNDER and spot, you both need to follow The First Rule of Holes.
- KK
THUNDER and spot, you both need to follow The First Rule of Holes.
- KK
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Karl, you're wearing a Robin costume, which means you are always in the junior position of opinion.
LOL. Yeah... because so many people are agreeing with you that tennis players aren't in the entertainment business. Don't worry- everyone gets why you are trying to change the subject.
mellowyellow
Legend
Learn the difference of merely showing respect for athletes that did their job, and when their is a clear appreciation for the show/performance they put on. If you cant distinguish the difference here then you are completely helpless/clueless. No one else seemed to think it a "dull" match, if that was dull what womens match was that good? Maybe you can point to a womens match recently that was as entertaining as this one was? Most of the mens matches lacked the talent and fight that this match had up to this point. When you come up with one womens match that was this matches equal in this tourney or the last 10 tourneys. Please come up with matches that do inspire people to actually be partakers of tennis not just entertained by it like the casual idiots that the media actually has fooled into thinking womens tennis is good on a whole.
Tipsarevic is probably the smarted player on the tour. Very well educated and insightful.
Serena Williams would definitely lose to a top 20 Junior in World.
Also, Women's Tennis is not nearly as popular as Men's, and for that reason and that reason alone they should not earn what the men do at the Slams. BJK is another idiot.
Serena Williams would definitely lose to a top 20 Junior in World.
Also, Women's Tennis is not nearly as popular as Men's, and for that reason and that reason alone they should not earn what the men do at the Slams. BJK is another idiot.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
you were the one who introduced the word "classic" into this conversation, so if you cannot back up your suggestions/claims/whatever, you need to learn to avoid using language that is not supported by fact. It is that simple for you.
Subjective nonsense.
Show me the ratings for that counter to No-Doz. That will determine how "appreciated" it was. As of this date, all you have engaged in is subjective ranting which is rejected as such.
So, without an ounce of proof, you have now claimed:
1. The wholly false statement that matches (like the Tipsy torture session) inspires anyone to play the sport. This is not the men's end of the tennis boom from the late 70s-early 80s where innumerable fans were drawn to play--nowhere near it. But again, you need to offer proof of this being inspirational.
2. It must be media "hoodoo" which makes women's tennis good (and a popular draw). Patently false, and has its origins in the boorish sexism which refuses to accept reality.
Last edited:
SAFINATORZ
Hall of Fame
I agree take christian harrison for instance, this kid would destroy serena!
Janko Tipsarevic tells the publication Berner Zeitung that female tennis players should not be paid the same as men, and also takes a swipe at the quality of women's play.
"Men's tennis is currently in the top four in terms of quality and popularity, it’s at its peak, just like golf when Tiger Woods dominated. In the women's tennis it’s very different," he said. "I do not underestimate the achievements of Victoria Azarenka and the others, but their best time is over. That was when the Williams sisters, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo were at the top. I don't even want to talk about (the fact) that a good junior could beat Serena 6-1, 6-2. But I think it's simply ridiculous that women earn on the same at the Grand Slam events."
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=18843&zoneid=25
I don't think any Junior can....they would be scared of Serena the first time.[/QUOTE]
Janko Tipsarevic tells the publication Berner Zeitung that female tennis players should not be paid the same as men, and also takes a swipe at the quality of women's play.
"Men's tennis is currently in the top four in terms of quality and popularity, it’s at its peak, just like golf when Tiger Woods dominated. In the women's tennis it’s very different," he said. "I do not underestimate the achievements of Victoria Azarenka and the others, but their best time is over. That was when the Williams sisters, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo were at the top. I don't even want to talk about (the fact) that a good junior could beat Serena 6-1, 6-2. But I think it's simply ridiculous that women earn on the same at the Grand Slam events."
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=18843&zoneid=25
I don't think any Junior can....they would be scared of Serena the first time.[/QUOTE]
The drama of the match makes it one of the best matches of the year, but not of all time, obviously.
However, if we're to really sit back and analyze things, who is to say a 7-6 in third match in the Challengers, between two guys who if one loses, will not eat that night, and probably retire, or yesterdays match between Janko vs. Ferrer in which it was INCREDIBLY important to Janko to get to first SF and secure a top 5 Ranking, or another Semi- or Final match which is of extreme importance?
My point being, who is to say one particular player in more important than another, within a given match and the importance of that match to their careers. Winning a title, a Grand Slam, is of course a bit more important in the overall history of tennis, therefore making Epic Finals (ex. Roddick v Federer) of more importance. But we must not attack other players on tour, who have epic matches which are of epic importance to them, while it might not be to the average joe.
mellowyellow
Legend
The difference is I said probably a classic for ESPN, you failed to actually read what I said, and focused on one word, in short if these two were to meet again not just the USO, and their be a rain delay it would not be inconceivable to replay this match. I could however see them playing it in any case to pass time, the match was great and a better ending you could not ask for. They laid it all on the line.
I don't need to show proof about any of this, its a known fact that matches like this make people want to play. I don't answer to you, you are not the TT facts police, unless I missed a memo... Quit talking about ratings like they are the end all. Its as simple as that. True ratings would be to ask people what they want to watch when the prime hours are, not to force it upon you just because of an equality issue. See you can't get that through your head, without the promotion of players like Tipsy, Almagro, Ferrer because a "top" female needs to get her air time, you have no argument for using ratings. They are as biased as the day is long. That simple, and people will watch because of the T&A. Seldom do the women put on a performance that leaves the viewer satisfied. So waiting on that one match that the women put on in the last 10 matches.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Can Donald Young crush Serena Williams ?
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You were incorrect to use the word, as it is highly suggestive, and reveals a bad misunderstanding of what a classic match is.
Then you have no point. You made what you were trying to pass off as fact sans any evidence to support your statement. Thanks for confirming your claim is baseless.
TV ratings represent the sport's largest audience, so any attempt to avoid that screams a fear of the reality of fan interest--which does not mirror the sexist line of certain TW board members, or a couple of losers on the ATP tour.
Ahh...the Right Wing fantasy. No one forces anyone to watch a broadcast--how are you not getting that? If large numbers support women's matches, it is out of the interest of the audience, as no one is forced to support anything. Enough with illogical arguments with holes so large, one could fly a planet through it.
Women's Tennis is failing, bottom line. Men's Tennis props it up, which should not be the case.
mellowyellow
Legend
When you can offer unbiased viewership for the avg fan that doesn't have nationalistic overtones then you have a legit argument. As the sport sits right now, the good tennis is seldom seen, and guys like Ferrer, Tipsy, Almagro do not garner the attention worldwide for their talent. In the WTA case,throw sex on TV and people will watch... If everyone looked like Kuzy, Schiavone I would expect their would be much less interest in the "entertainment" aspect of the sport.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Federer has as much appeal as Ivanovic if not more. Fed earns same at USO as Ivanovic and Ivanovic won 4 games in her quarterfinal. Her countryman Tipsy sweats for 4 h 30 mins in the quarters and he too gets the same amount.
Errani for winning 3 games will receive the same money as Ferrer and Berdych.
Someone should just thump Stacy Allaster
Errani for winning 3 games will receive the same money as Ferrer and Berdych.
Someone should just thump Stacy Allaster
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You were the one claiming some "hoodoo" was responsible for the viewership:
Again, you have no point. You made what you were trying to pass off as fact sans any evidence to support your statement. Thanks for confirming your Right Wing-poisoned claim is baseless.
Their "talent" is your subjective view not supported by additional information (interest via ratings, which you cannot provide). If their ability was overwhelmingly impressive (and it is not by any stretch of the imagination), then the results would show. For example, before teen Sampras or teen Serena won their 1st USO titles, the talk was swirling about their ability--predictions were made, thus genuine, earned interest was building--especially with the sport's biggest auidence (TV). Tipsy, Almagro, et all, in the same postiion (i.e. no majors win yet) are not commanding attention because their games do not compel that reaction from the audience.
...and to return to you other would-be point:
To reiterate, without an ounce of proof, you have now claimed:
1. The wholly false statement that matches (like the Tipsy torture session) inspires anyone to play the sport. This is not the men's end of the tennis boom from the late 70s-early 80s where innumerable fans were drawn to play--nowhere near it. But again, you need to offer proof of this being inspirational.
2. It must be media "hoodoo" which makes women's tennis good (and a popular draw). Patently false, and has its origins in the boorish sexism which refuses to accept reality.
mellowyellow
Legend
The talent is not subjective, for women you see the best of the best, but comparatively they are not the best show when talking about any mens match containing top 100 men. Put Anna Kournakova in the final and ratings will double, it won't be because of the tennis.
"Tipsy, Almagro, et all, in the same postiion (i.e. no majors win yet) are not commanding attention because their games do not compel that reaction from the audience."
This sounds like someone out of touch with reality, someone who only thinks as to their nationality. You must be an American as you referenced two popular ones in this case instead of.... anyone else, and I can't recall anyone ever saying they wanted to play like Serena at the courts, or players on TV. The evidence for ratings being biased is what it is, they try to give equal airtime, if you cant see this then no help for you... What does that then mean? Guys like Tipsy, Almagro, Monaco who don't generally make it as far do not get airtime when the slots open up. Now if you actually look, and ask peoples opinions you would see their was an outcry of appreciation for the match that was played. Had that happened 2 rds ago you would not have seen it on TV, the crowd that watched would have been reduced. See that is a bias, or skew that helps the womens PR. Again if you for all of your bs intelectual talk (cant actually believe you talk to people in conversation that way) cant understand that, their is no help for you. Go to a mixed tourney early and find where all of the filled seats and courts are, what battles are being watched? It is not the womens matches. Again bias towards the women, keep a snooozer Serena/Sharapova/Vica match on TV when everyone is buzzing about a mens match that is a dogfight. Their are no statistics, sometimes you need to actually see it to understand. Open your eyes and quit drinking from the punch bowl.
"Tipsy, Almagro, et all, in the same postiion (i.e. no majors win yet) are not commanding attention because their games do not compel that reaction from the audience."
This sounds like someone out of touch with reality, someone who only thinks as to their nationality. You must be an American as you referenced two popular ones in this case instead of.... anyone else, and I can't recall anyone ever saying they wanted to play like Serena at the courts, or players on TV. The evidence for ratings being biased is what it is, they try to give equal airtime, if you cant see this then no help for you... What does that then mean? Guys like Tipsy, Almagro, Monaco who don't generally make it as far do not get airtime when the slots open up. Now if you actually look, and ask peoples opinions you would see their was an outcry of appreciation for the match that was played. Had that happened 2 rds ago you would not have seen it on TV, the crowd that watched would have been reduced. See that is a bias, or skew that helps the womens PR. Again if you for all of your bs intelectual talk (cant actually believe you talk to people in conversation that way) cant understand that, their is no help for you. Go to a mixed tourney early and find where all of the filled seats and courts are, what battles are being watched? It is not the womens matches. Again bias towards the women, keep a snooozer Serena/Sharapova/Vica match on TV when everyone is buzzing about a mens match that is a dogfight. Their are no statistics, sometimes you need to actually see it to understand. Open your eyes and quit drinking from the punch bowl.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
On the tennis court, yes. Off, probably not.
mellowyellow
Legend
TV you also need to realize in a perfect world ratings are good because everyone want to see good tennis, that is just not true and that is flawed logic on your part. Reality is that many would watch just to see someone get beat, than to see the opponent win. College football plays this out alot. When Ray Leanord came back to fight Camacho Jr. it was not because anyone thought it would be a great fight, his great fights were years off at that point, the feeling was he would get his butt kicked, it was pay per view and many watched it. Then you had a guy Naseem Hamed, and many would watch him waiting for his time to come and get beat, not for any other reason. I will watch Bartoli/Nadal just to see them get beat, I am sure many on here will watch Masha/Vica because of the shrieking just too see them get beat. So do not think or act as though ratings means it was great talent/entertainment that drew a crowd.
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Pick up a dictionary, then look up "subjective," as you are still applying subjective opinion, which is devoid of hard facts.
One player--we are not talking about. Today's current players get the ratings, and have a variety of physical appearances, so once again, your theories are nonsensical at best, but the audience has a desire to see the players, otherwise, they would easily exercise something called free choice and a remote. That is not happening for one reason.
Woefully off the mark. I noted two players due to the interest generated before they won their first major. Nationality is merely coincidental--particularly since the global tennis community was buzzing about Sampras & Serena at the period in question. The same happened with Becker before his 1st Wimbledon (next, you'll say Boris was from New Jersey as a way of supporting your DOA nationalism noise).
This brings us back to two points:
Tipsy, Almagro, et al, do not generate that kind of pre-1st majors buzz because they are non-factors as players, thus the sport's biggest audience is not paying attention to them. .,
1. You cannot provide evidence of this, so this is more of your hate campaign against women.
2. The women could vanish from broadcasts right now, and Tipsy, Almagro and others of their level would still fail to generate interest as it is their play and character which is not compelling to audiences, and never will be after long years on tour.
However, you can continue to create more baseless, go-nowhere theories until Doomsday, but none will ever come close to being fact.
Last edited:
mellowyellow
Legend
Their sure seemed to be as much buzz about that match as any other great match for the year. You must not frequent the courts very often?? What audience? American? Please provide proof that Serena is more watched in Spain than Almagro or Ferrer, or that Monaco is less watched in Argentina than Sharapova, When you do that please make sure that the viewership was of the nature of choice not because it was simply the only match provided. When are you going to provide statistics that are not Anglo American based?
mellowyellow
Legend
I am sure you do, but look at the dress that is now allowed.... look at what happened to the junior girl. I have a legit question, if watching Serena do you try to play like her? If you try to serve like her, do you realize you are trying to serve like Pete? Do the womens matches make you want to play more so than the Tipsy/Ferrer match? The real question I want to know though is do you feel the quality of most womens tennis is satisfactory or higher quality than mens? Or would you say it is usually lacking in competitiveness, and you were somehow robbed of a good match from start to finish?
Roy125
Professional
Yes, I would want to play like Serena Williams. And yes, I do realize that Serena has a very similar serve like Pete Sampras'. I don't know about all women' match but I'd rather watch the top women play than the lower-ranked guys, or guys that I don't know much about--including Tipsy and Ferrer.
Honestly, I would not have thought that the quality of womens' tennis was lower than the mens' if someone did not tell me. Growing up, I always had girls with more talent beat me so I thought they were pretty much on par with the men and it was only a couple of years ago that I realized that there's a large disparity between the sexes. I always thought there was a high amount of competitiveness in the women's game though, excluding the wozniacki/zvonareva eras.
mellowyellow
Legend
So would it be fair to say if it were not for marketing the best of each respective sex equally, you would wrather see mens than womens or vice versa in this case? Since you openly admit it is better level of tennis? Can you name a womens match that was of equal quality as this match this year? Is watching second best a problem regardless of the sexes? Would you rather watch second best womens than mens?
Can you clarify the last bold part, seems to conflict greatly with the general feeling of the board and most people I talk tennis too on a regular basis?
Last edited:
tistrapukcipeht
Professional
Many top Jrs can run over Serena at her best, her 120 MPH is nothing that a Jr hasn't seen, a top jr will probably have a better return than WTA ladies that hardly ever see 120 mph at the T, while Jr's see that all the time and return it.
The rest is all advantage for the top Jrs, they can run faster, move better, hit with more power and spin and hit what serena throws at them, it remains to know if serena can keep up with them.
Would the Jrs play with WTA balls ?? or would they play with ATP balls?
Either way The Jrs will get an advantage
The rest is all advantage for the top Jrs, they can run faster, move better, hit with more power and spin and hit what serena throws at them, it remains to know if serena can keep up with them.
Would the Jrs play with WTA balls ?? or would they play with ATP balls?
Either way The Jrs will get an advantage
Roy125
Professional
I don't know where my interests would be if there weren't equal marketing of both the wta and atp. I'm sorry; your pronouns are a little ambiguous in your post so I don't know what "it" and "this" mean to you. And again, I apologize because I don't know how to clarify the last point of my last point any further: I think the top players of the WTA have always been competitive with each other, but I'm probably using a broader definition of "competitive" than most of the board when they might say that women's tennis isn't competitive at all. I mean, the top girls of the WTA all fight to win slams and titles, right? That's what I mean by "competitive."
PCXL-Fan
Hall of Fame
Jr would lose
There would be immense pressure from nerve for a jr to face Serena on Center court Wimbledon infront of thousands of spectators and being televised to millions of viewers. Combine that with the threat of a collective female movement to outcast the male which dashes the social preset illusion that top 10 females can compete with top 20-500 ranked males in tennis, and you have the recipe that Serena would crush the top jr.
Are you guys aware how powerful social pressure and persuasion is. If a hypnotist hypnotizes a 260 weightlifter that he cannot lift a 80lb child, he actually will no longer be able to find the strength to do it.
There would be immense pressure from nerve for a jr to face Serena on Center court Wimbledon infront of thousands of spectators and being televised to millions of viewers. Combine that with the threat of a collective female movement to outcast the male which dashes the social preset illusion that top 10 females can compete with top 20-500 ranked males in tennis, and you have the recipe that Serena would crush the top jr.
Are you guys aware how powerful social pressure and persuasion is. If a hypnotist hypnotizes a 260 weightlifter that he cannot lift a 80lb child, he actually will no longer be able to find the strength to do it.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Where's the TT "Atta-Boy!" button??? That was great!
I believe you, Roy. I also believe you represent "the exception;" not the "rule".
Hey...! Anna was a VERY good player (especially Dubs). She got hammered on these board (TT) for not being as good as she was sexy.
If she were playing Dubs, I'd *definitely* be watching. Singles? I'd probably be watching.
Curiously, we have similar (dis)regard for her posts ... but we draw different conclusions. I don't view her pretentious posts as *nationally* motivated at all. Since I coach high school tennis and deal with over 35 teenagers six days a week, I am struck by how similar her style is to the 15 year-old know-it-all nature of so many kids with no adult life experience. She's trying too hard to pretend to be an adult.
My guess? She's 14-17 years of age and desperately trying to be perceived as a grown-up. IMO she's not driven by nationalism, but by teenage angst.
mellow, you're wasting your time. She "knows everything."
BINGO! Her posting style is what brings me to my above conclusion.
I still think you're wasting your time with her, but you are making very good arguments.
Milan, please pass the popcorn....
- KK
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
"Top 200"? How about more like Top 2000?
mellowyellow
Legend
Thank you for taking the time to answer and what seems like a legit point of view.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Tipsy: crashed and burned as always at the majors, and could not provide an exciting match even if his hate-monger life depended on it..
...meanwhile, the women's final was a real fight with tension, and Serena makes history again. Funny how that works out.
...meanwhile, the women's final was a real fight with tension, and Serena makes history again. Funny how that works out.
sundaypunch
Hall of Fame
I think that Janko should be granted verb status. Crashing and burning in the important tournaments = Janko-ing. Then at least he will be remembered for something in 10-years.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
LOL! Good one!
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Translation: after days of posting unsubstantiated sexist rants, you still have no proof to support your hardline "facts" about anything, and dip into bizarre notions of Tipsy inspiring anyone to play (hint: no one models their game off of a one-dimensional loser), to posting a steaming pile of conspiracy theory about the audience somehow being forced to watch women's matches.
You never had a chance.
Oh, I guess Henin, Bartoli, Venus and Kvitova (to name just a few) were being sold as Maxim "babes" on the court, right? You are hopelessly out of touch.
Last edited:
tistrapukcipeht
Professional
I don't know why some of you is saying all this BS about Tipsarevic, He can choke as much as He can, still the level He plays and played against Ferrer (the best match of the tournament up to now) is a level to double bagel Serena and any WTA player if he wanted.
Sorry, but it is the absolute truth that any high level Jr can run over Serena and/or any WTA player, that simple.
Would they play with lighter balls (WTA) or heavier balls (ATP)?
Sorry, but it is the absolute truth that any high level Jr can run over Serena and/or any WTA player, that simple.
Would they play with lighter balls (WTA) or heavier balls (ATP)?
Similar threads
