What do you think it takes for the WTA to be in same respect level as ATP

D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
Decent Men.
So I’m not a decent man for respecting the men’s tennis more than the women’s tennis? It’s not a matter of gender in my view it’s just a matter of the quality of tennis.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Decent Men.
So I’m not a decent man for respecting the men’s tennis more than the women’s tennis? It’s not a matter of gender in my view it’s just a matter of the quality of tennis.
"respecting" If you would use the word "liking" there wouldn't be an issue.

I don't think it's "quality" I think it's style. You watch mostly men's tennis and are used to the power and speed, women's tennis just isn't going to seem the same.
 
Last edited:

ak24alive

Legend
So I’m not a decent man for respecting the men’s tennis more than the women’s tennis? It’s not a matter of gender in my view it’s just a matter of the quality of tennis.
"Respect level".
No one is asking people to treat ATP and WTA the same but one should treat the ATP and WTA players with the same respect. Both work hard. And both play great.
People give so much **** to the WTA. Its poisonous. And most of those people are men. Hence my answer. Not asking you to like WTA more or something but they should be respected. People are always barking here and there that no one wants to watch WTA. Get them off the court or **** like that. What do we know man? People want to see them and they like them. I do. Just not as much as the ATP for obvious reasons but does that mean I should **** talk about them? No.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
What do you think it takes for the WTA to be in same respect level as ATP
End hereditary misogyny.

Seriously. I don't know how anyone can watch the WTA and think the overall competition is bad. It is different than the ATP in the msallest terms of pace or power play, but the competition, point construction, and fight is very good. The "respsect" issue lies much deeper in the limited machissmo male brain is all. Easy to see. Heck, just read comments here or in similar threads.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
I will watch a Nadal or Federer match first but my next choice is always a WTA match.

After Nadal's epic battles in this years US Open my favorite match has been the Osaka/Sabalenka battle. Had that match been allowed to go 5 sets, people would be using "epic" to describe it too.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I am talking about the game, and you are talking about achievements, so we are not on the same page.

If I wanted to be on your page, however, I would have asked you just how many of those listed would have won those Majors, if there were three Serena Williamses at the same time, and upping their game sometimes at the same time, and sometimes in different times, while being of different age, so that they represent different challenge to overcome?
There is no "would have" history is as it stands, and Serena played through those years, yet 23 majors were claimed by others--with several players winning more than one. On the ATP side, since 2010, these are te majors winners not named Federer/Nadal/Djokovic:

2010:
2011:
2012: Murray (USO)
2013: Murray (Wimbledon)
2014: Cilic (USO), Wawrinka (AO)
2015: Wawrinka (FO)
2016: Wawrinka (USO), Murray (Wimbledon)
2017:
2018:

That's it. Three players. Seven majors. The glaring absence of more majors-winning players--players who are not so easily beaten into a corner--settles the fact that the ATP has been filled with go-nowhere / Can't Win A Major players for two generations. This is not a diverse, competitive field compared to the WTA, where no player was/is so formidable that they prevent others among the top players (15--since 2010) from winning majors. There's no spinning the actual winners lists, and what it says about the tours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
There is no "would have" history is as it stands, and Serena played through those years, yet 23 majors were claimed by others--with several players winning more than one. On the ATP side, since 2010, these are te majors winners not named Federer/Nadal/Djokovic:

2010:
2011:
2012: Murray (USO)
2013: Murray (Wimbledon)
2014: Cilic (USO), Wawrinka (AO)
2015: Wawrinka (FO)
2016: Wawrinka (USO), Murray (Wimbledon)
2017:
2018:

That's it. Three players. Seven majors. The glaring absence of more majors-winning players--players who are not so easily beaten into a corner--settles the fact that the ATP has been filled with go-nowhere / Can't Win A Major players for two generations. This is not a diverse, competitive field compared to the WTA, where no player was/is so formidable that they prevent others among the top players (15--since 2010) from winning majors. There's no spinning the actual winners lists, and what it says about the tours.
Yes, but why would you exclude Djokovic and Nadal?

The glaring absence of more Major winners is caused by those two players.

You say that you don't accept hypotheticals, but you remove facts to make your point look better.

:cool:
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Men play BO5 sets and women play BO3. The men work more.

Watching Nadal/Thiem after that Serena borefest just reinforces my belief that men should be payed more at slams.
So a bo3 could be 76 67 76 thats 39 games
A bo5 could be 60 60 60 thats 18 games bo5 is half the work.

So lets pay them by points or by number of shots on points , its all ridiculous.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Decent Men.
this and anyone pretending other wise is ridiculous. the same things they whine about wta (lbr most people here don't even pay any wta match because it gets in the way of their precious favs on the mens side, yet act like they are experts enough to comment about it). the same issues that they whine about when it comes to the wta, "screaming, choking, etc" exists very much on the atp. the same guys dominate the tour, the younger generations "choke", people take forever to win sets even with a lead, let's not pretend that the quality of atp matches are all that better.

reality is most people here are men who well have incredibly conservative/backwards views and justify it by saying that is their preference but offer no concrete reasons to justify it.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
If the men would just hate something they know absolutely nothing about in silence so the rest of us could enjoy watching and discussing women's sports, that would be enough for me. However, that never happens because these type of men can't stand to not be the constant center of attention or to not control our every thought and action. Hate the WTA, we can live with that but just hate it quietly in some far distant space.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Yes, but why would you exclude Djokovic and Nadal?
Read:

On the ATP side, since 2010, these are the majors winners not named Federer/Nadal/Djokovic
Once again, only three other players (outside of the trio listed above from my earlier post), won majors from 2010 - 2018, The glaring absence of more majors-winning players--players who are not so easily beaten into a corner--settles the fact that the ATP has been filled with go-nowhere / Can't Win A Major players for two generations, and as of Wimbledon 2018, that terrible situation has not changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
Read:



Once again, only three other players (outside of the trio listed above from my earlier post), won majors from 2010 - 2018, The glaring absence of more majors-winning players--players who are not so easily beaten into a corner--settles the fact that the ATP has been filled with go-nowhere / Can't Win A Major players for two generations, and as of Wimbledon 2018, that terrible situation has not changed.
I read it the first time.

You compare the WTA, spearheaded by one player, and then refuse to do the same for the ATP.

A clear double-standard, used to make your case look better.

It is also absolutely comical that you continue to refuse to address the fact that if you do the same for the ATP, and clearly point at Federer as the leader of the pack (it helps a lot that he is the basically the same age as Serena), you are left with 5 players, 2 of which have an ATGs resume much exceeding anything seen amongst the group of the so called "competitive WTA".

How did it came to their resumes?

Where did those Majors come from?

It is obvious that you want to repeat the same without giving logical argumentation, so try harder this time, because I have no interest in repeating the same questions again and again.

If you do intend to do it again without reasoning, might as well spare yourself the effort.

:cool:
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I read it the first time.

You compare the WTA, spearheaded by one player, and then refuse to do the same for the ATP.
Apparently not carefully enough. For example, Williams was mentioned because WTA critics push the idiotic theory that "she wins everything" when the 23 majors from 2010-18 prove that's patently false. Either someone can count, or they are having difficulties with something so simple. Moreover, you will never bring yourself to acknowledge that among the WTA, players across different age ranges/generations have all stepped up to win majors, no matter who was the so-called "top player", but cannot explain why the ATP's limp "next generation"--as of this date--have failed to do the same year after year after year. There is a problem, and its called a case of being a pile of untalented hacks, who allow aging players to truly "win everything" more than anything seen in the WTA, or older ATP eras. That speaks volumes about the innumerable failings in the men's game in this century.

What is the excuse? "Oh, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic or just that much better" Really? Or is It a case of a kind of player that is so pedestrian in every fibre of his professional being, he's no better than a glorified practice partner. Again, what is the excuse, and what kind of future is that for the ATP once that oft-mentioned trio retire?
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Tennis began when Roger first won Wimbledon in 2004. There was nothing before that. No records. No history. No tournaments. Just a few players traveling the world randomly bumping against each other. That began in 1998.

Just formless dark chaos.

Then Ferd brought light and order.

—Genesis 1:1
 
Last edited:
Apparently not carefully enough. For example, Williams was mentioned because WTA critics push the idiotic theory that "she wins everything" when the 23 majors from 2010-18 prove that's patently false. Either someone can count, or they are having difficulties with something so simple. Moreover, you will never bring yourself to acknowledge that among the WTA, players across different age ranges/generations have all stepped up to win majors, no matter who was the so-called "top player", but cannot explain why the ATP's limp "next generation"--as of this date--have failed to do the same year after year after year. There is a problem, and its called a case of being a pile of untalented hacks, who allow aging players to truly "win everything" more than anything seen in the WTA, or older ATP eras. That speaks volumes about the innumerable failings in the men's game in this century.

What is the excuse? "Oh, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic or just that much better" Really? Or is It a case of a kind of player that is so pedestrian in every fibre of his professional being, he's no better than a glorified practice partner. Again, what is the excuse, and what kind of future is that for the ATP once that oft-mentioned trio retire?
I read your posts, not your thoughts about "haters", so I read carefully enough to address what is being written.

The second part gives away why you wanted to put three players at the top of the ATP, as opposed to one for the WTA: that way your construct of the "top player" being challenged from "different generations makes sense....until someone asks you what I asked.

However, the existing two other ATGs on the men's side are insurmountable obstacle to your theory.

Firstly, because you cannot have your cake and eat it too by counting Majors outside of the leading player on each tour, and at the same time grouping three ATGs on the men's tour, thus avoiding doing the counting under the same conditions.

I actually explained why what you called a "limp" generation failed to do that: it is because of those two players (as my previous comparison showed very well), and the unique set of circumstances, where the improving physical and medical care lead to prolonged stay at the top.

Also, there is this little fact, that you either intentionally omit, or don't know: Nadal and Djokovic are not from Federer's generation, so subsequent generations after Federer actually produced two other ATGs, and them going strong is your answer.

I wonder, why wasn't the "strong" WTA able to produce such players that continue to challenge those before and those after them?

I mean, Sharapova is the closest thing that the WTA has to that, and she is the same age as Djokovic, but has like 1/3 of his career.

Look what Serena did to her.

Consider another two players of similar status as Serena, but as young as Sharapova, operating in the WTA.

:cool:
 
this and anyone pretending other wise is ridiculous. the same things they whine about wta (lbr most people here don't even pay any wta match because it gets in the way of their precious favs on the mens side, yet act like they are experts enough to comment about it). the same issues that they whine about when it comes to the wta, "screaming, choking, etc" exists very much on the atp. the same guys dominate the tour, the younger generations "choke", people take forever to win sets even with a lead, let's not pretend that the quality of atp matches are all that better.

reality is most people here are men who well have incredibly conservative/backwards views and justify it by saying that is their preference but offer no concrete reasons to justify it.
Men are being criticized all the time about time wasting, gamesmanship etc, so, no, try again.

:cool:
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I read your posts, not your thoughts about "haters", so I read carefully enough to address what is being written.
No, you did not, hence your refusal to address the repeated heart of the message about ATP players who cannot win majors as of this date.


Firstly, because you cannot have your cake and eat it too by counting Majors outside of the leading player on each tour, and at the same time grouping three ATGs on the men's tour, thus avoiding doing the counting under the same conditions.
Utter nonsense. Learn to count, for there is only one conclusion to be reached about why the named male players (and others who played in the time frame)--as of this date--cannot win a major, leaving only a few not named RF/ND/RN.

I actually explained why what you called a "limp" generation failed to do that: it is because of those two players (as my previous comparison showed very well), and the unique set of circumstances, where the improving physical and medical care lead to prolonged stay at the top.
Desperate, nonsensical reply. If your post had any connection to the truth, then "improving physical and medical care" should also aid the other, majors-free players to weather anything the trio throw at them...or is a case of the others simply not being talented enough to beat the trio in question no matter the age or level of conditioning? Take your pick.

Nadal and Djokovic are not from Federer's generation,
According to...?

I mean, Sharapova is the closest thing that the WTA has to that, and she is the same age as Djokovic, but has like 1/3 of his career.
You proved my point: Sharapova had a larger, stronger field of quality competition to deal with, as a result, she was not going to have the same number of majors, in the timeframe.
 
No, you did not, hence your refusal to address the repeated heart of the message about ATP players who cannot win majors as of this date.




Utter nonsense. Learn to count, for there is only one conclusion to be reached about why the named male players (and others who played in the time frame)--as of this date--cannot win a major, leaving only a few not named RF/ND/RN.



Desperate, nonsensical reply. If your post had any connection to the truth, then "improving physical and medical care" should also aid the other, majors-free players to weather anything the trio throw at them...or is a case of the others simply not being talented enough to beat the trio in question no matter the age or level of conditioning? Take your pick.



According to...?



You proved my point: Sharapova had a larger, stronger field of quality competition to deal with, as a result, she was not going to have the same number of majors, in the timeframe.
I addressed the "heart of the message".

You just refuse to acknowledge the reply and repeat the same over and over.

I counted and did it for both tours.

I didn't see any objections to what I counted.

You don't get a pass for trying to cheat, and accuse others for not being able to count.

Your reply about the medical care shows that you are ignorant about many issues beyond just counting.

As the game gets more endurance oriented (thanks Homogenization!!) the sweet spot for getting the best of your physical qualities is in your late twenties, early thirties. This edge doesn't last forever (so a guy in his 40ies won't have it), but is just enough to move the advantage from the current younger players to the current older players.

That is the reason why there are so many older players able to sustain high enough level of competitiveness.

Reversly, in those same conditions that reward endurance the younger players are in disadvantage.

The more physical the game is, the bigger the impact of the medicine and training over that process is.

The women's game doesn't rely that much on physicality, so that phenomenon is less evident, but it is evident also there.

That, combined with the presence of the two ATGs on the ATP tour, that are missing on the WTA, are responsible for the situation we observe at the moment.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal being of the same generation is a theory which not many (and almost noone of knowledge) will agree with.

Is Kerber of the same generation as Serena?

Kerber is just one year younger than Djokovic.

I would have agreed about Sharapova, but she had 22 exits in Majors in the 4R or earlier, showing no consistent high level seen on the ATP.

Murray, who is the same age as Sharapova, and arguably has the closest to her career from roughly the same age, has 15, and she broke on the scene much much earlier than him.

Most of those losses were to nobodies, who never made much impression on the tour.

It means that she couldn't hold a level against nobodies a lot of times, and that is not a sign of high quality. It is the opposite.

:cool:
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Tennis began when Roger first won Wimbledon in 2004. There was nothing before that. No records. No history. No tournaments. Just a few players traveling the world randomly bumping against each other. That began in 1998.

Just formless dark chaos.

Then Ferd brought light and order.

—Genesis 1:1
It is a disgrace against humanity that only 3 people have liked this post. Hoodjem, you deserve so much better.
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
Tennis began when Roger first won Wimbledon in 2004. There was nothing before that. No records. No history. No tournaments. Just a few players traveling the world randomly bumping against each other. That began in 1998.

Just formless dark chaos.

Then Ferd brought light and order.

—Genesis 1:1
2003*
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
The women's slams need to stand out more compared to the women's ms1000's. Everything is relative and so it hurts the women's game that the men's slams have a big point of difference with their prestigious bo5 format compared to their bo3 ms1000 format and the Women don't have much of a difference between their ms1000 events and slams. Best of 5 for Women's Slam semis and final might help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
The women's slams need to stand out more compared to the women's ms1000's. Everything is relative and so it hurts the women's game that the men's slams have a big point of difference with their prestigious bo5 format compared to their bo3 ms1000 format and the Women don't have much of a difference between their ms1000 events and slams. Best of 5 for Women's Slam semis and final might help.
Oh my goodness! That would be agonizing to watch.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I addressed the "heart of the message".
No, you did not. You are claiming "all time great" status for certain players when the question is about the others who cannot win a major. Being as hyper-defensive of males in tennis as you are, you will not focus on that heart of the problem. Its not a simplistic a s "oh, they are ATG, so that's that." No. What is happening with the other players--their coaching...basic talent that prevents them from breaking through as young male players of other generations did.

You have no reasoned, honest answer for that when you tap-shuffle-tapped around the question to provide "cover" for a generation of players who--as of this date--cannot get the job done.

Is Kerber of the same generation as Serena?

Kerber is just one year younger than Djokovic.
Serena will be 37 on September 26th. Kerber is 30. That's the same generation, no matter what your astounding misunderstanding of what "generation" means continues to lead you to push this slapped-together notion.

Your reply about the medical care shows that you are ignorant about many issues beyond just counting.
This from a person using fantasy training / medicine as an explanation, when your every word had as much clinical value as a witch doctor shaking beads while dancing around a fire, as we see below:

As the game gets more endurance oriented (thanks Homogenization!!) the sweet spot for getting the best of your physical qualities is in your late twenties, early thirties. This edge doesn't last forever (so a guy in his 40ies won't have it), but is just enough to move the advantage from the current younger players to the current older players.
Still dancing around the fire--with some cackling of lies, for if anything you posted was anywhere near the truth, then being in that sweet spot should have paid off in the majors for players in that age range--

John Isner: 33
Gilles Simon: 33
Sam Querrey: 30
Vasek Pospisil: 28
Kei Nishikori: 28
Grigor Dimitrov: 27

--so much for your sweet spot theory. Now get back to the real issues with the named players. I doubt that will happen if your last few posts are any indicator.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
End hereditary misogyny.

Seriously. I don't know how anyone can watch the WTA and think the overall competition is bad. It is different than the ATP in the msallest terms of pace or power play, but the competition, point construction, and fight is very good. The "respsect" issue lies much deeper in the limited machissmo male brain is all. Easy to see. Heck, just read comments here or in similar threads.
^ This should be part of the Talk Tennis banner.

As mentioned in another thread, some regressive males have a ridiculous fantasy of women's tennis being the 1940s country club with women falling into every "soft and weak", pencil thin doll idea, playing a game few respect. They only exist to be objects of desire for loser males living somewhere other than reality.
 
No, you did not. You are claiming "all time great" status for certain players when the question is about the others who cannot win a major. Being as hyper-defensive of males in tennis as you are, you will not focus on that heart of the problem. Its not a simplistic a s "oh, they are ATG, so that's that." No. What is happening with the other players--their coaching...basic talent that prevents them from breaking through as young male players of other generations did.

You have no reasoned, honest answer for that when you tap-shuffle-tapped around the question to provide "cover" for a generation of players who--as of this date--cannot get the job done.



Serena will be 37 on September 26th. Kerber is 30. That's the same generation, no matter what your astounding misunderstanding of what "generation" means continues to lead you to push this slapped-together notion.



This from a person using fantasy training / medicine as an explanation, when your every word had as much clinical value as a witch doctor shaking beads while dancing around a fire, as we see below:



Still dancing around the fire--with some cackling of lies, for if anything you posted was anywhere near the truth, then being in that sweet spot should have paid off in the majors for players in that age range--

John Isner: 33
Gilles Simon: 33
Sam Querrey: 30
Vasek Pospisil: 28
Kei Nishikori: 28
Grigor Dimitrov: 27

--so much for your sweet spot theory. Now get back to the real issues with the named players. I doubt that will happen if your last few posts are any indicator.
You cannot follow a simple conversation, darling.

I am talking about ATG, because there is a correlation between them and those who haven't won Majors.

The most obvious example would be Soderling, who, in both his successful runs to the finals of RG beat one of those ATGs just to be beaten by another.

Otherwise Soderling would have been most probably one more in the group of the players that just barely won a Major (or two) with which WTA is full.

The fact that you even cannot get your head above the water and acknowledge that such correlation exists is a testament to either your utter inability to comprehend the problem you so vehemently discuss, or your utter dishonesty that doesn't even allow you to begin to discuss properly.

I am putting your claim that Williams and Kerber are of the same generation to a test, to see what people here think.

The History of tennis doesn't support that idea either.

My sweet spot theory is not claiming that every 30 year old will win a Major.

It is claiming that the endurance oriented game gives the chance of much older players to stay on the top of the game longer, so by giving that list of top players and their ages, you pretty much give yet another confirmation about that, so, thanks for that too!

:cool:
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
^ This should be part of the Talk Tennis banner.

As mentioned in another thread, some regressive males have a ridiculous fantasy of women's tennis being the 1940s country club with women falling into every "soft and weak", pencil thin doll idea, playing a game few respect. They only exist to be objects of desire for loser males living somewhere other than reality.
Over and Over I keep hearing from most of the males (but not all) on here that women's tennis must be and remain "beautiful" and soft and the players have to be attractive to THEM to matter.
They don't see women's tennis as a sport, they see it as window shopping while they're flipping the channel …
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
More consistencies and rivalries will help. I really loved women's tennis until 2007-08. After the belgians retired it kind of went downhill for me. The ATP will soon head there when the top players retire. Everybody likes a good narrative. Serena is a good narrative but ONLY Serena is not not a good narrative.

That said, I have enjoyed the last few women's finals in slams more so than the dud men's finals we have been having.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

Azure

G.O.A.T.
Have I misunderstood the title of this thread? When the topic is "respect", it can only come with change in psychology. Its an overall mindset that needs to change. If the word respect was mistakenly used for "viewership" I think that's a far easier issue to resolve.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
^ This should be part of the Talk Tennis banner.

As mentioned in another thread, some regressive males have a ridiculous fantasy of women's tennis being the 1940s country club with women falling into every "soft and weak", pencil thin doll idea, playing a game few respect. They only exist to be objects of desire for loser males living somewhere other than reality.

Well, let's not bash men for evoloutionary programming and todays mass marketing, cuz sex appeal is a HUGE part of all the current visual communication thrown out there. Unfortuately men get caught between women who want them to be that kinda man, and women who don't want that kind of focus. The WTA itself confuses the issue, and even down to the women themselves in how they try to pick and chose their portrayal. Again, unfortunately.

The best we can do is continue bring attention to it in hopes some start recognizing their own issues with it and things change overall. Of course it would be great if everyone took personal responsibility for it, but through all the sexualized noise in the world it confuses things for both men and women.

Just sayin...
 

Djokovicfan

Semi-Pro
This notion of women's tennis less interesting then men, is a myth cause women's tennis is interesting when you have the right competition and players pushing each other. To me I don't think the women are working to push each other the way ATP players are doing.

People were as equally interested in Chrissie and Martina then they were in Borg and McEnroe.What do you think it takes for the WTA to generate the kind of fanbase and crowd drawing like ATP?
As long is conversations about where the top womens players would rank in the mens circuit get shut down and censored, i will not respect womens tennis as much as mens tennis.
 

RudyHuxtable

Semi-Pro
*For women to be as fast and explosive as men
*For there to be some big name stars that people want to see consistently win
*For half of the top 10 to not lose by the second round of every tournament
*For there to be aesthetic and technical variety across the tour, as opposed to everyone essentially playing the same game
Ex/ when Henin or Clijsters were playing I would have most likely chosen to watch their match over two random top 40 atp baseline grinders
 

Newballs

Professional
If the men would just hate something they know absolutely nothing about in silence so the rest of us could enjoy watching and discussing women's sports, that would be enough for me. However, that never happens because these type of men can't stand to not be the constant center of attention or to not control our every thought and action. Hate the WTA, we can live with that but just hate it quietly in some far distant space.
Lots of adult males in this world, very few Men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
Top