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

So the problem in the way you were taught is shown in your statements on men prefer red wine woman prefer white wine. The full range is covered in both. Its an approximation statement that shows an inability to express the full nature of a situation. It offers no useful information.
A similar statement would be women prefer wine but real men drink beer. Sure their are pansies out there that like wine we'll just put them in the box with the other outliers. Perhaps you can see the ignorance in defining things in simplistic comparative terms. Its one thing if its 99/01 but when its 51/49 the statements like these are ludicrous. Don't draw the line with simplistic language, don't draw the line.


Fight harder? Seen plenty of wta matches that have been fought just as hard as the best atp match ever.
I'm not "taught" that, and you are drunk.

With beer.

:cool:
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
More players like Daria Kasatkina.
I'd gladly watch the WTA to watch players like her. She's like a wolverine, angry and fights to the end, has a great game, and best of all, doesn't grunt and shriek like a banshee! Pity she lost.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Serve better, yes more powerful, defend better, yes men are faster, fight harder, forget it. IMO women respect the pecking order a lot less than men do. Evidence, the top 10 seeds are out. The top seeds in the ATP have barely been threatened. 11 years later fit healthy young men walk on to Chatrier to face Nadal and 95% of them look defeated before a ball has even been struck. Ditto Federer who hasn't dropped a set at Wimbledon since 2016, and won't face any form of test before the final.

If I want to watch a fight, it's WTA all the way for me.
That is different from Serena taking control of this here QF after coming back from pregnancy how? But at least in the men's game, you have top speeds (plural). At least when the Big Four play each other, the matches are hard fought (for the most part). Serve doublefault chokathons are not my definition of hard fought. If Zverev was the top seed, for sure you would see fewer players respecting him just for the ranking. That is already the case anyway. When I say fight harder, I mean the men don't gift away easy points and stay clutch under pressure. Other than Serena, nobody on the WTA is clutch on a reasonably dependable basis.
 

bitcoinoperated

Professional
Respect and interest are different things.

Less slam winners that then disappear into oblivion. The golden era of the early 2000s had similar names duking it out in the latter stages of tournaments with high quality tennis, now you have girls like Carebear who wins some and disappears, Mugu who seems to only show up for the odd slam in a year etc. this is without mentioning the likes of Ivanovic.

An ancient Serena to stop showing how desperately weak the field is

Less mindless bashing (and screeching)

Less headcase behavior (see the classic 'what's wrong with her' thread)

Less slam-less no. 1s
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
As opposed to look at me, how much sexism I can post in one post. My life as a keyboard warrior artist?

It's funny that the scapegoats for certain people who are full of bitterness are always the same lol (women, people of color and don't forget the migrants lol)

The problem is this debate indeed cannot be discussed intelligently on a public forum because people let their hatred obscure their common sense. The level of argumentation as seen is extremely low (girls needs to screech less or have to show their features or body shaming calling them fat).

My two year old cousin could construct these kinds of basic arguments and knowing how strict his parents are, he'd be in paradise before he could even say such things.

Either his parents are dumb or the education infrastructures of certain people here have really failed them.
Do you seriously think my posts were sexist? Why, because I object to women screaming their lungs out?

You know, you could use some of that common sense. Yes, there are sexist posts in the thread. But to conflate arguments as "women should screech less" with "women should show their features" is highly dishonest.

Or do you actually think all this unholy screaming is not a legitimate problem and whoever has an issue with it is sexist?

PS: The hypocrisy is astounding. How can one complain about body shaming and in the very same post call people "fat beer belly loud speaking individuals"!?
 
Last edited:

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Do you seriously think my posts were sexist? Why, because I object to women screaming their lungs out?

You know, you could use some of that common sense. Yes, there are sexist posts in the thread. But to conflate arguments as "women should screech less" with "women should show their features" is highly dishonest.

Or do you actually think all this unholy screaming is not a legitimate problem and whoever has an issue with it is sexist?
That poster is right that this kind of discussion cannot be had on a public forum. Because they have a whole stack of cards to pull out in advance irrespective of what we say. Sexism, racism, xenophobia, whatever, bring it on. Hyperventilate without cause and then get some meds for PTSD, now that's what makes a true social justice warrior. Meanwhile, never mind the people, whether white or of colour, actually struggling, living in trailers or slums or footpaths as applicable.
 
Last edited:

hugobosstachini

Professional
Do you seriously think my posts were sexist? Why, because I object to women screaming their lungs out?

You know, you could use some of that common sense. Yes, there are sexist posts in the thread. But to conflate arguments as "women should screech less" with "women should show their features" is highly dishonest.

Or do you actually think all this unholy screaming is not a legitimate problem and whoever has an issue with it is sexist?

PS: The hypocrisy is astounding. How can one complain about body shaming and in the very same post call people "fat beer belly loud speaking individuals"!?
You have a point. Yours weren't.
 

Alexrb

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?
I'm sure it's been said 100 times already but;
-Less shrieking
-Higher hold stats. It's strange how most of them just start the point with the one shot (serve) that is supposed to give them the biggest advantage in the rally. I mean there's someone on the WTA with a 70%+ break percentage, that's stupid. It's basically who will get lucky and hold rather than the returner neutralizing the advantage of the server. Then after that it's pretty much all the same, baseline grindfests with OK forehands, solid backhands, poor net play, and swinging volleys instead of overheads.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
Our obsession about Fedal is the only thing left in men tennis. Quality is so low at the moment young generation sucks plus there is no surprise affect in men tennis anymore it is so predictable some of the WTA matches in this year Wimbledon is better than men tennis.
 

Elektra

Professional
Our obsession about Fedal is the only thing left in men tennis. Quality is so low at the moment young generation sucks plus there is no surprise affect in men tennis anymore it is so predictable some of the WTA matches in this year Wimbledon is better than men tennis.
That is why I think tennis is in the dark ages right now. Today's state of Tennis is good for people who are diehard fans of the top players like Fed, Serena but if you want new talent, fresh rivals and consistency, we are in the dark ages.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Our obsession about Fedal is the only thing left in men tennis. Quality is so low at the moment young generation sucks plus there is no surprise affect in men tennis anymore it is so predictable some of the WTA matches in this year Wimbledon is better than men tennis.
The next generation is honestly dreadful in the ATP whereas some of these WTA youngsters look promising

The people who want to see the ATP crash and burn may get their wish pretty soon
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Wholeephuck you complainers are so hard to please, your expectations are soooooo high. I'm divorcing this wimpering thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Jan 19, 2018 · Halep saved three match points and finally finished off a 4-6, 6-4, 15-13 victory in a 3-hour, 45-minute third-round match vs. American Lauren Davis.
With a horrible Winners/UFEs ratio, sure thing, bud. Hey, it was an epic match. But you set yourself up for fail by loftily saying they are as good as the best ever ATP matches in terms of fight. No they aren't. A long third set could also (and did in this case) mean both players failed to capitalise on chances to win the match. I cannot find tennis abstract charting for Konta v/s Vekic/Garcia from last year's Wimbledon but that is more like what I have in mind. But there aren't that many on the WTA who can serve well enough to be clutch in the first place and Halep and Davis certainly aren't among them. Halep would have a minimum three slams already if her serve wasn't so weak.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
With a horrible Winners/UFEs ratio, sure thing, bud. Hey, it was an epic match. But you set yourself up for fail by loftily saying they are as good as the best ever ATP matches in terms of fight. No they aren't. A long third set could also (and did in this case) mean both players failed to capitalise on chances to win the match. I cannot find tennis abstract charting for Konta v/s Vekic/Garcia from last year's Wimbledon but that is more like what I have in mind. But there aren't that many on the WTA who can serve well enough to be clutch in the first place and Halep and Davis certainly aren't among them. Halep would have a minimum three slams already if her serve wasn't so weak.
Your splitting hairs my points are clear. Your seem to have a set of statistics to use to qualify match quality. When you get pushed you go for more. Some play it safe, not fighting. You take what you want from a match. I really don't look at great matches and try to stack them up in a nice tidy order so everything is neatly organized. My point is wta fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

jarko111

Hall of Fame
Hey, it's still the biggest, highest paying sport for women. As bad as it gets on messageboards for people to discuss WTA topics.. there aren't any messageboards for some women's professional sports. Go to the ones for Women's Pro Golf, Women's Pro Soccer, Women's Gymnastics and Figure Skating. In Asia mens and womens figure skating is almost as popular as NBA and NFL here. only reason I bring that up.

WTA is still the best bet if you want to make money as a female athlete. If you're in the top 100 you're living a pretty rich lifestyle.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Your splitting hairs my points are clear. Your seem to have a set of statistics to use to qualify match quality. When you get pushed you go for more. Some play it safe, not fighting. You take what you want from a match. I really don't look at great matches and try to stack them up in a nice tidy order so everything is neatly organized. My point is wta fight.
Oh yeah Fed hit 72 winners in last year's AO final. You call that playing safe? That level is simply unattainable on the WTA. Who's splitting hairs? You are. I never said the WTA players don't fight, I said the ATP fights harder. You are again interpreting a relative statement as absolute because, you know what, you are just desperate to vent and argue. That's all. You are not looking to understand my position, you're just spoiling for a fight.
 
Oh yeah Fed hit 72 winners in last year's AO final. You call that playing safe? That level is simply unattainable on the WTA. Who's splitting hairs? You are. I never said the WTA players don't fight, I said the ATP fights harder. You are again interpreting a relative statement as absolute because, you know what, you are just desperate to vent and argue. That's all. You are not looking to understand my position, you're just spoiling for a fight.
Don't waste your time.

:cool:
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Oh yeah Fed hit 72 winners in last year's AO final. You call that playing safe? That level is simply unattainable on the WTA. Who's splitting hairs? You are. I never said the WTA players don't fight, I said the ATP fights harder. You are again interpreting a relative statement as absolute because, you know what, you are just desperate to vent and argue. That's all. You are not looking to understand my position, you're just spoiling for a fight.
You are correct and still wrong to compare
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
You are correct and still wrong to compare
But...but...but...the thread is based on the premise of the comparison. It is not a topic I normally discuss but if the thread provokes a discussion, I am happy to participate unlike those who seem to occupy themselves with telling others what they should not say (which is frankly none of their business).
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
But...but...but...the thread is based on the premise of the comparison. It is not a topic I normally discuss but if the thread provokes a discussion, I am happy to participate unlike those who seem to occupy themselves with telling others what they should not say (which is frankly none of their business).
My issue with your point, the atp fights harder, to me its an individual thing. Their are wta players that fight harder than atp players. To add up all the individual fighting amounts of the atp top 1000 and compare to the sum ofvthe top 1000 wta so you can make the statement , the atp fights harder is ridiculous. Even comparing player to player it changes over time. Apples and oranges. Its a stupid statement. Enjoy them both or not. The premise of the thread was stupid to begin with thats why I chimed in.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
My issue with your point, the atp fights harder, to me its an individual thing. Their are wta players that fight harder than atp players. To add up all the individual fighting amounts of the atp top 1000 and compare to the sum ofvthe top 1000 wta so you can make the statement , the atp fights harder is ridiculous. Even comparing player to player it changes over time. Apples and oranges. Its a stupid statement. Enjoy them both or not. The premise of the thread was stupid to begin with thats why I chimed in.
I am not interested in the entire field of 1000. I look at the big matches, since the pressure is greatest there. A serial choker like Anderson put it past Fed in a marathon fifth set, showing a level of toughness I have not seen from many of the top WTA players. Now you can disagree with that but you have no basis there to say I am wrong. You are calling it wrong simply because it seems to be a politically incorrect thing to say to you.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
I am not interested in the entire field of 1000. I look at the big matches, since the pressure is greatest there. A serial choker like Anderson put it past Fed in a marathon fifth set, showing a level of toughness I have not seen from many of the top WTA players. Now you can disagree with that but you have no basis there to say I am wrong. You are calling it wrong simply because it seems to be a politically incorrect thing to say to you.
The pressure is greatest for the individual player based on their accomplishments. Comparing apples and oranges offers zip. Populism is for followers, "you stupid stupid voters, you knew I was a snake when you voted me in".
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
The pressure is greatest for the individual player based on their accomplishments. Comparing apples and oranges offers zip. Populism is for followers, "you stupid stupid voters, you knew I was a snake when you voted me in".
It's not apples and oranges, it's the same sport played by the same rules. Try making an argument instead of spouting talking points.
 

yommie

New User
If the matches are longer, there is more chance for the better player to win and less chance for the worse player to win. Think of sampling. The more you sample, the more representative you get. The less you sample, the less representative you get. If women play best 3 out of 5, there would be less random players winning by luck, there would be only 2 or 3 players who can ever win slams, just like men.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
In the wooden racquet era, both tours had baseliners as well as serve volleyers. With graphite, their trajectories diverged as all court tennis continued to be relevant for much longer in the men's game. There has been a thrust on power tennis in the women's game since late 90s where they are made to bulk up and movement is sacrificed. This is largely responsible for the proliferation of baseline ball bashing in the WTA. But as said above, men's tennis is headed that way. Witness great new hope Zverev - serve not as good as it can be for his height and terrible net game. Rublev, Thiem are mindless ball bashers too. In a few years, equality between the two games will be achieved when both go to the dogs. :)
This. But both tours.

I read a statistic that I found revealing. During the entire 2000 AO open there was 1 match that lasted over 4.5 hours. In the 2015 AO there were 11 - in the first round (men's game).

Strings and racquet technology have made baseline bashing the safe play.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
With a horrible Winners/UFEs ratio, sure thing, bud. Hey, it was an epic match. But you set yourself up for fail by loftily saying they are as good as the best ever ATP matches in terms of fight. No they aren't. A long third set could also (and did in this case) mean both players failed to capitalise on chances to win the match. I cannot find tennis abstract charting for Konta v/s Vekic/Garcia from last year's Wimbledon but that is more like what I have in mind. But there aren't that many on the WTA who can serve well enough to be clutch in the first place and Halep and Davis certainly aren't among them. Halep would have a minimum three slams already if her serve wasn't so weak.
I think you just want women's tennis to be like men's tennis, and use the latter as the default and universal example of what tennis should be.
Of course you'll always be disappointed by women's tennis if everything you like in tennis is what's idiosyncratic about men playing this sport.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I think you just want women's tennis to be like men's tennis, and use the latter as the default and universal example of what tennis should be.
Of course you'll always be disappointed by women's tennis if everything you like in tennis is what's idiosyncratic about men playing this sport.
Nope. In fact I have made it clear earlier in the thread that imo women's tennis today is too much like men's tennis but what is called a poor man's version of it. I don't find anything uniquely WTA about WTA anymore. With that said, the way equipment has evolved, maybe this was inevitable in which case they should go the whole hog and embrace the serve and defence of the men. With S&V long dead, there is no shortage of long rallies in ATP either (contrary to what I have seen some women's tennis watchers claim). The only thing propping up WTA is Serena and in that respect both tours are remarkably similar because Fedal prop up the ATP. A pure Djokovic monopoly will not do so well, I think, for reasons that don't have much to do with his tennis.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
This. But both tours.

I read a statistic that I found revealing. During the entire 2000 AO open there was 1 match that lasted over 4.5 hours. In the 2015 AO there were 11 - in the first round (men's game).

Strings and racquet technology have made baseline bashing the safe play.
I remember coming across a late 90s article saying most American players prefer to play from the baseline but the most successful of them, Sampras, doesn't. It's a similar situation now with Fed vis a vis the young ones. Safety first mindset, which will be the death of tennis as entertainment.
 

reaper

Legend
If yesterday's Federer/Anderson match was WTA it would have been 6-2 7-6. Instead it was 2-6 6-7 7-5 6-4 13-11. Two tame semis from the women today. Who knows if one of them may have had some drama if played in the longer format....
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
If yesterday's Federer/Anderson match was WTA it would have been 6-2 7-6. Instead it was 2-6 6-7 7-5 6-4 13-11. Two tame semis from the women today. Who knows if one of them may have had some drama if played in the longer format....
Goes both ways. A poster above has argued that BO5 would eliminate some of the randomness on WTA as it favours the better player. I tend to agree. However, BO5 does guarantee more drama even in a relatively straightforward affair like say the 4 set Djoko-Nishi/Isner-Raonic matches, because it gives more time for both players to really get into the match. That's why upsets in the men's side (at the slams) are more memorable; because a 3 set upset would have to involve some incredible ballstriking (like Cilic-Fed 2014) or they would come about in a titanic 5 setter (like yesterday's match).
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Since the semis and finals both are held on separate days now for the men's and women's draws, there's nothing anymore to stop slams from making at least the semis and finals BO5 for both draws. NOT as a justification for equal prize money but just to make the WTA matches more engaging. Fitness levels on both tours are better now than in the 90s so I don't think BO5 would be a train wreck on the WTA side.
 

reaper

Legend
Since the semis and finals both are held on separate days now for the men's and women's draws, there's nothing anymore to stop slams from making at least the semis and finals BO5 for both draws. NOT as a justification for equal prize money but just to make the WTA matches more engaging. Fitness levels on both tours are better now than in the 90s so I don't think BO5 would be a train wreck on the WTA side.
There's absolutely no problem in terms of conditioning for female players to play BO5. Scheduling might be impossible from round 1 of slams, but by the 4th round the draw has thinned out sufficiently. Female athletes do better on endurance than strength relative to male athletes.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
There's absolutely no problem in terms of conditioning for female players to play BO5. Scheduling might be impossible from round 1 of slams, but by the 4th round the draw has thinned out sufficiently. Female athletes do better on endurance than strength relative to male athletes.
Yeah, the business end of slams should ideally be BO5 both sides. That by itself would make the WTA side appear weightier.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
<Bump>

To answer the OP, the women need to simply be better competitors. ALL of the present Top Ten are "head cases."

IMO, this is a consequence of today's Trophy Generation. Too many of these kids have been told their whole lives they are special. They are not.

Look at Andy Murray. The guy is merely an above average athlete, but he works his tail off in the gym and he's a multiple Major winner.

The big matches are not won on Saturday and Sunday. They are won IN THE GYM every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
<Bump>

To answer the OP, the women need to simply be better competitors. ALL of the present Top Ten are "head cases."

IMO, this is a consequence of today's Trophy Generation. Too many of these kids have been told their whole lives they are special. They are not.

Look at Andy Murray. The guy is merely an above average athlete, but he works his tail off in the gym and he's a multiple Major winner.

The big matches are not won on Saturday and Sunday. They are won IN THE GYM every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
When Michael Johnson says you are fast and have an unusual amount of natural ability I think that qualifies as more than above average.

J
 

Ledigs

Hall of Fame
I used to watch a lot of women’s tennis in the 90s with Hingis, Graf and Davenport and now I have no interest. With Serena so dominant it’s not interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
When Michael Johnson says you are fast and have an unusual amount of natural ability I think that qualifies as more than above average.
J011y, Murray is probably THE fastest player on the tour. But he lacks the agility, footwork, grace and finesse of the other top players.

(I don't like Andy. I think he's a baby on the court.) But he's so ding-dong determined to be great he IS. The girls don't have that drive.

Monfils is probably the antithesis of Murray. Talent galore. You know the rest of that story.
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
Womens tennis is not interesting for various reasons

Seeds one and two lost in early rounds to journeywomen no one has heard of. Not an uncommon occurance, similar thing happened at Wimbledon.
The defending USO champ lost about 10 matches in a row after winning last year.
Serena can win majors with zero preparation. Even Nadal has to prepare for the French.
Too many " top" players with dreadful serves.
A player like Simona Halep, who would be a Ferrer clone if she was male, becomes number one.
Two time major champ Mugu loses to random women all year round.
No great next gen for a long time (similar story in the mens right now)
Results are generally all over the place, no one knows who the favourites are.
Lack of real stars, leading to majorless players reaching number one
Most women play either like Ferrer (grinder) or Thiem (mindless ball basher) Very little variety or interesting styles in the womens game.

It's not a good product so less people watch it than the mens. If Real stars emerged it would be different.
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
Womens tennis is not interesting for various reasons

Seeds one and two lost in early rounds to journeywomen no one has heard of. Not an uncommon occurance, similar thing happened at Wimbledon.
The defending USO champ lost about 10 matches in a row after winning last year.
Serena can win majors with zero preparation. Even Nadal has to prepare for the French.
Too many " top" players with dreadful serves.
A player like Simona Halep, who would be a Ferrer clone if she was male, becomes number one.
Two time major champ Mugu loses to random women all year round.
No great next gen for a long time (similar story in the mens right now)
Results are generally all over the place, no one knows who the favourites are.
Lack of real stars, leading to majorless players reaching number one
Most women play either like Ferrer (grinder) or Thiem (mindless ball basher) Very little variety or interesting styles in the womens game.

It's not a good product so less people watch it than the mens. If Real stars emerged it would be different.
The curse of "depth".
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
J011y, Murray is probably THE fastest player on the tour. But he lacks the agility, footwork, grace and finesse of the other top players.

(I don't like Andy. I think he's a baby on the court.) But he's so ding-dong determined to be great he IS. The girls don't have that drive.

Monfils is probably the antithesis of Murray. Talent galore. You know the rest of that story.
I think your personal dislike of Murray colors your estimation of his ability. He has exemplary footwork and fantastic hands even though he doesn't approach much. His strokes are smooth as glass and his upper body is always perfectly level when he moves. It is his mind and heart which held him back and though I am not a fan I respect him greatly for going against who he naturally is in order to win.

J
 
Top