What is wrong with the WTA being wide open (Genuine question) ?

[BOB1234567890]

I see lots of people complaining about how wide open the US open is, and i don't understand why, surely having lots of players that are at the skill level to win a grand slam is a good thing and i don't mean like Emma Raducanu, more like Osaka and Iga, those who have multiple or come close to winning multiple, surely this means there are lots of people you can route for rather than 3 people, with the odd expectation of a few others. By having the openness that lots of people also means that those players around that level will develop rivalries and build of each other. Honestly i don't know, can you just help me understand why its not a good thing.

 

[Sport]

I see lots of people complaining about how wide open the US open is, and i don't understand why, surely having lots of players that are at the skill level to win a grand slam is a good thing and i don't mean like Emma Raducanu, more like Osaka and Iga, those who have multiple or come close to winning multiple, surely this means there are lots of people you can route for rather than 3 people, with the odd expectation of a few others. By having the openness that lots of people also means that those players around that level will develop rivalries and build of each other. Honestly i don't know, can you just help me understand why its not a good thing.

Considering the former is fit and the latter has overweight, it's clear Emma is slightly more likely to win (neither will win anyway).

 

[norcal]

TTW hates the WTA no matter what context.

 

[big ted]

what i dont like about the WTA is 'X' player comes out of nowhere to win a GS, they get in the top 5-10, along with all the accolades and endorsements
then a year later theyre not even in the top 100... then someone new comes along and same thing lol

 

[Ombelibable]

People who hate "Open fields" do so because its more convenient to root for one (their favorite) player rather than live with uncertainty of who'll win.

 

[ChrisRF]

If something is totally random it doesn't make sense to follow (at least for many people) because any result is actually the same. There needs to be a bigger picture to cheer for. Something that has a relevance for longer than only the time when the actual tournament is running.

There needs to be a good balance between total randomness and total domination. Every sports needs meaningful rivalries and names to remember. Still the occasional Emma Raducanu win is nice, but again of course this can only be exceptional if this doesn't happen all the time.

 

[big ted]

If something is totally random it doesn't make sense to follow (at least for many people) because any result is actually the same. There needs to be a bigger picture to cheer for. Something that has a relevance for longer than only the time when the actual tournament is running.

There needs to be a good balance between total randomness and total domination. Every sports needs meaningful rivalries and names to remember. Still the occasional Emma Raducanu win is nice, but again of course this can only be exceptional if this doesn't happen all the time.

exactly.. the WTA is basically the same as a blind man (or woman) throwing darts at a dart board. they may as well just call the grand slams lotteries becuz thats
what they are a lot of times.

 

[jindra]

TTW hates the WTA no matter what context.

/thread

 

[Azure]

Yes, many don’t really care for the WTA but for a lot of us who do and have lost a bit of interest it is because there is no story. Everyone likes a good story, a solid rivalry you can get behind…. Almost like a piece of cinema in real life.

The greatest of story arcs of tennis has never been one person’s dominance but a challenge to the dominance - Navratilova-Evert, Graf-Seles, Williamses, Williams-Henin… when you can never root for anyone there is a flagging interest. Everyone likes a winner but everyone likes a winner that is challenged, falls and rises again. We haven’t seen any such story, or at least a sustained one in the women’s game in over a decade or more now.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[sureshs]

I don't like the thread title.

 

[CHIP72]

In general, individual sports (not just tennis but also golf, auto racing, track & field, etc.) generate more fan interest when there are a small number of dominant players that fans can get behind (as we've seen in the Big Three/Big Four era in men's tennis) and lose more casual fans when there aren't dominant performers. Now if you are an avid tennis fan (or avid fan of other individual sports) and appreciate many of the top performers, not having one or two dominant players but a handful of really good players can be exciting, but in general that doesn't appeal to casual fans, who make up a larger percentage of tennis fans (and in general fans in every sport, relative to avid fans).

 

[big ted]

heres another reason why i dont like the WTA now
Sаbаlenko made 21 doubles and tearfully began to serve.Соболенко со слезами начала подавать с руки - YouTube
i think she was literally ranked #2 in the world at the time

 

[dadadas]

Every sport needs a superstar. If everyone can win a slam then there is no superstar.

 

[AceyMan]

this forum is just loaded with misogynist lightweights who, for reasons unknown, prefer to worship the sausagefest of the ATP.

Don't try to reason with them or on their behalf; it's a waste of mental energy.

TTW needs to fork a whole separate WTA sub-forum, that's so obvious it's inane that @TW Staff hasn't done it years ago.

any more picking apart of the problem is pointless.

My 2¢.

/AceyMan

 

[BOB1234567890]

exactly.. the WTA is basically the same as a blind man (or woman) throwing darts at a dart board. they may as well just call the grand slams lotteries becuz thats
what they are a lot of times.

I mean every top player has bad performances, but the in my opinion on 2 of the female GS finalist were really a shock, (D Collins and E Rybakina) and generally throughout the year there are consistent performers, like Ons, Bencic and Iga (On tour). And while there have been some big shocks, the world No 1 at the time won AUS open and RG. So it would be rash to say it is entirely random the winner of the GS, sure the likes of Emma Raducanu are a shock, but in her case a good story for tennis and the WTA. So there have been 1 extremely random GS champ, and maybe a few unexpected, and in my opinion only 3 other surprising ones. (Brabora Krejikova, Elena Rybakina, and Ostapenko). All of the others where in the top end of WTA player field.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

TTW needs to fork a whole separate WTA sub-forum, that's so obvious it's inane that @TW Staff hasn't done it years ago.

I don’t think they’ll ever separate the pro player forum into ATP and WTA subforums because it will be too obvious how much more popular ATP tennis is.

 

[Hoi Polloi]

I see lots of people complaining about how wide open the US open is, and i don't understand why, surely having lots of players that are at the skill level to win a grand slam is a good thing and i don't mean like Emma Raducanu, more like Osaka and Iga, those who have multiple or come close to winning multiple, surely this means there are lots of people you can route for rather than 3 people, with the odd expectation of a few others. By having the openness that lots of people also means that those players around that level will develop rivalries and build of each other. Honestly i don't know, can you just help me understand why its not a good thing.

You are maybe too young to have watched the Evert/Navratilova, Navratilova/Graf, Graf/Seles, Serena/Capriati, Serena/Henin battles.
Otherwise you would know.

 

[aldeayeah]

this forum is just loaded with misogynist lightweights

I protest, if anything I'm overweight!

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Because generally there was always 4-5 great players, 8-10 very good solid players and 20000 trash players. Wide open means various trash players winning every other tournament (which is the era we seem to be heading into on both sides men and women). People aren't going to flock to see that.

 

[jarko111]

I don't like the thread title.

It wouldn't be all that great as a title for the ATP.

What makes a tour is star power. We need consistency to create that.
"Everybody get up and clap and stomp your feet for Rybakina!"
Not going to happen.. unless she keeps winning.

I think the WTA will get it's stars. It was almost happening for Kenin/Anisimova. There was a lot of interest in Leylah and Emma. Coco continues to push forward.
Iga and Naomi are probably the only players from which a tour level excitement can be built up from after Serena's last match. Right now, Serena is literally keeping the lights on at the WTA. Well, not literally. But kinda from an interest point of view.

 

[jimmy8]

You are maybe too young to have watched the Evert/Navratilova, Navratilova/Graf, Graf/Seles, Serena/Capriati, Serena/Henin battles.
Otherwise you would know.

Did you write the whole wikipedia page for Steffi Graf?

 

[Hoi Polloi]

Did you write the whole wikipedia page for Steffi Graf?

Yes, of course.

 

[fox]

WTA is the same thing ATP will become when Djokovic and Nadal retire. You will get new winner each tournament like Carreno Busta or Norrie.

 

[80s New Wave]

There's nothing inherently wrong with parity but it does make it harder to market. It is unclear what players to promote since there is a reasonable possibility that whoever you promote will lose early.