Why the WTA Tour is more interesting Than the ATP Tour
- Thread starter FiddlerDog
- Start date
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
2nd Serve Ace
Hall of Fame
Like that the newer WTA players don't have those blood curdling screams of the older ones.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
HitMoreBHs
Professional
There has never been any fault found with working up an appetite outside, so long as one always eats dinner at home.
HitMoreBHs
Professional
Nice try, but no. Even when MaSha was playing, I only ever watched WTA sporadically. And usually only SF matches onwards. The ATP tour does everything better with far more exciting matches.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
If you watch live in person, the quality difference in level becomes obvious and the WTA matches are not very appealing if there are ATP matches going on at the same time as happens at combined tournaments like Indian Wells that I attend regularly. If it is on TV, it is harder to see the huge difference in levels and both tours can be entertaining if you like tennis. In that case, the entertainment value comes down to personalities - I would rather see top-ranked stars from either tour play than a couple of nobodies as I would have a rooting interest only in the first case.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Why the WTA Tour is more interesting Than the ATP Tour
I enjoy WTA more for the fact that my tennis ability aligns more with how the women hit the ball more than the men. I kinda think I could actually rally reasonably well with WTA players more than ATP players. But enjoy watching all levels of tennis so not really a big deal to me.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
You clearly know nothing about the WTA if you think there’s no excellent players. Educate yourself and watch tournaments, see Swiatek, watch Osaka, view Barty, enjoy Andreescu. These posts by you are embarrassing.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
The WTA is definitely more exciting right now. The men’s French Open is already decided as said by many people here. How boring to know what will happen. It won’t be competitive like last years final, how boring was that? Djokovic v Nadal and it was still meh. Meanwhile there’s many front runners for the ladies French Open. There’s the #1 and champ in 2019, Ash Barty, there’s the unstoppable defending champ Swiatek. We have 2018 champ Simona Halep. Then we have players who we haven’t even seen much of on clay like 2019 USO champ Andreescu. Then you’ve got other multi slam champs like Muguruza, Osaka, Kvitova. Oh and let’s not forget Serena Williams...
The men’s draw will have what like 4 slam champs in the draw? One of whom is Cilic.... the WTA meanwhile is just stacked. Take a look at Madrid. Barty is playing Swiatek in the 3R(!)
The men’s draw will have what like 4 slam champs in the draw? One of whom is Cilic.... the WTA meanwhile is just stacked. Take a look at Madrid. Barty is playing Swiatek in the 3R(!)
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
The WTA is in a weak era. The ATP's in a weaker era, and even the most hardened ATP fans know that it's a sea of hopefuls pathetically biding their time until Djokovic and Nadal have weakened enough. But the WTA is in a weak era, regardless. Osaka on hardcourt plays at around '00 Hingis' level- in other words, slightly above the beginning Kim Clijsters' level. That's roughly the equivalent of a slumping prime Serena.
So, yes, I would put her below the best versions of Henin and Davenport, and even Kournikova, all of whom could play their best games on multiple surfaces if not factoring injuries. I've been told to wait for Osaka to 'peak' for some time, now. I'll keep waiting. In the meantime, the general level has dropped. Osaka on hardcourts is the highest level the WTA has at the moment.
I'm not going to weigh in on Barty and Swiatek, because this place gets angry when I weigh accurately. What I will say is an in-form Kournikova could beat them both, which is a shame when the in-form Kournikova wasn't a Top 10 player. Something smells funny when we're expected to just 'put up' with how far the level of skill's fallen. Each one of these people you listed (including Serena Williams) would be a warm up round for someone like Jana Novotna in the late '90s. Considering all these so-called advances in medicine and technology, I can't shake the disappointment out of my mind.
But yes, that pales in comparison to the ATP's disappointment. Which is why the ATP isn't even worth mentioning in detail. With that said, the ATP pushes its cast of nobodies far harder than the WTA does- the WTA side has its fans doing all the legwork, and the ATP tour is probably more popular on a player-by-player level. None of these players on either tour has star power, but the women at least have an inkling more of that, on the whole. If Osaka's lazy behind played some damn tennis for once, or anything at all besides social media, we might have someone with charisma in the Davenport-range. That'd be a good start for a change, if nothing else.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
That cream that is Djokovic and Nadal is long past its expiration date, and needs to be scraped off.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Standaa
G.O.A.T.
I loved it when someone on ttw said “Zverev is pretty in a boring kind of way.”
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Exactly! It's more relatable in the pace of the match to some higher-rated recreational players.
Apart from that, watching a tournament with both ATP and WTA gets frustrating as they show EQUAL time for both, while I only want to see women vs men ratio of about 1:3. Tennis is the most lucrative sport for women for the obvious reason they mashed men and women together, and you have no choice.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
That's a good description. I don't care much for his antics, but you gotta admit he's an insanely good looking dude.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
It works the same way with women, believe me.
Bae is so fine lol
Eww
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Did you watch the video? The whole premise of Aracic’s point is that the WTA has no outstanding players like the Big 3 who dominate the men’s tour.
In other words, in his opinion, the Big 3 are too good for the rest of the tour which is not the case with the women so it’s more competitive.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is like comparing an F2 race and an F1 race with limitations on overtaking.
The first will get you all inquisitive about how much overtaking can happen in a single race with similar setup, while the second will expose you to the irrelevance of "racing" because the rules have been altered to favour some teams over others.
The first will get you all inquisitive about how much overtaking can happen in a single race with similar setup, while the second will expose you to the irrelevance of "racing" because the rules have been altered to favour some teams over others.
Last edited:
Hitman
Bionic Poster
No chance. But if he or anyone else enjoys WTA more, then more power to them. It is subjective.
For me even with the current crop of players on the ATP, saying WTA is better is an insult to them. I'm still watching ATP, on WTA barring a slam final, I am only really checking in on Serena in each slam and Halep. That's it for me personally.
For me even with the current crop of players on the ATP, saying WTA is better is an insult to them. I'm still watching ATP, on WTA barring a slam final, I am only really checking in on Serena in each slam and Halep. That's it for me personally.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
From time to time I watch several WTA players, like Kvitova, Venus and more recently Swiatek, but there are so many off putting things on the WTA circuit, that I can't get myself to watch it consistently.
The fact that these players often cannot hold a service game is a deal breaker for me. It is literally like they are going by a script where they take turns to out choke the other. No mental fortitude of any serious quality. Rollercoasters are fine, but out choking rollercoasters are not.
Add to that the cattiness, the screeching, the constant on court coaching (I know it is allowed, it doesn't mean that I like it), and more recently, the politics, and it becomes a very unappealing product for me.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
From time to time I watch several WTA players, like Kvitova, Venus and more recently Swiatek, but there are so many off putting things on the WTA circuit, that I can't get myself to watch it consistently.
The fact that these players often cannot hold a service game is a deal breaker for me. It is literally like they are going by a script where they take turns to out choke the other. No mental fortitude of any serious quality. Rollercoasters are fine, but out choking rollercoasters are not.
Add to that the cattiness, the screeching, the constant on court coaching (I know it is allowed, it doesn't mean that I like it), and more recently, the politics, and it becomes a very unappealing product for me.
Yeah, we have our reasons. There are a few things here and there we pick, but overall I just don't have the interest to follow like I did in the past. This year, only saw two matches, one being AO final.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
That’s not what you said. You said
“There is no cream in the WTA” and then compared it to mediocre competition.
I’d say a 4x slam champ along with many other threats at this French Open makes for juicy competition, not mediocre. Yes there’s no dominant force like Nadal who makes the men’s tour look like a joke on clay. Instead we get competitive matchups of women many of whom could win the title.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Just because you aren’t watching the WTA doesn’t mean others aren’t. Bizarre statement to post. If you want to enjoy Hurkacz v Sinner for a 1000 title over Barty v Andreescu for the same title then go right ahead. One is a battle between slam champs and top 10 players and the the other was 2 players outside the top 25.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
If there is cream in the WTA, it will rise to the top if it doesn't then there is no cream. Simple.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Don't get so defensive. I said if people enjoy it then more power to them, it is subjective. That is not a bizarre statement. If you like it, happy for you.
I personally don't like it anymore, maybe that will change in the future, but I don't find the players to be appealing, overall bland product. Nothing really interesting that makes me want to commit time to it right now.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Same. Such a fall from where it used to be. There was always something lit going on back in the day, now it's just a bunch of random girls all hitting the same kind of balls, getting basically everything back, and choking/getting broken. This was the WTA lol
Hitman
Bionic Poster
After seeing so many really good eras, champions and rivalries in the WTA over the years, this period is such a letdown for me. Again, I could change my mind in the future, but for now, I just skip the tennis. Only slam finals interest me right now.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
I love watching the WTA and I love that the winners are not that predictable but at the same time I love that the men have the Big 3 that everyone is aspiring to beat or even take a set off. Both are interesting concepts, in their own way. I have to admit that I did stop watching tennis in the TMF days because the players were in awe of Federer and didn't even try. I found that boring.
This week I've been swapping between Estoril and the WTA Madrid depending on who is playing.
This week I've been swapping between Estoril and the WTA Madrid depending on who is playing.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
This was the WTA lol
Yes, but even before this. I have followed WTA for a very long time. I saw the whole Graf era, saw Martina, saw peak Seles, peak Sanchez Vicario, the rise of Hingis, the debut of the Williams sisters, the trials and tribulations of Capriati, the power of Davenport, the influx of the Russians, the impactful Belgians....the last few years is the first time I simply lost interest in the WTA. It wasn't a conscious decision that I made one day to just stop watching, I was steadily just losing interest in the product, the players don't appeal to me, I follow Halep a little and keep my eye on Serena in each slam, but that is it. I know when I do begin to one day start watching again, it will happen without me noticing it at first. It's kind of sad for me that I simply don't care about a product that I cared and followed for so many years, but would rather follow other sports or interests in my spare time now.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I knew you'd say that bc I remember your viewing history
I can only be jealous, mom got me into tennis in 2001 when the Venus/Serena show started, but I was only watching casually and just big finals. Then Roddick got me into it a bit more in 03, then Nadal in 06. Id say 07 was the first year where I was really watching everything year round even though I was watching a lot of WTA in 05 and a lot of ATP in 06. I knew Agassi was a big name and always knew he was a big deal, so the whole cortisone story and last tourney, how far can he go thing really is when I got heavy into ATP along w Nadal being epic that year too.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I knew you'd say that bc I remember your viewing history
Well, it was my mom who got me into tennis also. It was always on in the house when I was a kid, so I had many memories of watching it before I could even understand it and saw many of the players actually during their primes and peaks. Until recently, I watched both ATP and WTA equally, followed both closely, players were so much more appealing, their rivalries, styles, charisma, court presence, champions mentality etc. I don't see that anymore, the tour looks like a lot of cookie cutter clones, with a few being a little better, like I enjoy Osaka's effortless power when she actually tries....
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Yes and amazing as a run like Swiatek's last year at the FO was (she played ridiculous tennis) it's just the story of the WTA the last few years. You pick a name from the draw, they win a slam out of nowhere, and may never do anything again. (A la Ostapenko).
"Between 2016 and 2019, Ostapenko held remarkable distinction of being the only player in recorded tennis history to have won a Grand Slam title (2017 French Open), and lost in the first round the three other times she has competed at that same tournament (2016 to Naomi Osaka, 2018 to Kateryna Kozlova, and 2019 to Victoria Azarenka). This no longer applied from 2020, as she advanced to the second round after beating Madison Brengle. "
and yeah besides that I want personalities back. Even the Jankovics and Safinas were fun to watch.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Yes and amazing as a run like Swiatek's last year at the FO was (she played ridiculous tennis) it's just the story of the WTA the last few years. You pick a name from the draw, they win a slam out of nowhere, and may never do anything again. (A la Ostapenko).
"Between 2016 and 2019, Ostapenko held remarkable distinction of being the only player in recorded tennis history to have won a Grand Slam title (2017 French Open), and lost in the first round the three other times she has competed at that same tournament (2016 to Naomi Osaka, 2018 to Kateryna Kozlova, and 2019 to Victoria Azarenka). This no longer applied from 2020, as she advanced to the second round after beating Madison Brengle. "
I actually miss Sharapova, and I wasn't overly keen on her, but loved her fighting spirit and knew she was a big match player. The spice is no longer there. And as you so eloquently pointed out, no one is ready to step up fully and take the reigns and lead a group of well talented players to the top of the game and build those rivalries, and remain consistent. It's flavor of the week at the moment, which is why I don't care for these players and what they do.
No. The females not only come to see the fine look of the male horses but also the speed of their balls; and that is what they marvel about.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
The WTA has been more interesting than the ATP for many years--the high number of majors winners (including many who won more than one) surpasses the ATP, where in the past decade, the men's side has been dominated by three men against the successive worst generation in the sport's history. These so-called "contenders"--long overhyped--have only succeeded in showing up, rolling over and getting a paycheck for their efforts. If not for Thiem getting lucky in 2020 because Djokovic was the recipient of a wrongheaded disqualification, this "Next Generation" would be at 100% capacity on the Can't Win a Major boat.
The WTA has players who know that--surprise, surprise--its their job to take out the competition no matter who it is, and win majors. Yes, sooo shocking.
Here's the list of majors winners (not named Serena) since 2010:
Schiavone: FO - 2010
Clijsters: USO 2010 & AO 2011
Li Na: FO 2011 & AO 2014
Kvitova: Wimbledon 2011 & 2014
Stosur: USO 2011
Sharapova: FO 2012 & FO 2014
Azarenka: AO 2012 & 2013
Bartoli: Wimbledon 2013
Pennetta: USO 2015
Kerber: AO 2016, USO 2016 & Wimbledon 2018
Muguruza: FO 2016 & Wimbledon 2017
Ostapenko: FO 2017
Stephens: USO 2017
Wozniacki: AO 2018
Halep: FO 2018
Osaka: USO 2018, 2020 & AO 2019 and 2021
Barty: FO 2019
Halep: FO 2018 & Wimbledon 2019
Andreescu: 2019 USO
Kenin: AO 2020
The ATP pales in comparison to this depth and strength of the field.
The WTA has players who know that--surprise, surprise--its their job to take out the competition no matter who it is, and win majors. Yes, sooo shocking.
Here's the list of majors winners (not named Serena) since 2010:
Schiavone: FO - 2010
Clijsters: USO 2010 & AO 2011
Li Na: FO 2011 & AO 2014
Kvitova: Wimbledon 2011 & 2014
Stosur: USO 2011
Sharapova: FO 2012 & FO 2014
Azarenka: AO 2012 & 2013
Bartoli: Wimbledon 2013
Pennetta: USO 2015
Kerber: AO 2016, USO 2016 & Wimbledon 2018
Muguruza: FO 2016 & Wimbledon 2017
Ostapenko: FO 2017
Stephens: USO 2017
Wozniacki: AO 2018
Halep: FO 2018
Osaka: USO 2018, 2020 & AO 2019 and 2021
Barty: FO 2019
Halep: FO 2018 & Wimbledon 2019
Andreescu: 2019 USO
Kenin: AO 2020
The ATP pales in comparison to this depth and strength of the field.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Except unlike in the F1, where limitations on overtaking would destroy the core of the sport, the rankings in the ATP aren't all that important for day-to-day competitionIt is like comparing an F2 race and an F1 race with limitations on overtaking.
The first will get you all inquisitive about how much overtaking can happen in a single race with similar setup, while the second will expose you to the irrelevance of "racing" because the rules have been altered to favour some teams over others.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Most guys watch the WTA when the players are within 10-15 years of their own age because the personalities and looks of the players are interesting to them and make the sporting contest entertaining. Once you get to your mid-forties and older, most of the players are now your kid’s generation and they become perceived as just young kids who it is harder to find interesting as personalities. So, older fans then complain that all the players are the same when the only thing that has happened is that they got old while the players stayed young.
It is like going to a bar where college kids hang out while you are in your late forties or fifties - not as interesting as twenty years ago. Now, you just feel old when you look at the kids and if you hear their conversations, they don’t sound very interesting or wise.
It is like going to a bar where college kids hang out while you are in your late forties or fifties - not as interesting as twenty years ago. Now, you just feel old when you look at the kids and if you hear their conversations, they don’t sound very interesting or wise.
I personally think that women's tennis nowadays is far more interesting than men's tennis. There have been plenty of times in the past when I've thought that the opposite has been true. The decisive factor for me, is that in a 128 player Australian Open draw or 96 player Miami draw for example, there were simply far more players and early match-ups in the women's draw that looked interesting to me than in the men's draw. On top of that I find 'run of the mill' WTA tour events more interesting than the ATP events nowadays.
Recently, I enjoyed the match at Madrid between Badosa and Teichmann both ranked outside top 50. And in mid-March I enjoyed the week with the St Petersburg and Monterrey tournaments, neither of which had a single player ranked in the top 30 in the draw. In previous eras when there was pretty much no depth outside the WTA top 10 or WTA Top 20 (including as recently as the early 00s though the top 10 was stacked), all of that would have been unimaginable.
I can understand arguments that the current WTA top 10 is weak compared to ones in the past, notably from 1999 into the mid 00s which was a golden age in that department. However I don't really understand arguments that the current WTA tour as a whole is weak, when the standard of players ranked from 11-100 is astronomically better nowadays than it was in all previous eras. Early round matches in big tournaments in those days were typically a complete joke. However admittedly with it being much easier for the 'elite players' to destroy worse than sub-standard opponents in the earlier rounds, that did ensure star-studded QF or SF line-ups, a lot of Evert-Navratilova finals etc. so often the latter rounds could be great.
Recently, I enjoyed the match at Madrid between Badosa and Teichmann both ranked outside top 50. And in mid-March I enjoyed the week with the St Petersburg and Monterrey tournaments, neither of which had a single player ranked in the top 30 in the draw. In previous eras when there was pretty much no depth outside the WTA top 10 or WTA Top 20 (including as recently as the early 00s though the top 10 was stacked), all of that would have been unimaginable.
I can understand arguments that the current WTA top 10 is weak compared to ones in the past, notably from 1999 into the mid 00s which was a golden age in that department. However I don't really understand arguments that the current WTA tour as a whole is weak, when the standard of players ranked from 11-100 is astronomically better nowadays than it was in all previous eras. Early round matches in big tournaments in those days were typically a complete joke. However admittedly with it being much easier for the 'elite players' to destroy worse than sub-standard opponents in the earlier rounds, that did ensure star-studded QF or SF line-ups, a lot of Evert-Navratilova finals etc. so often the latter rounds could be great.
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
It all depends what the criterion for interesting is. Some people think domination at the top is a good thing and others this it isn't. It wasn't that long ago when Henin, Serena, Venus and Clijsters dominated women's tennis.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
In all sport, including team sport, only a few people are real contenders for titles whether it's boxing, F1, NBA, football, rugby, athletics etc. Since Hussain Bolt retired, there's been less interest in men's sprinting and many people tuned in to see Bolt win not to see a different winner every time.
Similar threads
