Coup Droit wrote:

---

Sian Payne (with a victory yesterday despite 18 DF and 0 ace) served 'only' 13 DF and 1 ace today - but lost 6-2 6-3 to Hollie Bees.
Sophie Watts came through too, winning the first set 6-3 and then Charlotte Pearce retired.

---

18 DF; 13 DF. Do we think it was the strength and dominance of the opposition returns that caused this? No. Presume if this match had gone to 2 long sets or 3 sets, we would have been over 20 DFs.

There are simply too many women (not just British) who have this epidemic. How hard can it be with a grooved technique? I know the arguments about women on average being less tall and having less strength to employ an effective topspin serve, but to be honest I don't buy it as an explanation. More DFs than the men: yes. Double figures consistently for many players: no. This certainly doesn't explain why certain women professional players seem incapable of tossing the ball where they want it in the air with any consistency, whereas others have no trouble whatsoever, and that this is rarely a problem in the mens' game.

For me, it seems to be mostly nerves/tension related for some players; for others that their technique and/or strength simply isn't up to a professional standard. And possibly both for repeat offenders. I know Bartoli has just won Wimbledon and is a DF Queen, but her technique is, frankly, weird....and she hits a flat, limited spin fast ball on both first and second serves, so it goes with the way she plays....very high risk. For Sharapova (6 foot 2), it's a little bit technique, but mostly being super aggressive. They are outliers. For others with this problem I think it's more down down to lack of ability or crippling nerves.

korriban wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

The 8 points on offer for a first-round win are going to be a huge big deal in the Jessica/Sophie and the Katie/Hollie match.

---

In other words, ranking points for old rope.

In the context of how painfully hard it is to get the equivalent ranking points in the men's game, its a complete joke.

Future $10k SF + QF; 4 QFs; or 8 L16

Future $15k SF; 2 QFs + 2 L16s; 8 L16s

Challenger: qualifying 3 rounds of any event gives between 3-5 points; with no points even for reaching the FQR

Challenger: winning 1 round wins you 6 or 7 points for most events. Only in $75k events and above would you get 8 points.

ATP: qualifying would only win you more then 8 points if you qualified; usually just 6 points to reach the FQR.

.....and then you come onto the likely ranking level and playing standard of players you would need to beat to get these points in mens' vs womens' pro tennis!!!!! Then consider the fact that these 8 points (plus 2 that you could pick up from a couple of WCs elsewhere, where you LOSE the match) could get you inside the top 1000!!!!! Bizarre ranking points system.

I'm not having a go (well I am), and it's not the fault of the women players (these are the points systems they have to play in; hardly their fault), but it does seem VERY biased towards giving points and a ranking profile to average or even below average players. Robyn Beddow managed to get a pretty decent ranking in recent times without actually winning more than 2 or 3 matches in an entire year!!

Hey Ho!

-- Edited by korriban on Monday 15th of July 2013 04:40:05 PM

---

Yes but men just need one points counting score to get a ranking, and there are many more players ranked as a result. One win in a GB  Futures over a fellow unranked wildcard/qualifier, or going to Outer Mongolia and there you go, that's your ATP ranking for the year in the bag.

WTA points seem comparatively high because a few years ago they overhauled the structure to get rid of 0.75, 0.5 and 0.25 points scores and make it much harder to get a rankin on the WTA Tour. The easiest way was to basically double the points on offer in each event, and then remove points for round one of challenger qualies, round 1 and final round of 25k qualies, first round of 10k events and for qualifying for 10ks. The heavy weighting of winning a first round is the hangover from that rounding up in Challenger main draws and GS qualies/main draw.

You can't fairly equate 10 WTA points to 10 ATP points, and look at how hard it is to get 10 points on the ATP tour to the WTA Tour they are completely different systems. The equivalent is just how hard is it to reach round two of an equivalent event, and its probably easier on the mens tour as there are more events each week. The only real comparison worth discussing I think is the lack of points on offer in qualifying on the ATP main and challenger tour which is a massive difference. It is worth noting though that the WTA rejected such a system because it would weaken WTA events as borderline players would not compete in WTA qualies and instead compete in the main draw of higher ITF events. Many ATP events both main and challenger struggle to get a half decent strength qualifying events as a result of this. Queens is a good example actually, all because the was no point in players competing for no points when they could be in challenger or futures main draw.