I'm impressed by the fact that it sounds like it was a competitive match and that it went to three. With the doubles to focus on now she has more time to get more comfortable on clay.

Jan wrote:

---

I know these are young, super-fit athletes, but I'm surprised they could stay awake till that time, let alone play a tennis match!

---

 Quite !! It seems ridiculous to me that it wasn't rescheduled or moved to a different court  earlier. 

Meantime in the rankings Jo is indeed up to a CH WR 6 and in spite of her R1 exit here is showing as live ranked #5, overtaking Muguruza as Garbine's Rome SF points from last year drop out.

With Muguruza's exit here ( and she will soon have a lot more points to defend ! ) Halep is the main danger, a QF place taking her back ahead of Jo. Kuznetsova and Wozniacki would need to reach the final to move ahead of Jo.

Oceane Dodin sees off Cibulkova in straight sets and only 5 of the 16 seeds make the last 16, indeed just 3 of the currently top 16 ranked ( Kerber, Halep and Kuznetsova ).

It's a combination of factors, isn't it. Serena Williams has been so dominant that it's been hard for others to establish themselves as stars. Angelique Kerber is having a bad year. And the other active repeat Slam winners are Venus Williams, who is amazing but is both the oldest highly ranked player on the tour and playing with an auto-immune disease; Kvitova, who suffered that hideous attack and is currently preparing to return; Victoria Azarenka, who has been out on maternity leave; and the aforementioned Sharapova, now just returning. So with three of the six repeat Slam winners out of the picture, one just returning, and one at a point where a Slam win would be extraordinary (though I would put nothing beyond the potential reach of Venus Williams), it's scarcely surprising that the narrative is confused. You'd get something similar if (say) Wawrinka, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were all out simultaneously.

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

tennis is professional sport not WWE. Yes you need a narrative if you are churning out light entertainment in the form of a drug fuelled psuedosport and perhaps that is the WTA's agenda? The world is wise to it and increasingly subscriptions and advertising hard to sell. Live Sport transcends that it's not the narrative, context yes but the entrainment exists only in the moment.

In real sport it is what it is nothing is scripted no story is written merely history made. Now is a time of flux a time of change the last sufferings of an era the butt of which is still to play out. Will Serena return? At what level? Azerenka? Will the WTA becomes Battle of the mums or merely mumsnet?

Lots to look forward to and as yet no tournament has stooped to compulsory low cut bikinis and thongs to sell tickets. The whole shrieky controversy is driving a reaction and the likes of Bouchard standing up to be counted. Shrieky was a star unless she retains that status indeed even if she doesn't it will always have a Barry Bonds style asteroid against it. There is no narative in real sport, the beauty is it just happens part predictable part chance and the rest is history, write it down if you will but for me and your paying punter by then the true Beauty of sport has gone.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Wednesday 10th of May 2017 07:43:44 AM

---

 Hi Oakland - you are right and I wouldnt want tennis to be WWE (which I despise). I guess the angle I was coming from was two fold. From a sporting perspective "anyone can win" and that is interesting but also in a sense frustrating as it is almost impossible to see a direction of form and take a clear view on who might win an event - as sports fans we all love to predict and work out what might happen in an event, in the ladies that is impossible right now; it isnt as difficult in the mens but certainly the latter stages of events are less predictable than in many a year.

 

The second perspective was commercially - selling sports to folks who maybe dont follow it or arent die hard fans (and to TV networks) is where the narrative comes in; the big names are what people go to watch and the rivalries promote and market the sport without question. The various rivalries I mentioned have done that over the years - in the womens game at the moment, there is no rivalry to point at which can be used to market the game and this in part is down to the lack of any consistent form or group of winners. Maybe folks who follow the WTA disagree with me, but I dont see it as a more casual watcher of the women's game. That "hole" is possibly a large driver as to why many of the events want Sharapova in their field, she is a story, good or bad , and she drives that interest. Any interest is good from a commercial perspective.

 

My third point was that into that hole, clearly players can drop - from a GB perspective, Jo has the game and personality to make hay ranking wise (why stop at 6,7, why not 1 or 2?) and also to win some big events (why not Wimbledon or US Open) and , if she can do it, boy will she also mop up commercially , at least in the UK.  

Thanks Indi, you articulated it better than I was able!

I would also add to one of the points above, that we certainly don't want contrived rivalries or ones where the press forces the issue. An example is around Dan and Aljaz. I think most agree Dan spoke a little out of turn but he made a point and , to be fair to Dan, he prefaced it by saying that he likes Aljaz. Today, however, Mike Dickson is tweeting and making a deal out of Aljaz choosing Halle as his preference v Queens to play in should he move up from an alt to Direct entry. He is trying to stoke the fire for sure; the reality probably is two fold a) that the entry in Halle is weaker (both in rankings terms and in terms of outright grass pedigree) and Aljaz probably has a better chance of picking up points there; b) Queens grass tends to be the fastest grass surface, faster than Halle that can be quite stodgy and I suspect Aljaz fancies his chances better on that surface.

Politically, Aljaz may have been better advised to put Queens top but it really doesnt matter, he is a pro and needs to look after himself. The media of course want to push it and create a "narrative" that is forced, which I think is a shame.

Similarly with "Shrieky" and the Brum wildcard. The DM article today is trying to suggest there is a row in the LTA about it, but in fact using weeks old stories from Andy and AnneK to suggest they are falling out with the LTA - the reality is people can have different views , it is healthy, but it doesnt mean they are falling out. Again, the media building a story.

Glad that this forum allows this healthy debate without becoming the Daily Mail - and memo to self, stop reading the Daily Mail online, it doesnt do any good!