Ace Ventura wrote:

---

Interesting topic Jon. I do indeed prefer the women's tour and follow it a lot more closely, although I do still keep up to date with the men's results. While I agree you are generally going to identify more with the male players (as a man), and not really going to grow up hoping to be a Serena Williams, there are a few reasons why I prefer it:

BO3 vs BO5 at slams - I'm not an advocate for scrapping BO5, and do enjoy the odd latter stage men's match, but as the slams are the most important events of the year, and I like to watch as many matches as I can (in full), I'd personally rather watch a match that will likely last 90-120 mins, than one that could easily, and quite commonly, go over 3 hours, especially in the earlier rounds. I know pretty much all the rest of the tour is BO3 now, and it's really just those 4 events where BO5 remains, but it's not ideal if you're put off a bit with the events that matter the most. I've heard a few journalists suggest playing BO3 for the first week on both tours, and then both go BO5 from the L16/QF onwards, and while I'd prefer BO3 to remain throughout on the women's side, I could get behind that (although many would be put off, and that's another topic...).

I've always had BT Sport since it came on air in 2012/13, and while I've had Sky Sports all year round for the past 3 or 4 years, I used to dip in and and out, so there was more chance for me to always be able to follow the WTA stuff back in the day. I'd say Sabine Lisicki's Wimbledon runs around the same time was a big influence as well, and following her progress converted me from being a more casual slam watcher, to having a much wider interest in the other events on the calendar.

I'd also be interested in hearing others thoughts.

---

 Thanks wolf and Ace. Do you remember when the wta finals used best of 5 finals for a while, I think when graf and sabatini played, specifically in the tour finals final. It was something that lasted for maybe 10 years, I'm guessing,  and I don't recall it ever producing a classic. 5 sets to 4 games might work as an alternative or 7 sets to 4 games. But 5 sets in ladies didnt work and I suspect the slams will one day go the direction you suggest for the mens whilst leaving womens as best of 3. 

junior wrote:

---

(Without looking to provoke a slating women's tennis, just offering opinion). Personally, I find it very difficult to follow women's tennis. Due to the serious lack of consistency, I know that men's tennis might now even be considered boring that the same three men have won most of or if not all of the GS for the last how many years, this even leaving the younger generation knowing that they are still unable to compete with them even as they age. Maybe the young ones will have to wait until their knees just hold up anymore and that roger, novak and rafa still work much harder than them and are just that good.

For many years women's tennis players have been tormented by Serena, not even Sharapova could do anything and lost to her every time they played for 12 years straight, Serena is definitely amazing yes, but as tennis players go physically, she has always been dare I say "sub-par". I know that a lot of women retired young, Cljisters, Henin, Safina etc etc. However, this to me for the 10 years of Serena made tennis never appear to be a competitive sport, especially now that Serena has had less impact in recently tournaments it still seems like a lucky dip who might pull themselves together and play well this week and then disappear for the next two years or so (Muguruza, Ostapenko, not sure of either of the girls names from last years RG final, Ivanovic, Osaka lost last week to a girl ranked 100 and something sorribes, and even though she is very lovely she still serves like she did when we were in our early teens).

One young girl Coco Gauff (who with respect, should still be competing on the Junior tour at 15 years old) can terrorise her way through grand slam main draws merely by showing a bit of grit and a intense passion to win a match or two. Maybe this is a generation thing? As tennis gets ever more complicated the more content the players become just being in a position to earn money? Or like Bouchard be a little bit famous over instagram? Either way during the years watching many matches where half of the points were decided on double faults I often wished as a younger boy to have been able to play the girls draws etc.

---

 I think I've found it to be often the case over the years, the players below top 20, 30 in womens often seemed a long way below the top women, when there was a consistency to those at the top. The mens style of play with top spin on both sides, effective second serves always seemed the game I tried to play whereas the women, generally, played much flatter shots and with less wrist. I know that is physical but it wasnt the game I played (and serve and volley was my bedrock,  which few women played) so following mens game was natural and continued really. 

JonH comes home wrote:

---

Ace Ventura wrote:

---

Interesting topic Jon. I do indeed prefer the women's tour and follow it a lot more closely, although I do still keep up to date with the men's results. While I agree you are generally going to identify more with the male players (as a man), and not really going to grow up hoping to be a Serena Williams, there are a few reasons why I prefer it:

BO3 vs BO5 at slams - I'm not an advocate for scrapping BO5, and do enjoy the odd latter stage men's match, but as the slams are the most important events of the year, and I like to watch as many matches as I can (in full), I'd personally rather watch a match that will likely last 90-120 mins, than one that could easily, and quite commonly, go over 3 hours, especially in the earlier rounds. I know pretty much all the rest of the tour is BO3 now, and it's really just those 4 events where BO5 remains, but it's not ideal if you're put off a bit with the events that matter the most. I've heard a few journalists suggest playing BO3 for the first week on both tours, and then both go BO5 from the L16/QF onwards, and while I'd prefer BO3 to remain throughout on the women's side, I could get behind that (although many would be put off, and that's another topic...).

I've always had BT Sport since it came on air in 2012/13, and while I've had Sky Sports all year round for the past 3 or 4 years, I used to dip in and and out, so there was more chance for me to always be able to follow the WTA stuff back in the day. I'd say Sabine Lisicki's Wimbledon runs around the same time was a big influence as well, and following her progress converted me from being a more casual slam watcher, to having a much wider interest in the other events on the calendar.

I'd also be interested in hearing others thoughts.

---

 Thanks wolf and Ace. Do you remember when the wta finals used best of 5 finals for a while, I think when graf and sabatini played, specifically in the tour finals final. It was something that lasted for maybe 10 years, I'm guessing,  and I don't recall it ever producing a classic. 5 sets to 4 games might work as an alternative or 7 sets to 4 games. But 5 sets in ladies didnt work and I suspect the slams will one day go the direction you suggest for the mens whilst leaving womens as best of 3. 

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Saturday 15th of February 2020 04:02:03 PM

---

Just checked the date of that match, and I wasn't even born, so no I can't remember it . I've heard the likes of Catherine Whittaker on the Tennis Podcast favouring both reverting to BO5 for the second week, and that would at least end debate on the paid the same for less work argument (even if the focus then turned to quality), but I personally see no real benefits for the women's changing, so I hope it doesn't (and don't think it will either).

Meant Vondrousova and Anisimova,was semi finals my bad, the list is quite extensive though, Wozniaki, Bartoli, Stephens.... Just some of them

As you suggested Jon, I pretty much follow both fairly equally.

On the men's side at the moment, the continued dominance of the big 3 has turned me off the men's Slams whereas I was once gripped by the battles between legends near their peak. The women's Slam side is yes very inconsistent but to me generally more interesting. Again, countering that, we have more GB men at a high level for genetal ATP tour interest.

Below ATP/WTA tour level I"d certainly say a bit more interest in GB women than men. There is more depth, a bigger cast of players who are or have been top 300. We currently have just 6 GB women in the top 300 but I make it that we have 17 active GB women ( I have counted Naomi but not Laura ) who have been top 300 at some time and other than EWS could be said to still be compettitive ages. So yes, more of a cast.

I do also certainly agree thay there are some much more forensic posts regarding Brits in the women's section. I sometimes wonder about the amount, particularly for these having a hard time with us rarely knowig the full stories. But when we have so many ex top 300 players, many still relatively young, outside even the GB top 10, there are no doubt questions to be asked at times and comparisons to be drawn.

So a deeper potential decent level cast among our women than our men and for me more to spark my interest and wonder about.