Which tour do you prefer and why?

indiana · Tennis legend

Which tour do you prefer and why?

SuperT · Futures qualifying

It's interesting that Junior finds it difficult to follow women's tennis due to the "serious lack of consistency". For me the opposite is true. Whilst I can appreciate the brilliance of the likes of Djocko, Serena, Sampras etc, I have always found it a bit boring during the periods when one player totally dominates and you almost know before the start of the tournament who is going to win. I love the fact that on the ladies side we have had so many different Grand Slam winners in the past two years and you never quite know who is going to emerge from the shadows and shine at any particular tournament. To me that keeps things fresh and interesting. Having said that I do take an interest in both tours, but at the lower levels which we tend to debate more regularly on this forum I tend to follow the progress of the British girls more closely than the men.

junior · Intermediate Club Player

SuperT wrote:
It's interesting that Junior finds it difficult to follow women's tennis due to the "serious lack of consistency". For me the opposite is true.

I understand SuperT, everyone is allowed to believe and see things how they like, I feel the same about what patterns I will get on my Christmas socks each year, will they be yoda's or kermit the frog's? you know what I mean?

- at the end of the day I know they will be socks and that I'll wear them for max two weeks before putting them away for the rest of the year: consistency

Maybe is the difference between point of view of spectators or my own opinion which comes from a lifetime involved in playing tennis and coaching to the highest standard, and having seen first class examples of the "women's tennis curse".

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Hi junior.
I didn't say it was all about top 300. Ultimately, of course it isn't.
I separated my interest into initially Slam and tour level and then GB players in general, which over the year will be most of my focus.

And with the GB players, whatever money they make / do not make, as a starting point / kind of rule of thumb I am most interested in top 300 players / potential top 300 GB players and follow them, of course wanting to see them go much much higher. That group currently has more women. I am sure some here indeed follow lower ranked players than that more than I do.

For me it is interesting to follow their journey rather than just fix on the top level, which I follow as well.

So that is an idea of my interest which is what Jon was asking us about. Yours appears to be focussed differently.

It's interesting as I find myself having zero affinity with the womens players of any level, just a passing interest in who is doing well etc and a keenness to see the brits succeed. I have never got the fanaticism that exists in some fans on other boards and hatred it seems to cause of other players , and the womens side seems to breed more of that, often or usually from Male fans for some reason.

The mens side I've found I follow generally, become a fan of certain players , typically those I likened my own game and style to over the years and some of the entertainers. Over time I've been a fan of connors, McEnroe, becker, Noah, leconte, agassi, henman in fact, and then through to kyrgios, sock, tsitsipas and really only evo from the Brits these days. For some reason I really like the doubles guys though. I follow it keenly and below atp level, the challenger tour but at itf level, really only the odd standout player such as draper or paul jubb.

But I can never get fanatical. You still see that in the mens game , for the top 3 mainly and that corresponding hatred for the other 2 of the big 3 , but it isnt , to me, as pronounced as the womens.

The mens side and consistency is that level for me where it creates a narrative , something I feel tennis needs. No consistency equals mayhem and no narrative, as a fan I need to generally know where I am with the season and events with a few upsets along the way but a general narrative that follows a line over the year.

SuperT · Futures qualifying

junior wrote:
SuperT wrote:
It's interesting that Junior finds it difficult to follow women's tennis due to the "serious lack of consistency". For me the opposite is true.

I understand SuperT, everyone is allowed to believe and see things how they like, I feel the same about what patterns I will get on my Christmas socks each year, will they be yoda's or kermit the frog's? you know what I mean?
- at the end of the day I know they will be socks and that I'll wear them for max two weeks before putting them away for the rest of the year: consistency
Maybe is the difference between point of view of spectators or my own opinion which comes from a lifetime involved in playing tennis and coaching to the highest standard, and having seen first class examples of the "women's tennis curse".

I'm not sure I quite understand the sock metaphor J, but you are quite right that I am essentially a spectator who watches tennis purely for entertainment, so would definitely have different perspective to someone like you who has spent a lifetime on court. In fact I only started playing after I retired so have an awful lot of catching up to do!

junior · Intermediate Club Player

Kenin has lost three straight first rounds since winning the Aussie Open, is what I mean

Barefoot · Lower Club Player

I significantly prefer womens for exactly that inconsistency. The regular winners come regular flops (Sloane, Muguruza come to mind most recently) are frustrating but having a fairly evenly balanced top tier I find great to follow for exciting matches.

Also find the legends a bit dull in the mens. I always enjoy watching Kyrgios, Zverev, Thiem, Dan Evans and some of the younger up and comers but Im constantly willing them to do MORE and avoid Nadals French Open procession part 45.

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

junior wrote:
Kenin has lost three straight first rounds since winning the Aussie Open, is what I mean

Well it's actually just the 2, and one was to someone who sounds like she'd be right up your street in terms of consistency (Rybakina), because she's 21-4 in 2020 and has made 4 finals in her 5 completed events thus far. I assume you were possibly including a Fed Cup match in that statement.

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

I agree with a lot of what Barefoot said in that previous post. I personally think I'd prefer a top brass of around 4 or 5 where it would be a big surprise if someone lost at any given time (Kenin losing to another very good young player in Yastremska in that other defeat, wasn't really), and it did look like we were possibly getting that around the Asian Swing time with Andreescu, Osaka, Barty, and also Serena still doing well in the events she did enter, but for one reason or another that hasn't really been the case in 2020, albeit it's still very early days (and Andreescu hasn't even played yet, which is another story), but at the same time, I kind of do like the unpredictability. The batch of youngsters coming through is also very exciting - 7 of the top 18 are 22 and under, so it's very exciting watching their progress and development, and seeing if they can, in time, become that really consistent player.

junior · Intermediate Club Player

I'm not sure, I briefly saw a headline and didn't have time to read the whole article, everyone is allowed to believe what they like, for me that others might be showing good consistency in what we have seen so far of the year, this doesn't take away from a lack of it with Kenin.

In the mens game there are three or four at least with that record or better right now this year, just of the top of my head novak, rafa, rublev, tsisipas, maybe opelka after winning last week, not to mention the number one and two in the world who (likely) will both win their tournaments this week and increase their win percentages even further and one will still miss out on the number 1 ranking.

Predictability if boring correct, domination of only a few certain players is old hat yes, but imho (is only my opinion) is better than a constant lucky dip of who might play well this week and then disappear shortly after for x amount of time before the next popular player comes along for a similar transaction

indiana · Tennis legend

I'd like to see a bit more of Kenin this year before relatively dismissing her as the next unpredictable champion, rather than look at short term men vs women consistency in the early part of this year when discussing longer term consistency. As said, the Rybakina loss in particular is hardly concerning.

But yes, the number of different names that have been put forward in the last 2 or 3 years as ready to be a longer term leading player, only for it not to last, has steadily increased and we tend to soon become none the wiser as to who to look to long term. Let's see how Kenin progresses though the odds are not too good for her.

Maybe it could be Barty, maybe a fit Andreescu. Maybe, maybe ...

Whatever, while yes I think I would prefer a more established and consistent big 3, 4 or 5 say, I do find each Slam in particular very interesting and more interesting than the tooo consistent men's results.

junior · Intermediate Club Player

Would hardly call what Rafa & Novak have been doing these last 10/15 years as "short term", I agree with you the rest of it. However, in the mens game I think the only real grand slam champion or challenger who seemed unable to maintain a high level throughout their prime days was Del Potro due to injury, none of this constant yo-yo-ing

indiana · Tennis legend

junior wrote:

Would hardly call what Rafa & Novak have been doing these last 10/15 years as "short term", I agree with you the rest of it. However, in the mens game I think the only real grand slam champion or challenger who seemed unable to maintain a high level throughout their prime days was Del Potro due to injury, none of this constant yo-yo-ing

Clearly re Rafa & Novak. What I was referring to was your wider selection of the the "novak, rafa, rublev, tsitsipas, maybe opelka" starts to the year as against Kenin's. I hardly think that the others have laid down any longer consistency lhan some of the women, indeed much less than say Osaka and Barty at different times.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Of course, when we have Brits tearing up trees, such as Andy did for many years and Dan is starting to do this season, it does make it a lot easier to follow one tour or the other!

junior · Intermediate Club Player

Funny I mention Stefanos, because he is very similar, can have some amazing weeks and beat everyone and some where no idea what happens, Thiem and Zverev as well. This might be as every time they do something of merit come the comparisons and the insinuations that they will knock the top 3 off starting from that very moment. Of the young guns one who I believe is reliable and consistent is Daniil who appears (or appeared earlier in his career) by the far less temperate of them.