Week 8 - WTA1000 - Dubai Hard

Var · Satellite level

RE: Week 8 - WTA1000 - Dubai Hard

9vicman · Satellite level

I think WTA having a fresher look isn't the issue. It's having any sort of consistency to have the regular rivalries that fans like to follow. I know Keys has taken a break, but the Top 10 have really under performed in the Middle East.

indiana · Tennis legend

9vicman wrote:
I think WTA having a fresher look isn't the issue. It's having any sort of consistency to have the regular rivalries that fans like to follow. I know Keys has taken a break, but the Top 10 have really under performed in the Middle East.

I had actually thought we were getting there a bit more than for a while with Sabalenka, Swiatek and Gauff to the fore. But perhaps not really.

I absolutely agree we need rivalries among ccnsistently performing top players. Great depth pipe up some at times. No, for too long an inconsistent mess at the top of the women's game without narrative.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
9vicman wrote:
I think WTA having a fresher look isn't the issue. It's having any sort of consistency to have the regular rivalries that fans like to follow. I know Keys has taken a break, but the Top 10 have really under performed in the Middle East.
I had actually thought we were getting there a bit more than for a while with Sabalenka, Swiatek and Gauff to the fore. But perhaps not really.
I absolutely agree we need rivalries among ccnsistently performing top players. Great depth pipe up some at times. No, for too long an inconsistent mess at the top of the women's game without narrative.

narrative is the key to this - the fans want a story, the press want a story and that story aligned to a narrative is what promotes and grows the game.

A key part of that is, whatever we think of it, players from the big markets; USA for sure, China as well, and Western Europe. From the G7 nations (Italy, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, US and, of course, UK. And , inevitably and eventually Russia, who will come back as a power at some point and into the G8). That is partly why Raducanu being a big star is important and would help if she can get it back again. Narrative aligned to market size and consistency of rivalries is the dream and that is largely missing.

Var · Satellite level

JonH comes home wrote:
indiana wrote:
9vicman wrote:
I think WTA having a fresher look isn't the issue. It's having any sort of consistency to have the regular rivalries that fans like to follow. I know Keys has taken a break, but the Top 10 have really under performed in the Middle East.
I had actually thought we were getting there a bit more than for a while with Sabalenka, Swiatek and Gauff to the fore. But perhaps not really.
I absolutely agree we need rivalries among ccnsistently performing top players. Great depth pipe up some at times. No, for too long an inconsistent mess at the top of the women's game without narrative.
narrative is the key to this - the fans want a story, the press want a story and that story aligned to a narrative is what promotes and grows the game.
A key part of that is, whatever we think of it, players from the big markets; USA for sure, China as well, and Western Europe. From the G7 nations (Italy, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, US and, of course, UK. And , inevitably and eventually Russia, who will come back as a power at some point and into the G8). That is partly why Raducanu being a big star is important and would help if she can get it back again. Narrative aligned to market size and consistency of rivalries is the dream and that is largely missing.

Rivalries are good but they need to be sufficiently interesting to infirm the narrative. Iga hasnt really set the world alight despite her success and Sabalenka likewise. As Mirra and Clara take to the stage in the WTA 000 final here we have one gifted young Russian and a powerful and competent Dane. Now that to me represents the embers of an interesting rivalry moving forward. I am a great fan of both players.hiwever it may be another false dawn. We shall see. Still trying to fill the Serena void.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, Var, very good points I'd say.

I do want that narrative and rivalries but I am sure I would find them much the better for involving players that I personally have real interest in and enjoy watching, and these personal aspects mattering rather more than them suiting the global market, important as that is to grow the game

9vicman · Satellite level

So what we're saying is we're not very interested in the top female players AND they're not playing each other regularly enough to build a second level interest.

I wonder if there's also a bit of an eastern European bias. The public weren't so interested in Medvedev, nor Belarusians and Czechs on the women's side. We are excited about Fonseca, but how do we feel about Mensik, Lehecka and Machac. Huge generalisations here I know.

It doesn't help to have Ostapenko v Anisimova in the final. one week and then Andreeva versus Tauson the next. I believe Andreeva has star quality, both in her tennis and her personality, but not as much as if she was from elsewhere.

As an aside I think Tauson is a great ball striker when she's in position, but not a great mover or personality.

And I have always been a huge women's tennis fan, but having depth in the women's game shouldn't mean it being a lottery.

wales1994 · County player

I think it depends. Swiatek isn't a very charismatic player, Rybakina neither. Gauff being American and with an big personality, she gets traction to the sport. Sabalenka is also very charismatic and likeable - there's definitely been great PR over the past year for her.

Andreeva is very funny, says what she thinks and is an exciting player. Even though being Russian can often limit marketability, I think her personality puts her in another category. As soon as she starts winning big things - I think she'll be a big name.

9vicman · Satellite level

I think Sabalenka is extremely likeable, but her grunting puts a lot of people off. There's subtlety to her game but I think a lot of people only see bish bash bosh. I don't see her ever driving the sport.

But agree Andreeva has appeal. And not just because of her early fixation on Andy Murray. She wears her heart on her sleeve, has a chess like strategy. Looking forward to seeing her continued progress. Not sure who's going to be her potential rival though.

Gauff yes, Raducanu obviously, Zheng if she starts winning again. Paolini is popular, Keys if she gets on a run. But they all need to start winning more consistently.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

It's funny - I understand all the points above and I realise that it's what most spectators want (I see it with friends and family, as well as on forums or whatever)

But I feel the opposite - there have been tons of top finals that I haven't even bothered watching because it's the same old match-up, A v B, the result is pretty predictable and even if B manages to win this time, so what, I really don't care. They often don't even have games that are particularly complementary.

So, in lots of these events, I just stop watching at the SF stage.

I like to see different tennis, good tennis, with different faces, not necessarily completely unknown faces.

Madison Keys at the Aussie Open was great. I don't care if she never makes another final and there's no consistency. Or indeed that she barely made a final before. It had heart. And excellent tennis. And a story that I learnt at the time - I didn't know beforehand who she'd married and didn't need to, to be interested.

I love Mirra, always have, as a person, after seeing her live several times, at Wimbly qualis and elsewhere and her tennis is coming on leaps and bounds too. But there are tons of top 50 women whom I'd very happily watch in a final, if they have a good run and are playing well.

Var · Satellite level

Mirra takes the title in two sets, 7-6, and a pretty comprehensive 6-1. Agree with CD Mirra is a star and can only be good for the game. Despite all of that effort she only goes up one place to number 14?! Such is life.

the addict · Tennis legend

You must be looking at the WTA website -she went up one place from the previous week. Live rankings show her up 5 places to WR9 after today.

9vicman · Satellite level

Coup Droit wrote:
It's funny - I understand all the points above and I realise that it's what most spectators want (I see it with friends and family, as well as on forums or whatever)

But I feel the opposite - there have been tons of top finals that I haven't even bothered watching because it's the same old match-up, A v B, the result is pretty predictable and even if B manages to win this time, so what, I really don't care. They often don't even have games that are particularly complementary.

So, in lots of these events, I just stop watching at the SF stage.

I like to see different tennis, good tennis, with different faces, not necessarily completely unknown faces.

Madison Keys at the Aussie Open was great. I don't care if she never makes another final and there's no consistency. Or indeed that she barely made a final before. It had heart. And excellent tennis. And a story that I learnt at the time - I didn't know beforehand who she'd married and didn't need to, to be interested.

I love Mirra, always have, as a person, after seeing her live several times, at Wimbly qualis and elsewhere and her tennis is coming on leaps and bounds too. But there are tons of top 50 women whom I'd very happily watch in a final, if they have a good run and are playing well.

I love watching different players too with different styles, but ultimately I want to care about who wins a title. Keys I did, both against Swiatek then Sabalenka in Melbourne, and that was because of her back story, missed opportunities, injuries, marriage, racket change and ultimately the quality of tennis.

It won't lessen the achievement if she doesn't win another major, but just like Raducanu, I don't want it to be a one hit wonder. Loved Anisimova's recent win too, but for me it will be more meaningful if she can follow up.

If everyone beats everyone every week, it comes to a point where results start to lose their impact. Growing up, I loved the fact that you had 3-4 at the top, then a strong 5-10, consistent Top 20 players. Great rivalries, meaningful upsets, and still plenty of stories.

But that's only my personal take. We all enjoy the sport for different reasons. A great week for Andreeva though.

Brendan F · Intermediate Club Player

I'm on CD's side. Irrespective of my general preference for the underdog, the best players on the day will win so we can celebrate that whoever they are. If I wanted to know their background etc I'd read Hello magazine or whatever passes for it these days, but at the end of the day I just want to see good matches rather than one or two players walking over everyone else.

indiana · Tennis legend

Brendan F wrote:
I'm on CD's side. Irrespective of my general preference for the underdog, the best players on the day will win so we can celebrate that whoever they are. If I wanted to know their background etc I'd read Hello magazine or whatever passes for it these days, but at the end of the day I just want to see good matches rather than one or two players walking over everyone else.

No, for me its definitely a bigger picture with tennis and the various other sports I follow. I want to see good matches of course but I do want to feel something more too, understand where matches stand in players' careers, the significance and what it means to them, and take that all into account as I watch.

In the often great sport at the Olympics I enjoyed it more when I did know about the competitors to various degrees, their journeys as it were. And where I didn't know so much I would also often watch and listen to pre and post event programmes to learn more.

But yes why and however we watch, it's all good.