What happened?!

[Eboe89]

Okay I'm new here so maybe this topic has already been addressed but WTF happened to the WTA tour after 2008? Like I feel like the period from 1999-2008 was perhaps the strongest ever in women's tennis. Early on you had rivalries involving Hingis, Seles, Davenport, Serena, Venus, Mauresmo, Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario, Martinez, and then a bit later, Clijsters, Henin, Sharapova, Myskina. Not to take away from anyone from who has won a major since then, but, like, wining a major now seems so much less significant. I remember being shocked if, say a 6 seed went out before the quarterfinals. These days, theres literally nothing that can be shocking because every player has basically lost at early stages at every grand slam. Even Serena. So, nobody's immune. Is it the depth of play that has brought this? Seriously, this seems like a very likely cause. Back in the 80's and 90's only a few countries had any prospects of producing champions. Today, it has been expanded by so much! Which is a good thing! But the media just hasn't been able to produce a champion and interesting storylines like they used to. And people like Azarenka, Petrova, Radwanska, and Safina just dont' have the heart or personalities like WTA players like they used to.

 

[faradubii]

I think now all the players in top 100 on a very good day can beat a top 10 player on a slightly off day. Statistically this means at the slams the so called upsets (top 16 seeds falling in the 1st week) are not so strange.
I think nowadays, the physicality of the game is embraced by every player. You can see matches between top 50 players with very good quality, amazing shots, good serves etc. I believe even 10 years ago the depth of the top 100 was a lot weaker and the top 10 was way way tougher comparatively to top 50 for example..

 

[sk310]

LOL at you putting Myskina into any conversation about great anything...

 

[sk310]

A lot of it in my opinion has to do with age change rules that started around the mid 90s and then were changed again just after Sharapova was grandfathered in. This means that players cannot develop their game in their teens by playing on the main tour. As a result the maturing happens when they are 19-22. That's much later and in my mind a much worse time to develop playing against the best in the world as it takes years most time to develop that ability.

 

[faradubii]

I think the age rules that are now in place are a good thing. Avoiding burnout and having a successful career over 30 YO is good. Also you cannot underestimate the power of the current game. A teenager has not enough strength for it.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It is hard to compare different tennis era's for starters and even to suggest that one particular era was better than another,any tennis era has its good points and bad points.There are a lot of varibles involved.
I have to agree with the comments of posters SK310 and Faradubii comments so far,both posters made solid points as to why the WTA changed after 2008.

Today's game is a baseline game,changes in racquets,which give more power,I also think players dont use the volley as much as they did before,I believe our juniors arent taught how to play a correct volley in the first place,which in a way is sad,to my way of thinking any extra variety you have in your game is a positive thing.I also believe playing doubles,helps you in your singles game.Being a baseline game,a player has to be physically fit,it does require exra strength training in the gym as a example,I am not suggesting for one moment that a player wasnt fit in previous era's,it is just my personal observation at this current time.

Personally speaking I think the current WTA is producing some wonderful young and exciting players,with great skills,depth etc.I also think the WTA is in great shape moving forward.I think this year alone we have seen some 'rising stars' for example Bencic,Svitilona just some names that come to my mind.Tennis these days is big pressure,the competition is fierce,remember all players develop at their own pace,something we all have to take into consideration.

 

[10isfan]

I did not follow tennis a decade ago so my words don't carry much weight. However, I do want to say that the sport now attracts great athletes. The field is deeper, which means high probability of upsets.

 

[sk310]

I don't know how I feel about the age rules. Of course I want young people protected. Yet for every capriati there's a serena, Chrissy, and steffi who won maiden majors in their teens and began as seniors qukte yoing and didnt have burnout issues.

 

[Eboe89]

I definitely agree that the age rules have something to do with it. And I'm not sure I'm against them. But, I dunno, i just feel like today when top players lose early its just every other slam and back-in-the day if a player lost early, it was epic (like Venus to Schett in 01 French, or Hingis to Djokic in 2000 Wimby). Maybe I'm just biased towards the era i grew up watching, as I assume most people are, i just wish the WTA Tour held the starpower it used to. From 99-2008 I preferred the WTA Tour but since then I have far preferred the ATP Tour and just check in on the WTA Tour.

 

[sk310]

I definitely agree that the age rules have something to do with it. And I'm not sure I'm against them. But, I dunno, i just feel like today when top players lose early its just every other slam and back-in-the day if a player lost early, it was epic (like Venus to Schett in 01 French, or Hingis to Djokic in 2000 Wimby). Maybe I'm just biased towards the era i grew up watching, as I assume most people are, i just wish the WTA Tour held the starpower it used to. From 99-2008 I preferred the WTA Tour but since then I have far preferred the ATP Tour and just check in on the WTA Tour.

You're not going to get a lot of sympathy for that argument here. We've all been watching for the last 5 years as tennis journalists write articles decrying the state of women's tennis. Quite frankly I think it's rude. Most eras have about 2 main stars. How can you not claim this era doesn't have the same amount? We have Venus and Serena who have won a combined 55 grand slam titles. Maria has won 5 slams. You have Azarenka, Kvitova, Kuznetsova, and Li who just retired who have each won 2 slams.

If you are trying to compare that to the late 90s era you have Hingis who only won 5 slams (14 including doubles). Arantxa won 4. Conchita only won 1 slam. Yes you have Steffi and Monica but they were arguably part of another generation.

My point isn't to say this generation is better. My point is that it does no good to suggest that the WTA is somehow in disarray. It's just...different. In my estimation it's the guinea pig generation. This is the first generation of players coming of age during the new age rules.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

^ Really good points,Nothing Ever Remains Stat In our Game.I have been watching the game for well over 30 years plus,I have seen some incredible champions,also had the added pleasure of watching them live at different tournaments around the world.As I did say in my previous post,we cant compare different tennis era's objectively too many varibles for starters.I just keep wonderful memories of the past era's and live in the present.This year we have seen some exciting new players,of course they are still developing.I feel the WTA is in good shape going forward,of course there are things that can be improved,though on a whole I feel the WTA is heading in the right direction.I cant wait for the 2015 season to begin.

 

[Eboe89]

I definitely agree that the age rules have something to do with it. And I'm not sure I'm against them. But, I dunno, i just feel like today when top players lose early its just every other slam and back-in-the day if a player lost early, it was epic (like Venus to Schett in 01 French, or Hingis to Djokic in 2000 Wimby). Maybe I'm just biased towards the era i grew up watching, as I assume most people are, i just wish the WTA Tour held the starpower it used to. From 99-2008 I preferred the WTA Tour but since then I have far preferred the ATP Tour and just check in on the WTA Tour.

You're not going to get a lot of sympathy for that argument here. We've all been watching for the last 5 years as tennis journalists write articles decrying the state of women's tennis. Quite frankly I think it's rude. Most eras have about 2 main stars. How can you not claim this era doesn't have the same amount? We have Venus and Serena who have won a combined 55 grand slam titles. Maria has won 5 slams. You have Azarenka, Kvitova, Kuznetsova, and Li who just retired who have each won 2 slams.

If you are trying to compare that to the late 90s era you have Hingis who only won 5 slams (14 including doubles). Arantxa won 4. Conchita only won 1 slam. Yes you have Steffi and Monica but they were arguably part of another generation.

My point isn't to say this generation is better. My point is that it does no good to suggest that the WTA is somehow in disarray. It's just...different. In my estimation it's the guinea pig generation. This is the first generation of players coming of age during the new age rules.

Well it's a good thing I wasnt looking for sympathy mate. I was simply stating my views on womens tennis today. I still love it and watch it of course, I just think its in a very weird and much harder to follow stage. Yes Kuznetsova and Kvitova and Azarenka and Li have all won two slams. But think about what they've done in other slams that they don't win. Kvitova and Kuznetsova's slams have been completely random and out of the blue and then they disappear into the oblivion. That didn't used to happen. A top seed losing before the 4th round in a slam used to be a big deal. Today, it's almost expected. I'm probably a bit nostalgic for the era i grew up watching but I'm not going to not state my views because you're bitter about what some journalists have written.

 

[faradubii]

I don't quite get why you need the media to present to you a good story.
Also, the media tried just this year to shove in our collective throats a brand new golden champion, and it didn't pan out quite like they thought it would.
I know I'm watching tennis matches for the sport, not for the forced narratives and cliché collages that the media cooks.

 

[Eboe89]

I don't quite get why you need the media to present to you a good story.
Also, the media tried just this year to shove in our collective throats a brand new golden champion, and it didn't pan out quite like they thought it would.
I know I'm watching tennis matches for the sport, not for the forced narratives and cliché collages that the media cooks.

I don't need the media to present me a good story, I just want players that i can consistently root for and follow and them have a feasible chance of winning and not just going out in the 2nd round like they always do today. Who did they try to shove done our throats this year besides Federer? i must've missed that. I watch for the sport and for the players, i don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[faradubii]

Well, you clearly don't follow the WTA side. I was talking about Bouchard. I think it's more exciting now, not being guaranteed that you have the same 3-4 players in all the finals. But I guess that's the difference between us. On the ATP side I was ecstatic with the USO final not having any big 4 guy in it. Not that the big 4 matches are not great and awesome (usually), but I like variety.

 

[Eboe89]

Well, you clearly don't follow the WTA side. I was talking about Bouchard. I think it's more exciting now, not being guaranteed that you have the same 3-4 players in all the finals. But I guess that's the difference between us. On the ATP side I was ecstatic with the USO final not having any big 4 guy in it. Not that the big 4 matches are not great and awesome (usually), but I like variety.

I do follow the WTA side, I don't have the Tennis Channel though so maybe I never caught the Bouchard being shoved down our throats. I mean, ya, now that you say that I do remember that kind of though. I guess that is just a difference between us. I like players I can root for and them have a consistent chance of winning, which is why i love the WTA from 99-2008.

 

[faradubii]

Hey, be bold! Choose a player that you like and root for her no matter what, through thick and thin, loses and wins; where's the fun in rooting for a guaranteed winner?
I'm a Halep fan (I'm Romanian, so that's mandatory) but I root also for Kvitova (no matter her form). I follow a bunch of girls like Keys or Pliskova or the other Romanians (Niculescu, Cirstea, Begu), also some of the 2nd tier older ladies like Safarova or Stosur, Petkovic, Kuznetsova, Suarez Navarro. You have a great variety of styles of play, but also you don't have any guarantee these girls will win every match, so maybe that's not your style.
Serena is a very good bet on that side of things. I like her, but I'm not very drawn in following her matches, as I have a 90% chance to know the result beforehand.
I have just 2 players I don't like, for very different reasons though: Sharapova and Cibulkova. They are the only ones I actively root against no matter who they play.

 

[sk310]

Eh sorry I think your arguments are silly. It sounds like you're a casual grand slam watcher of women's tennis and not a week in and week out follower. If you follow mainstream tennis journalism you've been fed the narrative for the last 3 or 4 years that the women's tennis world is in disarray. Meanwhile Serena Williams is nipping at the heels of all time slam records and Venus is one of the greatest Wimbledon champions ever... Most generations only have two greats at at time anyways (Martina/Chrissy, Steffi/Monica).

 

[Eboe89]

Eh sorry I think your arguments are silly. It sounds like you're a casual grand slam watcher of women's tennis and not a week in and week out follower. If you follow mainstream tennis journalism you've been fed the narrative for the last 3 or 4 years that the women's tennis world is in disarray. Meanwhile Serena Williams is nipping at the heels of all time slam records and Venus is one of the greatest Wimbledon champions ever... Most generations only have two greats at at time anyways (Martina/Chrissy, Steffi/Monica).

Eh, well i think it's silly to call me a casual fan. I used to write fictional WTA matches for a message board because I loved the WTA so much but I guess thats an easy way to close someone's arguments, to call them a casual fan. Sorry that I have a differing opinion from you, don't marginalize me because of it

 

[sk310]

Im not trying to marginalize your opinion its just they ring of the story lines that commentators have used for the WTA for the last 4+ years. I don't think when you actually look at the facts its all that true. Thats all I'm saying. I assumed you had been a casual WTA follower in the last few years because you parrot exactly what the tennis commentators at grand slams have been saying.

Then it seems that you are particularly partial to the era in which you first started because you point to players who were far from consistent and not all that high in all time great standards (Myskina, Clijters [even though I love her], Davenport, Sharapova).