What happened?!

[Eboe89]

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).

I think I made it very clear that I am in fact quite biased towards a certain era of WTA players. Like I said, I do miss the days when losing early in a grand slam actually mattered. Today, i feel like that is just common, almost expected. My question was why this is true these days?! Obviously Serena Williams is the only player to consistently contend for grand slams. But seeing as how she has probably improved her game over the years but still also loses in early rounds reasonably often, I'm guessing the loss in consistency has mostly to do with the improved play of most WTA players. There are so many players capable of achieving a high level of play these days. Regardless, I'll still always miss the Hingis-Davenport, Venus-Hingis, Capriati-Serena, and Serena-Davenport rivalries.

 

[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).

I think I made it very clear that I am in fact quite biased towards a certain era of WTA players. Like I said, I do miss the days when losing early in a grand slam actually mattered. Today, i feel like that is just common, almost expected. My question was why this is true these days?! Obviously Serena Williams is the only player to consistently contend for grand slams. But seeing as how she has probably improved her game over the years but still also loses in early rounds reasonably often, I'm guessing the loss in consistency has mostly to do with the improved play of most WTA players. There are so many players capable of achieving a high level of play these days. Regardless, I'll still always miss the Hingis-Davenport, Venus-Hingis, Capriati-Serena, and Serena-Davenport rivalries.

Serena hasn't lost consistency. It's not "fairly often" that she loses in early rounds. In 2013 she won 2 grand slams and made the QF and R16 in the other two. If 2014 was less stellar in her books it most likely has to do with age. She's 33. Steffi was long retired by 33. In Graf's last 3 years she missed 5 slams, in the 7 she competed in she failed to make the QF or better in 3, and only won 1 slam. Serena competing at the same age has won 4 slams.

My opinion about why we are seeing less "consistency" and more early losses at slams is the age change rules. It's hard to point to any other "intangible" about what has changed in the women's game. I think it is absolutely invaluable that players in previous generations got to play against top players beginning at 14 or 15 years old, lose to them for two years, and then seemingly burst on the scene at 17 or 18. I think when you put a 15 year old on court they don't quite have the maturity to understand the weight of the occasion. So they play more freely and they learn from their failures often times just excited to be playing their idols.

Now we have girls who are only able to play full tour schedules at 18 or 19. This means they have more maturity, which perhaps is arguably healthier for them. Yet they have to spend 18, 19, 20 years old feeling tons of pressure to perform and having the maturity to understand the weight of the situation. For me it's kind of undeniable that this was the big change in the women's and perhaps the men's game.