Oh my FIRST!

Nostalgia is often annoying, but nostalgia for mediocrity or kitsch is downright lame. It brings about Knight Rider and 90210 remakes. Or people thinking Journey was anything other than a really horrible band. The two worst words in pop culture right now are "guilty" and "pleasure." Man, I'm getting cranky at my old age of 25. Although I will say that Harry Potter got a lot of kids into reading, and the movies have given us some young actors who may have some enduring appeal.

What I'm trying to say here is Vamos Rafa!

You want to know what I'm nostalgic for in the women's game? Someone who can compete consistently day in and day out. I fugue there are 2, maybe 3 right now in the WTA: Venus, Serena, and Sharapova, and even their performances are spotty (or on the rehab trail, to be fair).

And I'm most definitely not Gen Y.

Wanna read that times article. Got the link?

hi steve,

if you're going to say those things about safina and kuznetsova, you could also say that henin and clijsters rose to the top and won slams because of the injury- and death-induced absence of the williams sisters. of course, most of us would say that that is not entirely true. so please don't undermine kuznetsova--especially kuznetsova--and safina's achievements.

but thanks for the article. it's very nice.:)

The full article is here: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010903/cover.html

As a sign of how sports go through phases, these three paragraphs on page 3 of the linked article are worth noting, eight years on:

That is a sign of the women's power and popularity. A recent USA Today poll showed that 75% of tennis fans prefer the women's game. Its TV ratings are routinely higher than the men's. Forbes Celebrity 100 list, which tabulates fame in America, includes five women's tennis players: Kournikova, No. 54; Venus, 57; Hingis, 65; Serena, 71; Davenport, 72. No other sport, male or female, has as many on the list. Non-tennis fans know Hingis, Kournikova, the Williamses, Capriati, Seles and maybe Davenport. The No. 1-rated male player is named Gustavo Kuerten. Seriously.

The men's game has great players, but it has suffered from a lack of interesting personalities and gripping rivalries. The Top 20 list is clogged with Spanish clay-court matadors and nondescript Europeans. Goran Ivanisevic, who won Wimbledon with a thrilling five-setter, was ranked 125th, but who wants to memorize 125 names? Names like Gustavo Kuerten.

While the men serve ace after numbing ace, the women have a powerful game that still allows for some volley. cbs commentator and former player Mary Carillo says of a recent tournament, "They were playing a brand of tennis that I was totally unfamiliar with. The pounding was so concussive and the running back and forth so athletic — everything about that match was so much more ballistic than I could have scared up. I played another sport."

It's also instructive, I think, to compare that paragraph with Steve's observation above:

"Compared to Clijsters’ style, which was never what you call elegant in the first place, the women’s game this decade has grown steadily more pragmatic and rudimentary. Sharapova, Safina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and others rely more on hitting first-strike missiles and less on running them down—they play preemptively at all times, betting that their winners will outweigh their errors in the end. The trend will only continue as players like Azarenka and Lisicki take their places near the top."

Eight years ago (albeit in an article celebrating the WTA version of the game) the author was essentially saying "ATP? Fuhgedaboutit." No rivalries, no stars, boring play.

I know I rag on about the state of the WTA today, relative to the ATP (rudimentary? sounds about right to me). But I'm absolutely convinced that the circle can turn again, and five years on we might be celebrating the glory days of womens' tennis, and wondering what happened to the men when Federer and Nadal hung up their jackets and piratas.

No doubt the circle will turn again, Andrew. As proof, all one needs is to read the pleas to halt the Big Game of Kramer, or the "big servers" of the late 60's, and return to more elegant tennis. I heard it again in the nineties.

Have no fear, the WTA will rise again.

But I do question Steve's describing the current game theory of the WTA's stalwarts as pragmatic. Betting the house that the % of winners will offset a high % of unforced errors is high risk, not pragmatic. Except for those days when you're zoning, during which times it's way too easy to believe you're capable of anything.

skip1515: perhaps it's pragmatic from the PoV of maximizing the return from that particular player's game. First strike tennis may make sense if a more defensively oriented game, which currently prevails in the ATP, is a generally dominated strategy. It can also make sense if you're a coach and your junior player is better at hitting than at moving and recovering.

It was striking to me that Hingis, at the turn of the decade, just couldn't cope with the shift of the top players in the rest of the tour to power baseline. She could beat two of Davenport, Capriati, and the Williams sisters in the QF and SF stage, but she'd fall to a third in the final.

Anyhow, rudimentary will be my word for the day. :-)

"thousands of hopefuls have come and gone and a dozen or so have seemed to be on the verge of long-term stardom—or at least a permanent place in the Top 5—but only one woman has achieved it"

I think that hits the nail on the head. Very hard to build public interest when the "top players" keep changing, which in turn is driven by the fact that at tournaments the seeds either fall like autumn leaves early on, or are humiliated at the latter stages, or both.

No possibility to build rivalries when the likely contenders are so inconsistent that one is left squirming in embarrassment.

In the men's game, even excluding the inhumanly consistent Roger and Rafa, people who take an interest in Djoker or Mandy or Elf know that these guys are in contention regularly and a certain minimum level of performance can generally be expected over the longer term. Upsets become exciting precisely because they are not the norm, such as Rusty and Elf at Wimby followed by a very close match in Washington.

And while serve and volley is something of an endangered species, there is still a huge variety of contrasting styles, adding spice to many matches.

I'm sure things will change for the WTA, just because, well, things change. But it's pretty hard to see a way out of the hole the women's tour has dug itself right at the moment.

I like how you tie non-tennis-related events into the mainstream tennis news. Striked me as a little awkward in this one, but an interesting article. I got into tennis after all these women greats got out, which saddens me. I'm hoping Clijsters (and maybe Sharapova, I've been enjoying her matches) can get rid of some of the flux in the game.

Also, as a Vermonter, I can attest that the Middlebury Quidditch tourneys are AWESOME.

it's simply not true that women's ratings are better than the men's....men's slam finals are routinely better...only at the u.s.open where the women have a prime time can they win...all the fed-rafa finals and the fed-roddick wimby finals, particularly this year, beat the women including wiliams sisters finals who have never reached tiger-like adoration and interest....people can say they like women's tennis better but the ratings say otherwise....and mary carillo is not particularly happy with big babe tennis right now, the game is pretty one-dimensional and henin left a huge hole thay haven't filled

I Luv you Kim

mint32,

Unless I misread, I think Steve was saying that women's ratings *were* better in its glory days around 2000-01. We can all agree they have slumped now, and that's the problem being addressed.

Hi Mr. Tignor! Do you think that Kim Clijsters and Lindsay Davenport have given mothers a voice on the tour? In the recent past it did not seem that players could choose: it was one option (play, retire, have kids) or the other (have kids, quit tennis) or the other (play, retire, no kids).

Is there something to this? Certainly players must have seen something in Davenport's comeback and now Clijsters comeback, and let's not forget a few other moms who played some good tournaments.

Are moms in the WTA's future, especially as it tries to recover from the chaos of losing young stars? Will Sharapova's career be lengthened if...gasp...she becomes a mom?

Regarding the "rudimentary" first-strike mentality in the WTA, sure, the top few play that kind of game. But, the interesting matches in the WTA to me are those that happen in the 3rd round to QF of slams, and here you see a lot more variety. Just looking through the top 20, we have:

Jankovic, Zvonareva, Wozniacki, Penetta, Radwanska, Mauresmo, Li and Schnyder who hardly qualify as the kind of players in this category.

Even among the bashers: Kuznestova, Ivanovic, Bartoli, and Stosur give us quite a different look from Safina, the Williamses, and Dementieva. Azarenka's and Lisicki's games also have a slightly different feel to them.

It would be nice to see some of these other kinds of games in the latter stages of slams. Jankovic did do well last year, and provided, with Serena, what I thought was an excellent USO final. Zvonareva was hitting her stride this year, before she got hurt.

They may not be able to beat the power hitters on a regular basis. But, lets not forget that we have two all time great power players in the Williamses. If enjoyment equals someone taking them down in a slam with regularity, then perhaps we have a long wait coming. But, I think, there are many good matches to watch in the meantime.

Can't imagine sharapova having kids.lol

Can't imagine sharapova having kids.lol

the wta needs a star or two that can be consistent throughout the year sure serena wins the slams but anywhere else shes almost hopeless venus is so patchy its not funny and i believe safina is on thedownward spiral like the serbs (they'll neva recover lets face it) henin's retirement and sharapovas injury hav only diminished the tour, thank god clijsters is back may she turn out like capriati

Many thanks Steve with your thoughts with the current state of players in the WTA.

One can look at any era in the game this being the Womens game and the evolving tennis and tennis players.When we compare say the Everts,Navratolia,King etc to Graf,Seles,Hingis and to the current crop of players there has been change in say equipment,technicque,training methods.

When the William sisters arrived fresh on the WTA tour they certainly changed the womans game with their powerful ground strokes,baseline play.These sisters remember never played junior or even challenger circuit they were certainly "alien" to what the average player coming through the ranks had to do.

When the girls started to dominate,winning everything virtually in sight,the others knew their games had to change just to compete.In doing this we lost in some way the finesse of say the s/volley,slice but hey these girls could do this as well.Also their powerful serves was another thing to condend with.

With the current crop of players and the new point system,which rewards the player on the tour with the amount of tournaments she plays regardless of winning a GS title,we have seen a Musical Chairs Roundabout in a way.None has stayed at the top for long.

The pressure today is great and demanding.The depth in the womans game is strong.Given time we will see these players Step Up.Its not a over night happening.

Remember Rome wasnt built in a day.

Sorry but except for the likes of Stosur, Penetta, Schnyder, or Radwanska, the current WTA is indeed all big babes hitting nothing but first-strike missiles ad nauseum. While the men's defensive game has greatly evolved to keep the rallies going, there's no such thing with the women...The WTA wont recover until it finds again players like Henin, Graf and Navratilova who actually had touch and more than one game plan.

Hey everyone,

Long-time reader of the posts, but don't always join in the discussion. However, today I am feeling a little chatty. :)

I'm curious as to WHY the top women are less consistent nowadays compared to players of another time. I'm just contemplating on what factors might be contributing to their inconsistency as a group, or if there are any such factors at all that apply to all of them. I feel that the top 20 are certainly not lacking in talent and athletic ability, and certainly not lacking in training resources, or even experience. You've got young and (relatively)old, a relatively good mix of ethnic backgrounds (with the Serbians, couple of Chinese players and individuals like Wozniacki rising in unprecendented fashion to the top for their country in the past year or so), colorful characters. They're not as homogenous a group as people make them out to be.

So what is it? Are there more non tennis-related distractions for female players nowadays - photoshoots, commercials, promotional events - than in previous years? Is that affecting their focus and training regimes? Have Sharapova and Ivanovic (former number ones!) been spread too thin by all the media attention and photoshooting gigs, even though they claim that tennis is their priority? Why, since early 2008 when Henin retired, has NO ONE been performing with any consistent results for the past year? Serena's been winning Slams but not in between; Safina's consistently deep in tournaments but not winning the big matches. Are there certain psychological trends permeating the women these days that leads to their collective inconsistency?

I have no answers, but just thought I'd throw out some ideas.

Hey everyone,

Long-time reader of the posts, but don't always join in the discussion. However, today I am feeling a little chatty. :)

I'm curious as to WHY the top women are less consistent nowadays compared to players of another time. I'm just contemplating on what factors might be contributing to their inconsistency as a group, or if there are any such factors at all that apply to all of them. I feel that the top 20 are certainly not lacking in talent and athletic ability, and certainly not lacking in training resources, or even experience. You've got young and (relatively)old, a relatively good mix of ethnic backgrounds (with the Serbians, couple of Chinese players and individuals like Wozniacki rising in unprecendented fashion to the top for their country in the past year or so), colorful characters. They're not as homogenous a group as people make them out to be.

So what is it? Are there more non tennis-related distractions for female players nowadays - photoshoots, commercials, promotional events - than in previous years? Is that affecting their focus and training regimes? Have Sharapova and Ivanovic (former number ones!) been spread too thin by all the media attention and photoshooting gigs, even though they claim that tennis is their priority? Why, since early 2008 when Henin retired, has NO ONE been performing with any consistent results for the past year? Serena's been winning Slams but not in between; Safina's consistently deep in tournaments but not winning the big matches. Are there certain psychological trends permeating the women these days that leads to their collective inconsistency?

I have no answers, but just thought I'd throw out some ideas.

I'm so sorry for posting it 2x

CINCINNATI. KIM CLIJSTERS - SVETLANA KUZNETSOVA
Forecast - http://www.onlinesport.ru/?m1=40

Interesting Time article (or selected paragraphs fm Andrew) and discussion of the popularity of men's vs. women's tennis. Hate to sound non-PC, but imho men's tennis has consistently throughout the different eras provided a superior brand of error-free competitive play relative to the women. Many times I've found myself more interested in women's tennis but mostly for non-tennis specific reasons: the 'duels' b/w Martina and Chrissy, Martina and Steffi, Steffi and Monica, and more recently Justine and Serena - it's not the superior play, but rather competitiveness and/or contrast in play; or simply the attraction to the players themselves (i'm not above admitting to my shallowness).

There was a several year period where the men's game was dominated by service-winners, starting with Sampras and continuing thru the Goran Ivanisevic years, and men's tennis suffered for it. Adaptations have been made since then (heavier balls, slower grass for Wimby, slower hardcourts for Aussie). Now that there are competitive rallies in both sports, with the increased emphasis on athleticism, the men offer a superior product. An exaggerated example of this is basketball. The difference in athleticism is so vast in b-ball that it is painful to watch the WNBA. There the women would be better off playing with different rules to avoid comparisons with men's basketball. In tennis, the gulf in play isn't as great and therefore watching the women play tennis is far more palatable, but in the end, it doesn't measure up (unless you're more into the psychological drama of competition - i.e. who's going to choke or hold their nerves more steadily).

To take issue with the Time magazine argument from 2001:
(1) There was great personality among the men of the time. The two alone mentioned in the three paragraphs - Gustavo and Goran - were extremely interesting people (in Goran's case, the several Gorans). As an added bonus Gustavo's backhand was peerless in terms of beauty.

(2) Even today TV ratings *IN THE U.S.* are dominated by women, despite this crisis of women's tennis and the superiority of men's play. According to Nielsen and the like we are more likely to watch a lopsided match featuring an American (i.e. Serena or Venus or Pete) rather than a competitive one between non-Americans. See the finals of the 2008 US Open, or 2006 and 2007 Wimbledons, for examples (the epic 2008 Wimbledon being the exception). We mindnumbingly watched Sampras serve his way to several Wimbledon and USOpen titles (btw, i was a huge Sampras fan at the time but in retrospect find today's game far more interesting, with the exception of this year's Roland Garros and Wimbledon, which trended dangerously toward boring serve-infested waters).

Around the world, in terms of actual attendance, men's tennis is and has been a much bigger draw than women's tennis. This might not hold up going forward if women's tennis fields more and more players like Ana Ivanovic or Caroline Wozniaki. Kournikova might not have developed a serve to break into the top 5, but history will possibly show she was the catalyst that allowed women's tennis to avoid the fate of women's golf (will their Kournikova ever materialize....Gulbis? Creamer? Wie?).

Sigmund, on the WHY about inconsistency, I think the logic of Steve's argument is that "first strike" tennis is inherently low percentage. That works if you have supreme talent, but for most mortals it is literally a hit and miss affair, success being very dependent on slight variations in form. Seles they're not.

Watching Sharapova in LA, I was struck by the fact her DF fest was fuelled by the fear of not hitting a big serve, which ultimately means a lack of confidence in her defence. And she seemed to have only one serve, in two flavours -- very hard and hard.

Disclaimer: I don't watch enough women's tennis to be fully confident of this analysis.

Where is MARY PIERCE!!!

Thank you for this very refreshing post Steve. I have been a strong advocate for the resurgence of women's tennis as I believe that there are some wonderful stories out there. I think the biggest issue that the WTA faces right now is marketing its product. They need to come up with a concept that markets each and every player on the Tour and not just a select few. Frankly speaking that is what the men had to do. They had to market the whole Tour in order to generate some amount of publicity for their product. The women have some compelling and talented personalities and the WTA needs to get out of its own in trying to make these women look more like sex kittens rather than professional women, who play a sport for their living. I think that is where the WTA went wrong in terms of lowering the baramoter of its product by saying hey look at me, I am pretty, I squeal when I hit the ball (which suggests something extremely sexual) and then you dress them up in all sorts of finery. They are not shown as competitors going out there for the win. I am glad that they have seen the errors of their ways somewhat and are now more focused on portraying the women as professionals rather than as sex kittens. May it continue. It would also help if they did a better job of showcasing lesser ranked players. Tennis Channel, as well as the Tours themselves should look at having a highlight show in the evenings, similar to Baseball tonight or NFL tonight which showcases matches being played around the world. How hard can it be to have tournament directors from all over send in a 10 minute highlight reel to Tennis Channel which shows what happened in matches today. TC can then use its cutting and splicing abilities to cut these down, do a voice over and there you have it, a highlight show. Just show match point and that is it. Showcase everyone in the lesser events, and grow the sport from the bottom up.

@JohnC, your analysis of the Sharapova serve may be spot on.

Hi!
@Karen
I get want you want to say and I agree with you but..
"...I squeal when I hit the ball (which suggests something extremely sexual)..."
let's not forget that the guys grunt too. Some of their matches actually sound like male porn! ;) (Nadal vs. Puerta RG 2005)

Karen, while I agree with the marketing points you make, it seems to me you have to have some product stability (about which I opined previous page).

sorry for the last bloated post. back to bloated Cincy observations:

1. Arrived in time to catch only the final point of Clijsters-Schnyder. Schnyder serves, on the offensive, smashes the ball two or three times, Kimmie retrieves and throws up defensive lob saves as only Kimmie can, inducing Patty to overhit a smash forehand into the doubles alley to end the match. Hope to see all of Kimmie for the first time today (won't bother to record comments, it'll be on ESPN/TennisChannel). Based upon Saturday's practice session, Kuzzy is playing better. Based upon Kuzzy's history, she'll stake out an early lead, serve for the match, blow the 2nd set (see AO&FO against Serena, Tuesday against Safarova), resulting in a coin flip for the 3rd set.

2. In the Wozniacki v. Wozniak match Caroline and Aleksandra wore matching all white outfits, did they mistake Cincy for London? The score was indicative of the play, extremely even between the two. Aleksandra tried to change the pace a little too often with slow, loopy forehands. This initially drew some errors from Caroline, but eventually Caroline found a groove and punished them. Ultimately, in this match the nerves got to A.Woz more often. In the 2nd set on serve 4-5, A.Woz missed wildly with her first 3 serves. That 10th game and 2nd set ended with an A.Woz DF. The 3rd set ended on 4 breaks of serve, with C.Woz hitting several 1st serves into the bottom of the net. Both were able to whale away on each other's decent 2nd servings. Overall A.Woz was slightly more aggresive in her play than C.Woz, however A.Woz did not do well the few times she ventured to the net, her volleying was inconsistent like Roddick's voyages of hope in years past.

3. Walked briskly to Court 4, only to hear upon approaching the steps 'game, set, match Peng'. Won't miss tonight's evening match against Dinara. On Center Court, after two little side court matches. Don't think Peng Shuai will handle the occasion well, but didn't Peng take a scalp off Kimmie in the middle of Kimmie's scorched earth 2005 hardcourt campaign? Observer told me Maria Sanchez was extremely inconsistent with her volleys.

Peng employs a Hank Aaron forehand, on Saturday her coach drilled her on following up a backhand DTL with her forehand DTL. Isn't this the way Bartoli hits her forehand? One other girl does the crossover two-handed FH, but I've yet to place a name with the face.

4. Caught 2nd set of Cirstea-Groenefeld. Sorana hits the ball with a distinctive 'thwack', a heavy ball that 'moves thru the court'. She looked like a top10 player. Hard flat 1st serves, got her share of easy points, on RoS a punisher of 2nd serves. Won several points with a serve followed by a backhand down the line. More than just a physical similarity to Jennifer Capriati, Cirstea has the same game. Was this a true test, though, given Anna could not buy a 1st serve, allowing Sorana to feast on 2nd serves.

5. Ana. Ana. Ana. The small crowd at the grandstand wanted so much for Ana to play well. Her ball toss had other ideas and took a nose dive beyond where it all began against Justine Henin at the 2007 French Open final. Simply excruciating to watch. Painful. She had to retoss perhaps 33% of her serves. And yet she was ahead in each set. Czink is no slouch, a lefty who hits lower trajectory missiles than Sybille Bammer, but with the errors that come with the territory. This was a match Ana wins comfortably with a halfway decent balltoss. Ana mixed up her game, hit some nice dropshots (successful ones, unlike the AussieFinal against Maria S.), defended well with slice BHs, hit her trademark forehand taking the ball early on the rise (in stark contrast to most of her competitors). Two poor line calls may have affected the outcome: (1) Early in the tiebreaker 1st set Czink served a ball that appeared deep but was ruled an ace (2) Late in the 2nd set at 15-15 Czink serving, during a rally a ball Melinda hit wide by several inches was not overruled. Those of us in the stands were bewildered at the missed call.

In any case, a balltoss is all that's needed for Ana to return to the top5. That's all. A balltoss.

6. Win or lose, the women appear to enjoy playing doubles more than singles. Naturally less pressure, more social in nature, et.al. No-Ad scoring is a big plus, keeps the matches moving along. Don't know about the 10 point tiebreaking 3rd set. Not enough, maybe 15 to get to the equivalent of ~3 games? Lisa Raymond blew a bunch of volleys in the 3rd set tiebreaker and that was the end of Raymond-Pennetta. Kleybanova doesn't look like a tennis player, but she moves well. Petrova and Mattek-Sands make a solid doubles pairing.

7. There is no WTA player nicer than Kuzzy (except Kimmie?)! Tuesday after Sania/Francesca finished playing doubles at the steps leading to the player's front entrance Sveta greeted Sania heartily and they laughed in conversation. Yesterday Sveta signed autographs in the evening decked out in shredded jeans and a tie-dyed t-shirt. She is the Rafa and Roger ambassador of goodwill. In addition Sveta has this neat trick where she uses her foot to roll a tennis ball backward onto the toe of her shoe and promptly juggles the tennis ball soccer style.

I hope tomorrow's Kimmie-Kuzzy match ends in a tie.

All this talk about the women being just bashers--what rubbish! I especially love it when Henin fans try to claim that she played with so much variety--another hogwash. Henin was every bit the power player that her compadres are. She had a one-handed backhand--that was the only difference. But Henin figured out that she couldn't compete unless she got stronger & hit the heck out of the ball like Venus & Serena. Heck, she left one late November & came back in January twice her size with muscles bulging from every where. She was a power hitter because you cannot win slams in this age without being one.

Venus has variety, Serena has variety just like Henin has variety. You need that to stay at the top. Henin's problem was that power didn't come naturally to her & she couldn't hang--that's why she left. She knew her window was closing because her nemesis were coming back into form & it took far too much for her to compete at the level she needed to be able to stay around the top. That's why she quit.

If you have a one-dimensional game you won't be able to compete day-in-day-out & win biggies. This is the problem Sharapova has & this is the problem Safina has. When their A-game is not working--they have nothing to fall back on. Clijsters is succeeding because she has other options to back up her A game.

So while Carillo & some like to talk about big-babe tennis, they need to look a little deeper & quit downing the players who have the acumen to know what works & bring it when it counts. Just because the girls are full grown does not take away from the fact that they are well-rounded tennis players/athletes.

Ha! this made me laugh, Steve. I heard about that article, though I didn't read it. Like there's never been nostalgia for childhood things before. Only now there's the internet to provide youtube clips, discussion forums, and online petitions. Besides, I notice Billy Joel and Elton John are still touring. Not just our glass house.

If Clijsters jams herself right back in to the top, it will be a real wakeup call for the younger players. Bad enough that the Williams sisters seem to stand in the way of most majors, but if another vet can come right back in, I think it would finally look embarrassing -- and I'm someone who doesn't condemn all these #1s for not having won a major yet.

Amen to what Babe said @ 10:22!

I always get a laugh (or a scream)from the distorted and revisionist commentary on Henin's quite successful power game and the blindness to anything BUT the power in Venus and Serena's game.

It will be interesting to see if Clijsters, in her return to the Tour, is able go beyond the points to which Hingis went in several tourneys in her aborted return.

Babe, agreed with some of your stuff. However you confused men and women GRand Slams. There's big differnce there dude. Uncomparable. (except money.)

Babe: Amen - agree with every word

Ruth: " always get a laugh (or a scream)from the distorted and revisionist commentary on Henin's quite successful power game and the blindness to anything BUT the power in Venus and Serena's game" Totally agree

I have said it before and will say it again as per Babe: Justine Henin could not hang with the Williams sisters in their prime and I am almost positive could not hang with the new "big babes" now - i.e., Azarenka, Safina, Lisicki, etc. She was a new version of Hingis - who could not survive against the evolution of the women's game. All this talk about how great Henin was - note WAS (for a very short time) - is just another jab at the Williams sisters. Henin was no where near as great as the Williams sisters - she just got hot at a time when Serena/Venus were going through a hard time. And guess what? Serena/Venus are still here and doing as great as ever. They have earned the right to pick and chose what they want to play - they single-handedly saved women's tennis from going under. At their age (old for a WTA tennis player) the slams should be their only interest - the day-to-day grind should be left to the ones who still have to prove themselves.

Nothing personal against Justine (except for a couple cheating instances) - the "press" is responsible for this because of their unfair criticisms of the WS.

Mary Carillo's refusal to give credit to any person with the name "Williams" (she also goes after Richard - too bad she hasn't been able to dog Oracene) - she goes after the way they live their lives (the nerve), the way they train (even though she has no idea), the way they play the game (she has no idea because she could not even dream of playing so well when she was around), and the way they look (I believe this one is her achilles heel - they don't fit her profile of what a great WTA player should look like). Year after year she continues this negativity towards the Williams even when they were on top of the world (I recently saw a tape of her doing a match with Serena back in 2001 or thereabouts and she was negative about them even then when they were the best ever). But, she is not the only one - and I note that the greatest negativity comes from the female commentators - the men are pretty fair - except when the blonde "beauties" are competing with the Williamses - then the men barely acknowledge the WS.

Kim being back on the tour will be great for women's tennis. I don't know how they judge popularity, unless it is by ratings, and since they show so little tennis here (and on obscure channels) it would be hard to determine. I like, both, but have always thought the men have more drama, or maybe I always liked the 5 sets instead of 3. 26 is really not that old if she is in good condition. I worry about injury, however, since she cited her body condition as one reason why she wanted to leave the tour. As with Safin, coming back from injury after injury can start to affect your mind.

barry(Not Barry),
Thanks for another very good report from Cincinnati. Please post comments on Kim as she is facing her first Top 8 player.

"Don't think Peng Shuai will handle the occasion well, but didn't Peng take a scalp off Kimmie in the middle of Kimmie's scorched earth 2005 hardcourt campaign?"

barry(not Barry),
Yes, that was Kim's only loss during the USO Series. That was in the quarterfinals at San Diego where Shuai kept Kim pinned behind the baseline hitting 2 fisted groundstrokes on both wings. After that match, Kim said that she could reach Top 3 in her presser but I told my sister at the time that was a career match for Shuai. Guess who is right as of 2009?

I agree with Cayman Karen, I think they need to promote women's tennis differently and from you say they are starting to do that - I got fed up with the little advertising I saw where it was more about the looks than the play and forgetting that these woman are athletes.

I for one am very pleased that Kim is back and I see no reason why more mothers can't rejoin the circuit and have success, its certainly been done in other sports.

MA: I remember that presser when Kim said that Peng would be in the top 3 soon. Kim probably just wanted to make herself feel better about losing to Peng that day.

Along those lines, a few days ago, I came across an article in which Serena (who, as we all know, NEVER compliments her opponents LOL), said, after her very tight match with Sam Stosur in a pre-AO 2009 tourney (Sydney?), that Sam would be beating top players soon. Sam's performance oner the past 8 months proves that Serena was certainly right -- Sam even beat Ree, the prognosticator!:)

I really hope that Sam will win her first title soon; she's too good a player to be title-less. She seems to suffer in all tourneys from what Safina suffers from in the Slams -- the inability to put it all together in the final.

I feel the tennis media is shooting itself in the foot by focusing on the "blandness" of the WTA and the deficiencies of it's #1 player. When so many articles castigate the WTA, it makes it less likely an audience new to tennis, with less ability to form it's own opinions, will find traction in following the women. Perhaps all this negativity is a backfire from the feverishly interesting storylines that have woven about Roger and Rafa since RG 2008.

But I don't think the tennis media is helping its cause, unless it is trying to set up a love-hate relationship with tennis for the casual sports fan. I personally wish they'd back off a little.

Am totally bored with the arguing about the WTA's # 1 - I mean I think the media has made their point but now its time to move on, stop flogging a dead horse.

The #1 thing is a good angle for the media, but those in the know are aware that it is merely a symptom of the problems under discussion here.

The Montreal QF draw makes a shockingly stark contrast with the WTA -- the top 8 ATP players in the world are all through from what was by any measure a tough field. Meanwhile, in Cincy the Williams sisters and Safina, for instance, are out.

Sorry, Safina not out (brain fart!), but here is the order of play:
Caroline Wozniacki vs Elena Dementieva
Dinara Safina vs Kim Clijsters
Flavia Pennetta vs Daniela Hantuchova
Jelena Jankovic vs Sybille Bammer

Not without interest for the diehards, but apart from the Clijsters comeback a hard sell to a broader tennis public.

JohnC,
I do not like to say this as being a WTA diehard but looking at it from a realistic point of view, you are right on Cincinnati being a hard sell for the weekend therefore, the organizers hope that Kim can make it to the final,at least. And, the Montreal QF field is at least twice more interesting. If Roger and Rafael decided to wait until next week, that field plus 2 others would still be at least equal if not better. Ouch for me typing this post.

Oh my....Henin only won becuase the Williams sisters were struggling?

I guess in 2007 when Henin was the clear #1, beating Serena in 3 consecutive Majors and beating Serena and Venus back to back at the USO and winning 90% of her matches there had to be a reason for her dominance other then her superior play.

The reality is that Venus has always been inconsistent at the tour level and at the Majors other then the one played on grass for the last 5 1/2 years. And Serena plays well at the Majors, but has been inconsistent on the regular tour level for the last 4 years.

The irony is that the same copout is used when the Williams win, ie, that Henin is not around.

Theo

will write up a report tomorrow about yesterday's observations and today's (although obviously missed the drubbing of Dementieva-Wozniaki and on target to miss more than intended of Kimmie playing. Darn Caroline for not pressing Elena!). Quick note before heading out the door, Kimmie's play reminds me of Murray on the men's side; has all the shots, playing less aggressively than is capable of and especially compared to how she played before retirement. It's difficult to gauge in one respect, other than seeing her up close in practice with Kuzzy, Kimmie's been on center court, and I'm not on top of the action the way I've seen Elena, Victoria, Sorana, Ana, etc. Even from a distance one can see the huge power differential between Venus v. Olga, or Dinara and Shuai. From a distance Kimmie doesn't appear to hit powerful shots, not the way I remember from the past on television. But she can get to everything and utilize great placement and precision. Peng last night could get to balls but not do enough in counterpunching mode, leaving Dinara with putaways.

Thus far I've had the most fun watching Jelena bounce around in her match against Azarenka, in fending off such baseline power with changeups and change of direction. (then again, i'm usually happy when a quiet player defeats a shrieker)

Final note, Ljubicic practiced a little with Seppi a couple of nights ago and last night Ivan watched the first few games of Dinara v. Shuai before taking off. And with that I'm off.

Cayman Karen: you present a great idea. It takes long range planning to see the merits of your course of strategy. Corporate tennis shirts are so awfully short term focused (gotta produce results ASAP to boost one's brag sheet) they grab the cash regardless of long term harm. See the move of the year end championships to the Middle East.

Player careers are often so short, though, it's understandable why a Shriekapova capitalizes on her looks (which I think are rather ordinary) to make the money grab of $25MM/year and Aneres devotes diversionary energy on getting into Hollywood and brand marketing.

Regarding variety of play, Venus' game is much like Maria's -- hit hard or hit harder. Serena has added some slicing to her game the past couple of years, but just as with Justine, Serena's meat and potatoes is power. Serena's game is to use power most of the time in stark contrast to Justine, who often was willing to keep the ball in high percentage play and allow her opponents to self-destruct (versus Jelena at the USOpen, Svetlana at the French). Justine always said while people talked effusively about her beautiful backhand, it was her forehand that won most of her matches. Blame McEnroe for BH marketing.

a few notes from Thursday and Friday's play:
1. Caught only 3rd set Kimmie over Sveta. Sveta didn't play well, lots of errors. Kimmie great in going from defense to offense. If Sveta plays like she did in this year's FO final, Sveta wins this match.

Kimmie's still got the great defense from pre-retirement days. She isn't playing offense with enough frequency yet. As she gets more matches under her belt, takes the offensive more, Kimmie will crack the top 5. It'll be great fun to see Kimmie take on the power of Elena, Venus, Dinara and Serena. Due to my horrible operational analysis skills, completely missed Kimmie-Dinara. Was told by a fellow volunteer Dinara's forehand was en fuego against Kimmie. This same individual also informed me that in the Marion-Kimmie match Kimmie simply took advantage of Marion's weakness and moved Bartoli from side to side and wore her down.

2. Peng Shuai played decent against Dinara Thursday evening; Dinara showed Federer-like UFE spurts against Peng. Ultimately Peng's weak 2nd serve (often around 70mph) and indecisiveness on approaching the net (doesn't have the Maria S. swing volley) hurt tremendously. Peng did well to retrieve balls and change direction, but she could not withstand the barrage of Safina's groundstrokes. Despite all that, Peng had an excellent chance to break back to 5-5 in the 2nd set, at 4-5, 0-30. On that point (rally of the match) she had three chances to hit winners, but upon approaching progressively closer to the net hit more indecisively, and Dinara made great gets to prevail on the point to 15-30 instead of triple break point, Dinara goes on to hold serve for the match.

Dinara is pulling a Venus@Wimbledon here in Cincy, playing her way into form. A couple of years ago after an early round win in Cincy Akiko Morigami in her center court interview acknowledged to the crowd in a very charming manner how she had choked against Venus at Wimbledon (2007) while serving for the match only two points away from winning. Venus went on to defeat Marion instead of facing Justine in what could have been an epic encounter.

Dinara's serve is serviceable against players outside the top 10 players. Against a great RoS (Sveta at FO Final, Serena, Venus, Elena in current form) it's a liability.

3. Sorana - Elena featured excellent ballbashing. Elena was just whipping that ball through the court, and Sorana stood her ground. On the 1st match point Sorana rifled an amazing RoS BH DTL winner on the corner to stay alive. The next 2 or 3 or 4 match points Elena double faulted (but Elena didn't require two, three, four ball tosses like Ana). Don't recall the final MP, unfortunately. I came away more impressed with Sorana in this defeat to Elena than I did from Sorana's victory over Groenefeld the previous day.

4. Sybille played very well against Serena. Couldn't keep the ball as deep as when Sybille pinned Zheng Jie on the baseline (which was good for Jie, as Jie often netted her swing volleys against Sybille). Sybille held her own, reached a lot of balls, served well, used topspin effectively. All the same, on key points, such as at 4-4 or 4-5,30-40, when Serena pummeled Sybille into submitting a short ball, Serena invariably stepped up to midcourt and pounded the ball two feet past the baseline. Playing with a better margin of safety on approach shots yields Serena the victory and Cincy a better attended weekend. Left Sybille-Serena with Sybille up a set and an early break expecting a Serena comeback in order to catch

5. Jelena-Victoria. As mentioned in a prior post, enjoyed the balletic, Federer like movement of Jelena on the court, a cat bouncing from ball to ball, sometimes jumping back a couple of feet in the air while deflecting Azarenka's power down the line, other times crouching tiger downward to smoothly guide the ball over the shortest part of the net. Reminded me of the 2008 USOpen final against Serena, except this time Jelena didn't choke her chances away. Not enthralled with Jelena's personality, but absolutely taken over by her game.

6. Black/Huber v. Mattek-Sands/Petrova was a coin flip match. Highly entertaining. An in-form Petrova tilts this in favor of the US/USSR pairing. The 3rd set tiebreaker was pretty intense. African/former African prevail. Cara Black must have less than 1% body fat. Imagine a Justine Henin with more muscle, less flab.

7. Had I known OOP beforehand, would have made a better effort to attend Wozniacki-Dementieva and Safina-Clijsters. Glad didn't see Wozniacki get beat down or Kimmie lose, but would like to have seen more Kimmie and especially how her rusty game stacks up against mucho Dinara power.

BTW - for all the Martina Hingis comeback detractors, didn't Hingis make it back to the top10 fairly quickly?!!

8. Daniela needs a foundation of pace provided upon which to work with. Each time Flavia served up a 75mph 2nd serve Daniela missed badly.

Speaking of unique forehands, does Pennetta hit her forehand with the UNDERSIDE of her racquet, ala RafaNadal? Didn't recognize Pennetta on the practice courts at the time, but what caught my eye was how this person whipped her forehand with her palm faced UPWARD using the bottom side of the strings to sling thru the ball. I won't even attempt this at home as it hurts too much in my imagination.

9. Sybille was so nervous in the 1st set last night (you don't say with a 6-0 score....). She shanked/framed several balls, playing nothing like her previous matches. 2nd set worked hard to overcome several BPs and hold serve, but faltered again at the end. In any case an in form Jelena simply presents matchup problems for an in form Sybille. Looking forward with great anticipation to Jelena's next challenge against an extremely in form Elena (except when serving out the match). Elena has played all day matches, Jelena got in a night match against Sybille, might be the edge Jelena needs.

BTW - for M-life, maybe it was Wozniak (A.Woz) whom I didn't recognize practicing and hitting extremely well with Chaki late afternoon/early evening after an earlier socializing/practice session with Anna's BFF Vesnina last Saturday.