Face facts, women’s tennis is not competitive
Roar Rookie By Animan, 3 Feb 2010 Animan is a Roar Rookie
Serena Williams (AP Photo/Andrew Brownbill)
Billie Jean King, the tennis legend, has played tennis all her life and fought for the course of women in the tennis world in between.
But there is a problem with that kind of extraordinary focus and obsession on a simple thing like chasing down a little green ball and returning it to sender. You tend to see things as you wish them to be, not as they actually are.
This is not exactly making things up – just that you mind begins to magnify things and you make football out of ping pong and deceive yourself.
The other day, the living legend said at the Australian Open that Serena Williams was doing for women tennis what Roger Federer was doing for tennis generally.
It was curious thing to say, not least because tennis is tennis, and whatever Federer is doing for tennis, he is also doing for women tennis, but because Serena is not Federer and both are completely different in comportment and behavior.
Roger Federer is a phenom and King, in her normal women rights agitation, must look for someone to cast also as a phenom in the women game. And who else but Serena who stood closest to equaling her 12 grand slams record?
It is always a hazardous enterprise to compare the Women Tennis Association (WTA) with the Association of Professional Tennis (ATP).
Women play best of three sets in the slams, while men play best of five. Women tennis lacks the speed and competitiveness in men’s tennis, though it is always equally a delight to watch – like watching the slow-motion replay of your favorite football match.
But that is where the similarity ends.
Did we say that female tennis is not competitive? Now do not tell Billie Jean King, she may threaten to shove a tennis ball down the throat of yours truly.
But pray, why did the female tennis world go on a celebration over the achievements of Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin?
This was clearly the worst misfortune to occur to the WTA and called for sober and solemn reflection not celebration. Two top players storm back after a two-year hiatus and guess what?
One dusts the reigning female number one player, Serena Williams, so thoroughly that she took out her frustration on a hapless lineswoman.
And the other took the same world number to three sets in Australia. I mean these women lay off (one to have a baby and the other to pursue other interests) and the rest of the pack (including Serena) were still on active service and yet see what happened!
Contrast that with Rafael Nadal’s absence for a couple of months because of injury while he was still the world number one.
On resumption, he has discovered that a lot of ground has been covered by those who were seeded below him and about six months later, he is yet to find his rhythm and compete with the boys he used to beat before he took the break.
Do you think that anyone of the top ten players in the ATP can take a one year break (do not even think of two years) and come back and beat Roger Federer or even have a single set with him? (I see you are shaking your head vigorously – I understand).
In the ATP, you cannot afford to skip training for a month without paying seriously for it, because your colleagues would leapfrog you.
But where is the women’s game?
Kim, dear Kim, comes out of retirement after having a baby and bringing the baby up. She takes the court by storm and drills her way like red hot knife going through butter to the bottom of the pack where Serena lurks like a panther.
She draws her and dusts her.
Then she squares off with another top ten player, the pretty, delectable ever-smiling Wozniacki and dusts her and lifts the US Open Title. One great leap for a tennis genius, but one sad commentary for women tennis and the top seeds.
While this was going, Justine Henin watched on television and comes to the conclusion that the women game has not moved significantly from where she let go. In fact the women game rolls on so slowly that you can get off it, take a stroll and come back and join the “train” where you hopped down.
She put a call through to her coach and enters the first tournament where she ends up playing the final with the comeback colleague, Kim Clijsters. Where were the other top seeds that had all the while been playing?
The women’s game is all about motion without movement.
Not done, she registers next for the Australian Open and storms through a tough draw to play Serena Williams, the world number one. She levels the game at one all before losing the deciding set.
I would have expected Billie Jean King to weep for women tennis after this embarrassment, but she is obviously still the “playing tennis of hope.”
I have a suspicion that Billie Jean King, Martina Nartilova, Steffi Graf, et al should all be contemplating whether to come out of retirement because nothing has changed much in women tennis from their days.
If Kim and Justine could do this, think of what Martina Nartilova could do – if she makes up her mind to thump the girls out there.
I watched the Australian Open spectacle on television and hung my head in shame. Commenting on Justine Henin, Serena Williams said she was better than she was before she quit the game and that it was like she never left.
Sweet Serena was partially right, based on her perspective.
Well the truth of the matter is that Henin moved, but women tennis did not move while she was away. So she came back and found it where she left it, and continued from there.
One would not have considered it necessary to hold up such decent and wonderful ladies like Clijsters and Henin as proof that women tennis is in a sorry state.
But after Serena Williams attempted to cash in on Billie Jean King’s comparison of her with Roger Federer and reinforced the warped thinking that she is the Roger Federer of the women circuit by saying that she wanted to equal Roger Federer’s record, one decided to watch the line and call “out.”
Roger Federer is riding fierce storms of competition, while Serena is surfing in wavy waters. Women Tennis is as different from men’s tennis, as American Football is different from Rugby.
Federer plays best of five sets, women play best of three.
Serena has serve advantage over the women, whereas no one has such advantage in the men’s game.
Even the suave and dapper Andy Roddick, who holds the world record in service at 157 mph, does not enjoy much advantage in the men’s game and is not in the top four right now. But Serena’s 120 mph service is usually too hot for the other girls to handle.
The guys return everything above that with ease and a smile.
I say both games are miles apart.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
February 3rd 2010 @ 6:26pm
Charles said | February 3rd 2010 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
This is perhaps the most asinine article on tennis that I’ve ever read and, believe me, there are many of them out there by so-called analysts, many of whom probably have never played the game and have no appreciation for the nuances of the sport. There’s evidently a herd mentality out there where people repeat silly arguments others have uttered or published. This joke of an analysis has nothing to do with “facing facts.” Let’s look at the real facts. The fact of the matter is that it’s the modern version of women’s tennis that saved the day for the sport a few years ago when men’s tennis had become extremely boring because of the dominance of the serve (Federer alluded to this in his post-match interview a couple days ago, and many of us can remember John McEnroe suggesting on several occasions back then that the sport needed to try to save itself by perhaps considering having the men going back to using wood racquets). Remember when Goran Ivanisevic got a wild card for Wimbledon in 2001 and ended up winning the whole thing solely on the strength of his serve? And all of this happened in the era of greats such as Sampras, Agassi, and even a younger Federer. Also, rather than looking at the women’s game as a whole, these folks try to take selective snapshots of what they think (and very often quite foolishly) are less flattering events in the women’s game and make generalizations from these in order to draw negative conclusions about women’s tennis as a whole. Yet they fail to do the same with the men’s game. For example, there was a lot of foolish talk after the 2009 Australian Open final that the lopsided score against the then number two player in the world (Safina only won three games in two sets) showed the sad state of women’s tennis and its inferiority to the men’s game (contrasting this to the thrilling five-set 2009 AO final between Federer and Nadal). But the same people who were making that argument chose to forget the 2008 French Open final when Federer won a total of four games in three sets, which means that he averaged fewer games per set than Safina had against Serena. They drew no such similar sweeping conclusions about state of the men’s game after the 2008 FO final which had been played only seven months earlier. Now there’s this other silly argument that the fact that former number one women’s players like Kim and Justine can come back after long absenses and be so competitive proves the inferiority of the women’s game. If this is so, how does one explain what happened in early 2007 when Federer was at the height of his dominance (he would win three grand slams that year and had just won the 2007 AO a few months earlier without dropping a set) and lost to Canas in two consecutive tournaments. In the first tournament, Canas (who had never been close to being number 1) had got through to the main draw as a qualiifier because he had just come off something like a 15-month drug suspension, and still he knocked the number one player out of that tournament and beat him again at another tournament only a few weeks later. And why don’t we compare the women in the 2008 US Open final (Serena and Jankovic played a high quality, exciting, and entertaining match) with the men (the 2008 Federer/Murray final was uncompetitive, extremely boring, and of very low quality). The fact of the matter is one cannot take selective snapshots of this or that tournament and make sweeping generalizations that are valid. Both the current men’s and women’s game (which are comparable in some ways and different in others) are great and exciting to those with a reasonable understanding of the sport and no axe to grind. So let’s stop this foolishness of panning one or the other with the use of these selective “facts.”
February 4th 2010 @ 1:19am
ohtani's jacket said | February 4th 2010 @ 1:19am | Report comment
That’s a fair point. It wasn’t that long ago that people were claiming that the men’s game wasn’t competitive and that Federer was winning so many titles because the talent pool was weak.
February 4th 2010 @ 5:59am
Michael John said | February 4th 2010 @ 5:59am | Report comment
The article sounds like a satire to me. But the valid point is that Serena is Serena and Federer is Federer. One cannot be the other and even Serena admitted in a recent interview that she cannot play half as well as the men. But so far one argument the angry responders to this article has not addressed is – has a man ever come out of a two-year voluntary retirement (not a drug ban, for crying out aloud) to win a Slam in the men’s circuit or even play the final? Serena is a great player but not the best. Legends redefine the game and introduce skills never before imagined or played. Pele invented the bicycle kick. Mohammed Ali invented rope-a-dope style. Michael Jordan did tricks with basketball that no one has seen before. Magic Johnson in the air was a delight to watch. Johan Cryuff invented the famous Cryuff’s Turn in soccer.
Mike Tyson, probably had the heaviest punch in boxing history, but the world is still talking about Ali as the greatest because he was a bundle of skills and finesse. Winning is not everything, energy and power is not everything; in tennis what makes sense is racket wizardry and footwork – not power and aces. Charles’ unfortunate article was completely intolerant and asinine. He should have addressed the facts without citing examples ten times more asinine than the ones used in the first article. And by the way, saying that Serena could have beaten Margeret Court is is as foolish as saying that today’s scientists are smarter than Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Einstein, Newton and Court were pacesetters and their place in history is defined by their pace setting roles.
February 5th 2010 @ 8:47am
Mercy John said | February 5th 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Your arguments were not very logical. You never followed one thought to its logical conclusion. You rather hopped like a cat on hot bricks from one analogy to the other. As a woman I know that there is whole lot of difference between the men’s game and the women’s game. I prefer watching the men’s game and you know why. Tennis is perhaps one of the very few games where men and women play different sets. More than that Serena is not the Federer of Women Tennis just as Federer is not the Serena of Men’s Tennis. I doubt if Federer can come back from a two year voluntary retirement to win a tournament in his first attempt. A drug ban is a different ball game all together, because the banned player would be preparing for when the ban would be lifted. The beauty of tennis is the rallies – not aces. You were perhaps too prejudiced to think straight and respond to the article above. The truth is that Federer wins without being bashful and boastful, without claiming that he is the best. Others call him the best. That is why he is such a great guy and a role model. Serena? Great girl but her game is all about serve and when it does not work for her – like against Li Na and Azerenka – she struggles. I find it very hard to give your letter a logical response because it violated known rules of logic. Next time do not let your anger interfer with your facts.
February 3rd 2010 @ 7:36pm
ilikelollies said | February 3rd 2010 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Do you even know mcuh about tennis such as who were Steffi’ contemporaries.
The likes of Gabbi Sabatini, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Mary Jo Fernandez, Jana Novotna and Monica Seles
Serena would wipe the floor with the first 4 and have to much power and athleticism for Seles.
February 3rd 2010 @ 7:40pm
bever fever said | February 3rd 2010 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
Have posted this before but i have it on good authority (from the horses mouth) that no ladies would be able to crack the top 500 men……. think mobility and 5 sets.
February 4th 2010 @ 1:02am
ohtani's jacket said | February 4th 2010 @ 1:02am | Report comment
That’s great.
February 4th 2010 @ 5:53am
Michael John said | February 4th 2010 @ 5:53am | Report comment
The article sounds like a satire to me. But the valid point is that Serena is Serena and Federer is Federer. One cannot be the other and even Serena admitted in a recent interview that she cannot play half as well as the men. But so far one argument the angry responders to this article has not addressed is – has a man ever come out of a two-year voluntary retirement (not a drug ban, for crying out aloud) to win a Slam in the men’s circuit or even play the final? Serena is a great player but not the best. Legends redefine the game and introduce skills never before imagined or played. Pele invented the bicycle kick. Mohammed Ali invented rope-a-dope style. Michael Jordan did tricks with basketball that no one has seen before. Magic Johnson in the air was a delight to watch. Johan Cryuff invented the famous Cryuff’s Turn in soccer.
Mike Tyson, probably had the heaviest punch in boxing history, but the world is still talking about Ali as the greatest because he was a bundle of skills and finesse. Winning is not everything, energy and power is not everything; in tennis what makes sense is racket wizardry and footwork – not power and aces. Charles’ unfortunate article was completely intolerant and asinine. He should have addressed the facts without citing examples ten times more asinine than the ones used in the first article. And by the way, saying that Serena could have beaten Margeret Court is is as foolish as saying that today’s scientists are smarter than Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Einstein, Newton and Court were pacesetters and their place in history is defined by their pace setting roles.
February 4th 2010 @ 7:20am
mitzter said | February 4th 2010 @ 7:20am | Report comment
Would like women’s games to be 5 sets – so much harder!
And I still am not a fan of being able to win a match with a tie break. Maybe just me.
February 4th 2010 @ 1:57pm
oztennislover said | February 4th 2010 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
I think all the debate regarding the state of tennis is healthy. It makes a great read – so thanks.
However, I have a slightly different opinion on the state of the current game – I love the current state of women’s tennis. I love it that there are so many great women tennis players around that it is really hard to predict who will win any tournament. I think the only exception to this is when Serena is ‘on fire’ – there is currently no woman on tour who can match Serena’s talent, strength and mental toughness.
I just wanna finish off by saying that I’ve got high hopes that Sam Stosur finds her ‘fire’ this year and finds her way into the women’s top 10 and wins a few more tournaments.
February 6th 2010 @ 9:01pm
irsh said | February 6th 2010 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
excuse me but justine henin is the federer of women’s game! it’s insulting to speak of serena in the same sentence as roger federer.
February 7th 2010 @ 10:56pm
Tyron said | February 7th 2010 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
Ok, so this is ridiculous. I cannot believe how many forums that i have read and somehow, the minute that Serena’s name is mentioned, it becomes a maelstrom. First of all, I will applaud the talent of Serena and Williams AND Justine Henin. Therefore, for those of us who are fans of Serena , be that . For those who are fans of Justine Henin, be that too. For those who respect BOTH of them, (gasp) be that too. I am a little irritated with articles that in a sublimenal way try to undermine what Serena has achieved. Whether people like it or not , Serena has won twelve gland slams – TWELVE. That’s pretty darn incredible. I am not going to sit up and say . oh Serena is the greatest of all time. She had the opportunity to break Steffi’ s record, but she did not. And That is OK. I think that it is easy for writers to throw her name into the mix because they know that it will generate a certain degree a discussion between those who like or respect her and those who hate her. She may not be generally gracious and yes, for the first time in FIFTEEN years , lost her temper on court. IT happened, it was improper, but get over it. She has really worked to commit herself to tennis over the past few years and, unlike most top players, actually plays doubles and wins, something she does not get enough credit for. Do i think that womens tennis is on equal footing with men’s tennis- NOT YET. But its beginning to head in that direction , but stop ragging on Serena . Billie J. King gave her opinion ,but can we not hang Serena out to try for it. It should be noted that Serena is now the only other women besides Martina Navratilova to win a grand slam in three different decades. Again, love her or hate her, but i do not see alot of women (or men) for that matter accomplishing that .
February 7th 2010 @ 11:07pm
Tyron said | February 7th 2010 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Oh, and more thing. I wanted to address the criticism about Serena not adding some new component to the sport. First, I do consider Serena’s serve to be one of the best and most dynamic in the history of the women’s game. Her ball positioning and accuracy and, yes, power, are unparalleled. But what distinguishes her from the rest of the tour is that even when her supersonic serve is not working properly, i have watched numerous matches when she has found a way to win. Her grit, especially at the big moments, is unlike anything that i have ever seen. She is an extremely tactical player and , once again, while it is easy to say that ‘oh she just relies on her serve’- that is nonsense.