Lack of competition leaves women's tennis in bad shape

Well, that was controversial.

Why does Clijsters run make a mockery of the WTA? It's not as if she's come back just playing average tennis and thrashing top players in the process - far from it in fact, she's playing close to the level she was at when she retired where she was already a top player then. It's not as if she's well past it age-wise either, she's 26 and not had to comeback from a career ending injury after a 2 and a bit year break. And as for your other comment about it being a shocking statistic that only 9 top 20 players made it past the second round as another excuse to bash the WTA, did you not watch Wimbledon then where 19 out of the top 20 WTA seeds all made the third round fulfilling their seeding and the top 4 all reached the semi's which was more than the can-do-no-wrong ATP. It's not as if players don't choke in your beloved ATP tour either when they play Federer in slams, which he invariably ends up winning from positions he shouldn't (Berdych AO, Acasuso FO, Haas FO, Roddick Wim). It isn't as if ATP has more than 2 regular winners of slams either unless Fed or Rafa happen to be either not fully fit. in fact the ATP's even less competitive when it comes to slam winners - 17 of the last 18 have been won by either Federer or Nadal, where as in the WTA in the last 18 the Williams Sisters have won just 7 of those. My word, the ATP is so strong the depth finishes after no.2 in the rankings! I think you need to accept that the WTA's going through a transitional phase right now since the retirement of Henin like the ATP was from 2001-2003, rather than just kick it whilst it's down like you have done with this article. When Clijsters is back near the top of the rankings and in full flow, Sharapova returns to full form following her shoulder surgery and the likes of Azarenka, Lisicki and Wozniacki mature then you'l see some great competition at slams for the silverware. I still see the Serena - Dementieva Wimbledon SF as the match of the year and although Dementieva lost she certainly didn't choke and it was top quality all the way through. Why should we recognise Safina as the world number 1? simple, yes Safina was abysmal at the US open but have you seen her consistency for the whole year as opposed to say Serena's who hasn't won a regular tour title for 18 months and rarely even gets past the quarter finals these days and often loses to no-hopers. Safina although she hasn't won a major has made 3 slam finals in just over a year and an olympic final plus 7 titles in that time and plenty of deep runs into just about every tournament she's entered. She supports the tour by playing regular and giving it her best week in week out which is more than can be said for a certain Williams sister, but i suppose you'd prefer to recognise a world number 1 who only tries their best for 8 weeks of the year.

He's only required to play the four Grand Slams, 8 Masters 1000, 4 ATP 500 tournaments, and 2 ATP 250 tournaments. He's been skipping the 500 tournaments of late, but it's completely understandable given his wife was pregnant, RG and Wimbledon were draining, he's the World No.1 and doesn't need the points, and more than likely doesn't agree with the playing schedule. He didn't skip the Masters series in the lead-up to RG or the US, and in fact he won two of them. He only really skipped Halle, which was understandable after RG. GS finalists usually skip their next tournament. Roddick pulled out of stuff after Wimbledon.

I guess you're talking about Ivanovic, Jankovic or Safina. Ivanovic and Jankovic traded the World No.1 a few times without winning anything, but it was because the points race was so tight and Ivanovic had to pull out with an injury.

Who was it in the women's tennis who was number one last year or the year before without actually winning anything? That means a lot of runners up prizes, obviously to different winners at each tourny. I am sick of the next big thing, being a lot hotter looking than they can actually play. It is like Golf. They pull some hot bird, give her all the attention, all the appearance money, and she doesn't make the cut. These are two sports where looks outweighs substance apparently.

VC - this year Federer did not play a single warm-up match on grass before Wimbledon, in fact he played nothing at all between the French and Wimbledon. It was the same a few years ago too (I think 2007, when he also won). Often he has played no genuine warm-up tournaments, but only the hit-and-giggle invitation thingy at Kooyong, prior to the Australian Open. So the difference between Federer and the Williams sisters is not as great as you think. It's just that Federer stays out of the news when he's not competing, as opposed to going to fashion shoots. The issue of equal prizemoney is a different one. Without wishing to bring the forces of PC righteousness down upon me, I am definitely more of your view on that one. At the very least the girls should have to play best of 5 sets if they are to get the same prizemoney.

The women don't need to play five sets. A good three set women's match can be just as dramatic and exciting as a five setter from the men. Women's tennis has always been dominated by one or two figures be it Court, Graff, Moody, Evert or Navratilova. In fact, one of the arguments about the Williams sisters is that they haven't won enough Grand Slams.

Do you really believe that Federer could spend half the year attending fashion shoots and making jewellery and still pitch up at Wimbers and give the other chaps a good thrashing? I rather doubt it. The mere fact that the Williams sisters can maintain such dominance whilst being semi-detached from the game is a terrible indictment of of ladies' tennis. Frankly, it is an abomination that such third-rate athletes receive the same amount of wonga as the chaps. I advise any man with a daughter or two to drill them on the tennis court for a few years because it won't take much to make them competitive, and plentiful dollops of cash will surely follow.

Rob, I don't think Agassi had stopped playing. He just fell down the rankings. A bit if a difference.

Just one example of a male comback: Anyone remember that no-name bald-headed fella who married that German tennis player? Oh, yeah, Agassi was his name... So why can't the Capriattis and Clijsters of this world do it too? Would you have said that when Agassi came back men's tennis was just as weak?

Savvas, They are trying to shorten tennis matches not lengthen them. All the double tournaments are using a 'pro-set' (extended tiebreaker) now and grand slams have changed their rules around advantage sets so they are only for the 3rd set in womens and 5th set in mens matches. I am no expert but I don't know why women can't play 5 sets, they are receiving the same amount of $$$ for winning grand slams, why can't everyone play 5 sets. I think the attraction to Women's tennis at the moment is the fact it doesn't seem to be the two horse race (even with the Williams sisters dominance) at each grand slam. The Federer/Nadal show has been going on for about 5 years with a few exceptions.

I agree that Women's tennis needs to do something about length of the matches. As sport has become more professional, more effort is required to win. But the nature of tennis does not allow the women to test the endurance aspect of their game,. The problem is that a 5 setter is not an option. The female body (in theory at least, I am willing to hear counter arguments) is not built to play that long. So do we extend the length of the set to 8 games? That won't happen because the interest in the set will be reduced because it is now longer! Any other solutions?

Clijsters was always an exceptionally talented player who had mental fragility that prevented her from realizing anything like her full potential. My guess is that, so far at least, she's playing free of pressure, and this positive is making up for the negative of not having played for several years. So I do not find her progress to be an abominable statement on the level of women's tennis (although I agree that it is not saying great things). I am also curious about the difference in attitude that people have towards Federer and Serena Williams. People have no issue regarding Federer's domination of men's tennis, and do not take it as a statement of men's tennis being weak. So why is it that they take Serena's results as a statement that women's tennis is weak? Serena quite clearly is a female equivalent of Federer, it's just that she goes about her business in a completely different way, so one can form the impression that she isn't really trying, and that lesser players should be able to beat her, and that women's tennis is weak. I must confess that I used to have the just-stated attitude about women's tennis. But then a friend of mine pointed out to me the longevity of the Williams sisters. Serena won her first grand-slam title in 1999, Venus in 2000. A decade later, and they are still at the top. Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, etc. - none of their rivals has lasted anything like this long. Maybe their apparently casual attitude is the key to their longevity, and they should be praised rather than criticized for this. Tennis has always been a sport where the best player will usually win, and so there are dominant champions. Serena is simply the best.

Well, Clijsters played in Cincinnati and Toronto where she played well. I have little interest in women's tennis since Henin retired, but I have no problem with Clijsters doing well as a wildcard. Remember when Goran Ivanisevic was 125th in the world and won Wimbledon as a wildcard? It was a great story. Besides, Clijsters knocked off Venus. Fair play. The other girls don't have the power of Clijsters. Her problem was always the mental fragility that plagues the rest of the WTA circuit. Tennis comebacks are always fun. I wish her the best of luck and I hope Henin comes back too.

5 sets will sort 'em out. Simple really. Then they can actually earn their money.

Safina is the Marcelo Ríos of female tennis ... a quirk of the rankings system ... the next question should be is Murray the new Henman

Hang on, if anything, surely the fact that the world number one struggled against lower rank opponents suggests that there is plenty of depth in Women's tennis? I agree with the general sentiment that there is a lack of quality there, but I feel the actual title doesn't reflect the state of Women's tennis.