Women's tennis is in danger of extinction

By Anindya Dutta / Roar Guru

In March this year, the BNP Paribas Open CEO Raymond Moore made a statement on women’s tennis – and then he apologized and resigned.

“When I come back in my next life I want to be someone in the WTA because they ride on the coattails of the men,” said Moore. “They don’t make any decisions and they are lucky. They are very, very lucky.

“If I was a lady player, I’d go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born because they have carried this sport. They really have.”

While commenting on the issue, Novak Djokovic got into trouble by saying that men should “fight for more” money because their matches have more spectators than those played by women. He then went on to say that women should “absolutely” be paid more – if ladies’ tennis became more popular and lucrative than the game on the men’s side.

Needless to say, Novak dropped a few notches in the popularity charts after this frank expression of his views.

Most interestingly, in the context of this article, however, in her indignant statement after this episode, Serena Williams said: “I think Venus, myself, a number of players — if I could tell you every day how many people say they don’t watch tennis unless they’re watching myself or my sister — I couldn’t even bring up that number.”

And therein lies the crux of the problem with women’s tennis today.

Spectators line up to watch Serena Williams play. Love her or hate her (and there seems no middle path for fans here), everyone who follows tennis will admit that she stands tall as a giant in women’s tennis, and no one in the past two decades has quite dominated the sport as she has. If there is no Serena playing, the number of spectators drops off dramatically.

The money is the wrong argument. Of course women should get paid as much as men, because they put in just as much effort. The real underlying issue is the lack of talent that’s coming into the women’s game. There is no one who challenges Serena with any degree of regularity throughout the year, when she should clearly be at least as much under pressure as the legendary Roger Federer is on the men’s circuit. After all, he is of the same vintage.

Instead, at the age of 34, Serena is expected to win every time she steps on the court. And she pretty much does.

She has been ranked No.1 in the world for three successive years, and with a huge lead in points, it’s most likely she will end 2016 in the same position. This would be the 6th season she ends up at the No.1 position. Only Navratilova with 7 seasons at the peak has a better record.

It’s also a sad reflection on the state of women’s tennis. Navratilova achieved this feat by the time she was 30 years old, and if Serena is to match her, she will be nearly 36 when it happens. In no competitive sports, least of all tennis, is that a reflection of normalcy.

Billy Jean King was a giant of her time. She founded the WTA and in 1973 won the famous “Battle of the Sexes” against Bobby Riggs. That changed women’s tennis forever.

The “Battle of the Sexes” took place on September 20, 1973, at the Houston Astrodome. Embracing the spectacle of the event, King entered the court in a gold litter carried by four muscular men, while Riggs rolled in on a rickshaw pulled by a team of women called “Bobby’s Bosom Buddies.”

But King was all business once the match started, and she beat Riggs in straight sets before an estimated television audience of 50 million viewers.

Cheesy as it sounds today, this changed how women’s tennis was viewed. Billy Jean King said about the match “I thought it would set us back 50 years if I didn’t win that match. It would ruin the women’s tour and affect all women’s self esteem.”

But even in this age when she dominated, there was always consistent competition and able challengers. Margaret Court, Virginia Wade and Evonne Goolagong were hard competitors to beat, and most of King’s successes were on grass.

Chris Evert took over from Billie Jean King as the dominant force in women’s tennis. She reached 34 grand slam singles finals, more than any other player in professional tennis history. She reached the semis or better in 52 of the 56 grand slams she played, including at least the semis in 24 consecutive grand slams between the 1971 US Open and the 1983 French Open. Her win percentage in singles matches was almost 90 per cent, the highest for any tennis player in the Open Era. That’s just a mind-boggling achievement.

But even Christ Evert, arguably the greatest women’s player to ever step on a tennis court, always had strong competition snapping at her heels. In fact, she had a 37-43 losing record against Martina Navratilova and 6-8 against Steffi Graf in the twilight of her career, despite her unbelievable career stats.

The amazing Martina Navratilova was as dominant as Chris Evert and a significant part of their careers overlapped. Even when Evert stopped playing however, first Tracy Austin and Andrea Jaeger, then Steffi Graf, ensured that women’s tennis never ever became the ‘Martina Navratilova Show.’

Finally, there was Steffi Graf. Ranked No.1 by WTA for 377 consecutive weeks – something no other man or woman has ever matched – and along with Margaret Court, the only players (male or female) to win three grand slams in a year five times.

She was also the only player in tennis history to do the golden slam in a single calendar year – win all four grand slams as well as the Olympics gold medal, which she did in 1988.

But she had stiff competition as well, despite her dominance. Martina Navratilova, Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, were all consistently posing a challenge in every tournament through Graff’s career, and beating her regularly.

And now on to the present.

There has never quite been a period in women’s tennis when the talent cupboard has been quite so bare. Serena Williams stands alone. And that’s not a good thing for tennis.

Maria Sharapova’s career for all practical purposes is over after a 2-year ban for taking a banned substance.

The current World No.2 Garbine Muruguza won the French Open in 2016, then promptly got knocked early in Wimbledon.

World No.3 Agnieszka Radwanska (popularly known as “The Professor” among her fellow players) is Poland’s favourite daughter and the WTA Fan Favourite Player for five consecutive years since 2011. But she has never won a Grand Slam event, and has just exited early from Wimbledon 2016.

World No. 4 Angelique Kerber of Germany has been on the circuit for 10 years and won her first grand slam in Melbourne earlier this year. Her track record does not inspire confidence that she is going to be dominating the women’s circuit anytime soon.

Every time there is an ‘upset’ in women’s tennis with someone beating the Top 5 (which itself changes with alarming regularity), or someone finally manages to beat Serena when she is having a bad day at the office, speculation erupts over the online and social media about whether this is finally someone breaking out of the pack to be the new leader.

This has been going on for a few years now. Not a single player has however shown that their promise can become reality.

Serena can perhaps carry on for another 3-4 years (after all Navratilova won titles into her 40s), but if no new Evert or Graf or Navratilova or Serena comes through the ranks soon, equal pay will be the least of the problems for women’s tennis.

It will be a question of survival. Existential questions will be asked – Should there even be a year-ending WTA tournament? Should there be a women’s singles event at Wimbledon? Will women’s tennis get any sponsors?

Something needs to give. And fast. Billy Jean King, are you listening?

The Crowd Says:

2016-07-12T07:08:16+00:00

Johnno

Guest


Good points, Anindya agreed. Where to after Serena? Well Serena is 35 this year, I don't see her haveing alot longer in singles dominance. There will be new No 1's and some very good players, will the next generation(2018-2030) be weaker for example, maybe but some era's are weaker than other's in any sport, just the way it works.

AUTHOR

2016-07-12T05:49:00+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


I love Azarenka and I agree she could have been. But the "would have beens" does not actually solve the issue women's tennis faces today. Is there life after Serena?

AUTHOR

2016-07-12T05:47:48+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


True story Johnno. We can only play with the cards we are dealt. I have heard so many people now tell me how great Seles would have been if she hadn't been stabbed. I am sure that's true. But she got stabbed and faded away. The road took a turn. The tale had a twist. So no point speculating on that. I think Sharapova has had enough chances and a long enough stint and hasn't done as well as she could have. Serena is still playing amazing tennis, as she showed us last weekend. My question remains however, what happens to women's tennis after Serena's broad shoulders decide to take some well earned rest. That, I believe, is the crux of the matter.

2016-07-11T13:44:29+00:00

Johnno

Guest


If this-If this/hypothetical this or that/could'a should'a would'a/didn't happen. One of the weaknesses of sports analysists sometimes, they live in hypothetical's too much as a mean for criticism or downplaying the achievement of a player. You can only play what's in front of you, and things happen in life, and that's all rolled into the piece. Overcoming adversity/obstacles is part of the challenge/game. Serena's had challenges, almost died with lung problems/has won grand slams when suffering the flu, her and Venus had a very tough childhood they never played junior wimbledon etc. What if Serena grew up in the traditional tennis academy player like Sharapova was (eg Nick Bolleteri academy). Or Seles stabbing, does that tarnish Graff record? No. Do we tarnish Serena's record coz Venus has had serious medical problems too, and may of pinched 1 or 2 more slams. Same if Henin or Clister's didn't retire etc You can't live in hypotheticals of this or that, you can only play what's in front of you, Serena is a great, Sharapova/Safin are not, the end. And Seles is not as great as Graff, could she of we'll never know, but she's not. Get over it the end.

2016-07-10T08:06:36+00:00

BrainsTrust

Guest


Azarenka would be the dominant player in the womens , but has battled injuries for the last three years. Safina would be second and offer the competition but she retired in her mid 20's. Serena would be ranked behind those two if they were still fit and playing. The loss of Sharapova makes the current womens very weak. Safin was a very talented player just had a lot of injuries. Safin is also the only player to beat Federer in his peak years in a grand slam event outside the French Open.

AUTHOR

2016-07-09T15:36:13+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


Unbelievable. I am amazed the ATP and the WTA are not addressing the issue. After all it's in their interests to keep new players coming in and the machinery running.

2016-07-09T15:22:15+00:00

Johnno

Guest


It gets worse. This year the winner of US open will in Australian dollars get about $4.3 million, both men and women. Now surely that could be filter down to other rounds, and reduced winner's cheque. 1st round losers only get $50,000, huge unevenness. 3rd round you get 145K australian, but still massively away from winner's cheque, the unevenness is so great.

AUTHOR

2016-07-09T06:38:37+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


Joe - Yes she does have competition, but none of them are at a level where they consistently challenge her. Maybe if Kerber Beats her tonight it will be a real challenger emerging because it will be the second GS in a year. But do you see a Fed+Djoko+Rafa+Murray situation in women's tennis today where on a given day any of the TOP 4 or 5 can beat each other? If we did, I wouldn't have written the article.

2016-07-09T06:33:04+00:00

Joe

Guest


What do you mean Serena has no competition? Have you not been watching women's grand slam tennis this season? Ummm...has Serena won a grand slam this year? Or has she had competition in those matches, thus proving that the gap between her and other players is closing? I think women's tennis desperately wanted players who could challenge Serena in grand slams, and they have succeeded. It is inept to suggest that Serena has had no competition this season.

AUTHOR

2016-07-09T06:06:34+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


Johnno- Could not agree more. A lot of rare talent gets left by the wayside just because of the expense of the game. The amount of money from semi finals onwards but particularly for the winner is getting to ridiculous levels. Spreading that to the early rounds would be a game changer. In fact as I think about it, what about each tournament Organizer being made to reimburse the travel expenses (after the tournament) of anyone who did not get to the quarters for example, taking away that money from the prize money at the top level? That could be an interesting one. Great thought mate!

AUTHOR

2016-07-09T06:01:11+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


RD - That was some rant mate! Gupta is not the only one who doesn't like Serena. There are thousands who don't. Not everyone likes everyone so big deal. But I totally agree that it's not Serena's fault if she doesn't have competition and she should indeed play as Long as she can stay at this level. What I didn't get however is your rant about Paes and Mirza. Which left field did that come from? Almost everyone on the doubles tour plays with someone from another country except the Bryan brothers, well, .... Because they are twins I Guess. Both Mirza and Paes happen to be extraordinarily talented doubles players. And no it's not people who can't play singles or don't have the ability, who play doubles. If that's what you believe I suggest you go and get some lessons in tennis. And no one is forcing you to watch them play on television. Why don't you watch some MMA with huge dudes smashing other huge dudes in fake fights? And just as an aside, Mirza just happens to have the No.1 ranking in doubles in the world. That, even you will probably admit, doesn't happen by fluke. Cheers.

2016-07-09T04:35:58+00:00

Johnno

Guest


Golf/Tennis/boxing/Athletics/Swimming(individual sport) is mostly dominated by a few in any generation(and often it's the lucky few who get the big bucks the large slice of the pie while the other players get the crumbs). But as others have said Tennis is more global now, but that doesn't mean all the players get big cash. And there's been alot in the Tennis news lately about player equalization, with prize-money. As often getting to the top is hard as the top players can afford more coaching/and support team(chefs/physios/hitting partners/trainers all the mod cons). Golf has better equalization(the playrs ranked 50-100 in Golf get much more cash than in Tennis players ranked 50-100), but the prizemoney should be equalized more to help the lesser players in Tennis. I mean does first prize of winning a grand slam really need to be $3million. It could be reduced to $2million and that other million could be spread to first round and 2nd round losers more etc.

2016-07-08T21:15:18+00:00

RD

Guest


I'm tired of ridiculously stupid comments like Gupta's. Most sports fans appreciate extraordinary talent; unlike the above, we respect the rare abilities and, as with King, Navratilova and Connors and other legendary players admire them for their capacity to stay at or near the top of the game despite aging. The latter being the result of intangibles such as the experience and mental toughness developed a Career of note. That said, as an American I am utterly tired of seeing the likes if Sonia Mirza and Leander Paes, two players who had neither the talent nor commitment to play in the big leagues. Instead they take up time on our television tournament schedules -- whenever playing with a more talented or lauded European or Anerican player -- playing doubles which, most tennis fans agree is for those athletes who don't have the ability (and name recognition) to play tour level singles events, the absolute money maker for both the ATP and WTA. Maybe we should relegate doubles players like Mirza and Paes exclusively to second and third rate countries. Why? The fans probably won't know any better and it'll keep those doubles players from taking up our time, resources and money.

AUTHOR

2016-07-08T00:55:11+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


Undoubtedly. Murray has matured into someone I would not have trouble defining as one of the best players we have seen in modern tennis. He bloomed late into a real winner and has been unfortunate to be in the same era as Nadal and Djokovic not to mention Federer. In an era with a Hewitt and a Safin? Absolutely, he would be up quite a few Grand Slams by now.

2016-07-08T00:05:47+00:00

clipper

Guest


I suspect Murray would've won 7-9 slams in an earlier era, but Wawrinka is more like Safin - on his day unbeatable, but otherwise not as consistent. Safin did beat Sampras easily when Sampras was younger than Novak, and Federer at his peak to go on to win the AO, but lose to Johansson at the AO final in a huge upset.

AUTHOR

2016-07-07T09:34:12+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


Fair enough. I guess everything is relative. Wawrinka and Murray I would agree are a notch above Hewitt and Safin, but its still harsh to label them average!

2016-07-07T09:15:16+00:00

Rambo Vaidyanathan

Guest


Yeah maybe calling them average is harsh. But to me Hewitt was a better version of someone like Marcos Baghdatis. A grafter who worked very hard but wasn't really blessed with talent to increase the grand slam haul. I consider Wawrinka and Murray as better than Hewitt and Safin because they won their titles in a better era, hence why to me they still were average.

2016-07-07T06:28:16+00:00

clipper

Guest


Agree, I also think Roddick would've done pretty well in the Sampras era, similar player - hopeless on Clay, but got to 5 finals, only to be denied by Roger in his prime, and even then a 16-14 finish in 2009.

AUTHOR

2016-07-07T03:17:16+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


May you be proved right Rambo! My views on Safin and Hewitt are different from yours and enumerated below in my response to Clipper'c comments on yours.

AUTHOR

2016-07-07T03:16:02+00:00

Anindya Dutta

Roar Guru


Completely agree clipper. Seles getting stabbed was a huge blow for women's tennis. And while I agree overall with Rambo's points, I was just going to write exactly the same thing that you did, that calling Marat Safin and Leyton Hewitt average is very harsh indeed! Safin was an incredible talent but inconsistent. He and sister Dinara were simultaneously World No. 1, not a feat likely to be repeated by a brother-sister combo! He had some injury problems, and a horrible temper. He admits to have smashed 1055 racquets in his lifetime :). I have huge respect for Hewitt, and he unfortunately lost his way. But when he was good, he was really good!

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar