Comments on: Sony Ericsson WTA Tour: decrease in withdrawals in 2009

By: charles

charles — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:40:03 +0000

Serena and Venus have played and won almost every tournament out there; they are nearing the end of their careers and have paid their dues; thank you very much! Serena has won slams in the last three decades competing against all of the greats of tennis since 1998.

By: Ella

Ella — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:55:44 +0000

Marine,
1. If you think that Caroline and Dinara play so many tournaments to "give fans something to watch" then you are delusional; Dina herself said that she was desperate to end the year as #1, and that's the only reason she played after Wimbledon even though she knew she could've potentially hurt her back even more-which ended up happening anyway. Caro followed JJ's 2008 formula-play every tourny possible with a sweet smile and rack up enough points to get into top 10-it worked, but now she has a busted up thigh that will probably hamper her progress next season.

2.The Sisters are playing for slams; Clijsters and Henin came(coming) back for slams-they don't care about smaller tournies and they don't have to-they've paid their dues earlier in their career and have worn out their bodies, the WTA is desperate for them to hang on and compete in slams for as long as they can. You think Kim gave her all when she played Dina in Cincinnati or when she played Luxembourg? If you do, get real.

3.If you don't think that the slams are everything when it comes to tennis money then you are wrong-the amount of money made from advertising alone with the sisters, the Belgians and Sharapova playing all slams in one season would feed every African child for decades, while JJ, Dementieva, Caroline, etc. can sweat it in the Premier 5 tournies and the tour will break even: does this make it ok? Of course not, but that is the WTA structure. They know who to market and when to market them to make their money. If you don't like it, write them a letter, don't tell me about how they're treating Dinara/Caroline and "all season players" 'unfairly'.

4.I didn't complain about Dina's performance-but people who spent their money on her matches did. Yes, they saw her play at smaller tournies, and hoped to support her at the slams, and when they did, she lost to a top 100 player in a match she should win (being the world's #1 player and all). If Roland Garros/Aussie final were more competitive the rankings wouldn't be an issue, but she crashes uncontrollably when she faces a top 10 (50) player and can barely get a serve in. Once again, how can you walk around calling yourself #1 when you struggle to win a game against #2?

By: marine

marine — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:21:11 +0000

Another thing, you complain about Dinara and her performance. Well, she hasn't made it to winning a slam, however she's got to the finals twice and also to the semis. Therefore those who has bought the tickets to her matches up to that point have seen her winning majority of them.
She's failed to win, however, she had success elsewhere, too, so those who went to see the "tournies" had a chance to enjoy some great play. Conversely, Serena left a lot to be desired with early exits. As one of the top seeds, which she was,she was also supposed to do well as smaller events need a star even more to earn WTA enough. Tennis is not financed solely from sales of the grand slams! Those tournaments Serena played were not some tiny unimportant tournies,she figured on many premier events and big tournaments. I bet that those who came desired to see some of that tennis magic there as well… and must have been pretty disappointed when their stars fell to qualifiers, out-of-top-20 players etc. …

By: marine

marine — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:09:21 +0000

Ella, the issue is very simple: they are both playing well only on a handful of big events and have mediocre or rubbish results during the rest of the season. They had their peak, but that's gone now and we really see their level of play rise only few times a year. And yet,they are portrayed as some tennis miracles who keep the game alive. They keep it going,yes, but tennis does not stand or fall on the Williams sisters, however, the amount of hype they receive tries to convince us about that. So what they've won so much big titles when outside of the big tournament they just don't bother what you nicely spin as "managing the schedule". And money hungry? Isn't it the Williamses who are really money-hungry here when they step up their game only on the biggest tournaments…?! Caroline, Dinara and the rest who play all throughout the season and thus give fans something to watch are those who have my respect. They favour sport not stuffing their accounts with generous prize money. But obviously people like you cant and don't want to see that, you'll rather watch a seasonal player. Well, that's your problem,but I don't watch tennis just at slams so I value those who grind the tour more than generally-not-great-BUT-have-**-slams players.

By: Ella

Ella — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:13:51 +0000

Marine, you write about the sisters as if they turned pro yesterday. Serena is a former champ of all slams, Venus two of them and finalists at the others-of course they are going to be marketed well. I don't understand the issue you have with them. They've earned their exposure by defeating the best players in the world. They're still on top and so many people seem to have issue with that. Of course the spotlight will be on Venus at the US Open-she's a former champ AND an American, how else do you think Oudin came to spotlight? You think if she were Swedish and did what she did the Americans would care? Of course not, she's an American at America's slam who defeated glamour girl extrordinaire Maria, she will bring ratings and sell tickets.

I agree with Carlos 100% about Caroline. She's already pitted as the future of women's tennis after the sisters are gone-notice how every commentator mentions "when the sisters are gone…" that's because they don't choke and earn their titles by defeating the best players in the world. They bring ratings and sell tickets, which, as an athlete is your job. Winning only counts for endorsements and history, which are the athletes personal gains. You know how many people complained about wasting money attending the Roland Garros final watching the world's #1 bomb miserably? She had the spotlight all tournament, center court every match blowing her competitors out the water with a grin leading up to quaters with Azarenka, her first top 10er, who almost knocked her out. How can you market the #1 who can win small tournies with top 200 players and then lose second round in big tournies to top 100 players?

As I've said many times, women's tennis is not about amazing athleticism…it's about pretty white girls who can bring in ratings and sell tickets. The WTA could care less about who's the best from who isn't. You think people who watch Caroline care about her backhand, or people care about Ivanovic's forehand? These women suddenly became popular because of their looks, NOT their amazing talents. The sisters became popular because they were black women playing a sport in their country that black people weren't even allowed to play for decades…and they were beating top competition left and right. Everything they said and did was under a microscope since Venus made US Open semis '97 against Spirlea. There are people who hate them and don't even have a good reason for it.

As for the roadmap, I thought about it more and it actually is a great idea. If a player chooses to overplay during the season and then bomb at Doha against the top players of the year that's their problem (Caroline, Dinara). Don't be upset because the sisters have thought out their schedule and manage it better than your favourite players; be upset that your favs are ranking/money hungry and don't play smart.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:13:47 +0000

Because Caroline played a lot of tournaments (91 matches)she racked up a bunch of points like a pin ball machine, it was the only reason she got in at the YEC and her body paid the price. She has a losing record against top ten players 5-9 (two of those victories at the YEC, 2 against Dementieva). She didn't fair well at the AO, RG, with unexpected early exits. The only top ten player that she beat in the USO was a chocking Russian, but to her credit I will giver her that victory. Her popularity comes how she marketed herself, as a "pretty blond". Before Caroline started wearing the Stella McCurse outfits, her Addidas outfits (her skirts and tennis shorts) were so short that you could see her underwear, even the pimples on her butt. I'm sure it went well with oversexed male teenagers, and not the reason why I follow women's tennis. A popular item doesn't mean is a good product, check Kournikova.

By: marine

marine — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:39:24 +0000

Anyhow, I'm not sure if the new system they put in place worked that well. Doha was like accident&emergency end of the year tournament.
Or maybe it's players' management. I think they need to assess how much they can afford to play. It's no good for their physique to go for extremes of Caro but then again it isn't professional to ditch most of the season and go for the big vallet events only as fans are watching smaller tournaments as well.

By: marine

marine — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:32:59 +0000

Ella, yes, in comparison with Serena Dinara got much less spotlight (especially in a positive manner). "Who the hell would like to watch a player who bombed on slams? "
Well, Venus also had an unsuccessful year, hasn't she? No slams at all, early exit at AO, final in Wimbly and Doha. And people still want to watch her. Why? Well, she was not ridiculed in the media after her loss at slams as Dinara. And she is a much bigger name than her.
Regarding Maria, I meant a spotlight in terms of her comeback. I expected sort of evaluation of it predictions, etc. It'd quite nice esp after that long forced break.

Carlos, Caroline is a real star. People are just getting to know her,this has been her breakthrough year and after what she's done in Doha…woow.
US fans care about US players the most, nothing so surprising there although they surely have a knowledge about the rest of the world, I'd suppose. We don't know what was the purpose of visits on her pages, it could as well have been fans of hers.

Marija: I know, quite a mismatch,eh? They don't even resemble, hehehe :0)

By: Carlos

Carlos — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:30:50 +0000

I'm not sold Caroline is a star, the average U.S sport fan don't know who she is, but at least they heard about the Williams sisters. I bet all of those visits that she got on her profile page were people trying to find out who she was, specially after she reached the U.S. Open final.

As I recall US Open semifinal in which Wozniacki played there were only 500 people in the stadium; if she is a star why was the stadium empty? This event was a two months ago, I've seen more people at high school sporting events. Yet in the other semifinal the stadium was packed. The grand slams need the real stars.

By: Ella

Ella — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:57:59 +0000

Marine, the WTA DID shift the spotlight on Dinara during the clay season; as Roland Garros approached, she was the CLEAR favourite to win, not Serena. Tennis Channel did so many promos featuring Dinara, they did a week where they showed some of her best matches in her career, they reminded everyone that she is the world #1, she was even on Sportscenter, which barely shows tennis, even the sisters.
Dinara bombed miserably in two consecutive slam finals, who the hell wants to continue to watch "the world's #1 player" crash and burn like a junior player in a slam final twice? Who wants to pay money for that?
Caroline had the spotlight on her on ESPN also during Roland Garros as a possible "upsetter", but she bombed early and that was that. I can't believe you think that Maria needs even more spotlight on her. So yeah, I'm not buying that they only show Serena-she's an obvious favourite for every slam beacuse she's a former champ of all of them.