Running tennis thread 2016 / 2017

[Gator]

Looked and didn't see one yet, even though a quarter of the majors are done.

Anyway, start this thread with a doozie. Raymond Moore, who runs the tournament in Indian Wells -- considered the fifth major -- is 69 years old and had bit more than a slip of the tongue. This is going to end well for him. Mr. Moore, this is no longer 1972.

Group

 

[BTExpress]

One man ---- that's right, one man ---- is going to be responsible for Miami losing its tournament in the near future (one I have attended every year since 1994).

Bruce Matheson Single-Handedly Kills the Miami Open

 

[WriteThinking]

What is it with Indian Wells and the Williamses?

Moore's interview/comments brought to my mind those of Al Campanis. Same tone, same mixed message, stumbling over himself and maybe his intent, and coming out looking dumb and really bad.

 

[Lugnuts]

The truth is that a tennis tournament without men is just so-so.

And a tennis tournament without women is just aiight.

Put 'em together, and you've got a good show.

They're riding each others' coattails, and they need each other. The whole is 10x better than either part, and it's not even close.

Every tournament should have both men and women. Get real, tennis. You're competing with a million other sports and entertainment options.

Wise up.

 

[poindexter]

This **** about how men should be paid more because they play five sets, and the women play three:

By that logic, Usain Bolt should be making a fraction of the the pay of the 10k runners, or steeplechasers.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

One man ---- that's right, one man ---- is going to be responsible for Miami losing its tournament in the near future (one I have attended every year since 1994).

Bruce Matheson Single-Handedly Kills the Miami Open

Good article. Thanks for the link.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Women's tennis has been lacking, but only because of a dearth of women players who are interesting. You have Serena Williams. ... and then a bunch of players nobody cares about, none of whom are even close to challenging Williams enough to make it interesting. Simona Halep? Agnieszka Radwanska? Angelique Kerber? Garbine Murguruza? Nice players if you are a tennis diehard, but. ... blah for everyone else. It would have been nice if Victoria Azarenka could have put it together and live up to the potential, but she just hasn't. So women's tennis is in a pretty uninteresting period.

The men have carried the sport, not because they are men, but because for years the top ranks of the men have been way more interesting and competitive and colorful. There are just more interesting male players right now than there are women players.

If you had something like a Navratilova-Evert rivalry with a Stefi Graf coming up through the ranks, it wouldn't be that way. Women's tennis can hold its own. It's just in a period in which it is being overshadowed.

 

[Lugnuts]

What's happening in the men's game right now is that a robot has taken over. It's not that interesting at the moment.

 

[The Big Ragu]

What's happening in the men's game right now is that a robot has taken over. It's not that interesting at the moment.

I disagree. Even with Djokovic alone up top now. ... because Federer and Nadal are not as tough as they were. ... As long as Federer and Nadal are still very competitive, along with Murray and Warwrinka. ... then add in Raonic and his serve. ... and a bevy of colorful players such as Tsonga, Monfils. ... the men are infitintely more interesting than anything the women's side is bringing. The top five men are still Djoker, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka and Nadal. That is an all-time great line up of men.

 

[Lugnuts]

Rags,

1. Nadal is not competitive.
2. Federer/Murray/Wawrinka are competitive with each other, not Djokovic.
3. Djokovic just beat Raonic 6-2, 6-0 to win IW in a match that was not the least bit entertaining.
4. Monfils ? Really ?
5. As to your earlier post, you talk about Vika like it's over for her, but she just socked it to Serena to win IW.

Welcome to 2016, my bro.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

By any objective measure, Serena is the biggest star in tennis. Any rational promoter would pick her first as a gate attraction over Djokovic, who is a great champion. Men's and women's tennis have been around for awhile now, and the evidence is clear that in terms of box office, ratings, etc., the advantage ebbs and flows between the two as interest in their top players ebbs and flows. My hardly feminist editor in 1996 sent me to the Open with the words, "focus on the women. The men just don't interest people."

 

[BTExpress]

By any objective measure, Serena is the biggest star in tennis.

In America, only. And only because she's American. Djokovic/Federer/Murray carry far more weight around the rest of the world. Hell, Sharapova is a bigger deal around the world than Serena and makes almost twice as much in endorsement money.

A few years ago --- at the Miami Open tournament I attend every year --- I noticed that 24 of the 26 matches on the Grandstand court were men's matches. I love watching matches on that court, which is second in importance to the main stadium court, because you can get close to the players. And it bothered me that there were almost no women's matches, because I love watching them play.

I asked the tournament director why a combined ATP-WTA event would skew its schedule so heavily on that court to the men.

His reply: "EuroSport television broadcasts matches on that court, and they don't want the women."

 

[JC]

By any objective measure, Serena is the biggest star in tennis. Any rational promoter would pick her first as a gate attraction over Djokovic, who is a great champion. Men's and women's tennis have been around for awhile now, and the evidence is clear that in terms of box office, ratings, etc., the advantage ebbs and flows between the two as interest in their top players ebbs and flows. My hardly feminist editor in 1996 sent me to the Open with the words, "focus on the women. The men just don't interest people."

1996

 

[The Big Ragu]

Rags,

1. Nadal is not competitive.
2. Federer/Murray/Wawrinka are competitive with each other, not Djokovic.
3. Djokovic just beat Raonic 6-2, 6-0 to win IW in a match that was not the least bit entertaining.
4. Monfils ? Really ?
5. As to your earlier post, you talk about Vika like it's over for her, but she just socked it to Serena to win IW.

Welcome to 2016, my bro.

I'm in 2016. ... where people still get excited to see any combination of Nadal / Murray / Federer / Djokovic play. What woman at the top, other than Serena, is anyone getting excited about? If the point is that the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray quartet peaked years ago, when they were all younger and healthier, sure. You were seeing a once-in-a-generation confluence of talent. But as long as all of them are still active and playing at a high level (and that includes Nadal -- he is still a top player, even if he isn't the same as he was), this group of players is infinitely more interesting than the women are right now -- fan reaction to the men vs. women's game kind of bears it out, too.

I don't think it is over for Azarenka. I also think she has never come close to living up to what seemed like endless promise 7 or 8 years ago.

 

[BTExpress]

I don't think it is over for Azarenka. I also think she has never come close to living up to what seemed like endless promise 7 or 8 years ago.

Whatever.

She twice achieved a No. 1 ranking (for a total of 51 weeks) and is a two-time Grand Slam champion. The same number of Grand Slam titles as Andy Murray, BTW. And she's only 26. She lost a year to injury in 2014.

Exactly what "should" she have accomplished by now that other players not named Serena have?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Whatever.

She twice achieved a No. 1 ranking (for a total of 51 weeks) and is a two-time Grand Slam champion. The same number of Grand Slam titles as Andy Murray, BTW. And she's only 26. She lost a year to injury in 2014.

Exactly what "should" she have accomplished by now that other players not named Serena have?

There was a lot of hope at one point that she could be the Serena-slayer, and she hasn't been. She has made the most serious challenges to Serena. But she's still not even close. That was my point. She hasn't lived up to that promise.

Maybe this will be her year. She says she is healthy for the first time in forever. You are right. She is still young enough where she can still do something significant. But her career hasn't been what people thought it might be 7 or 8 years ago.

Comparing Vika to Andy Murray is forgetting that the men's game has had Nadal, Federer and Djokovic, and that Murray was not the guy anyone had big expectations for. The fact that Murray inserted himself into the conversation even a little speaks to how great the men's game has been for a long time. If Djokovic had never come on and been a serious rival for the other two, maybe that would be a good comparison.

 

[BTExpress]

But her career hasn't been what people thought it might be 7 or 8 years ago.

Then the "people" screwed up. Serena is the best of her era, so there is no "slayer." Tiger had no slayer, and neither did Jordan.

It's a common thing in sports. "Hey, you're not as good as we thought/hoped you'd be. What's wrong with YOU?"

 

[The Big Ragu]

Then the "people" screwed up. Serena is the best of her era, so there is no "slayer." Tiger had no slayer, and neither did Jordan.

It's a common thing in sports. "Hey, you're not as good as we thought/hoped you'd be. What's wrong with YOU?"

1) Azarenka not having quite lived up to her promise isn't just about Serena. It's about Azarenka not having lived up to the promise she teased with when she was younger. It doesn't mean that Azarenka is a bad player. When she is healthy she is one of the best women. The reason her name even entered the conversation is that a few years ago a lot of people were hoping that Azarenka might be able to challenge Serena. It hasn't worked out that way.

2) I also don't get the point about Serena. Federer was the best of his era. The best of all time, actually. He also had to deal with other all-time great players in establishing himself as the best of his era. Nadal has dominated Federer in grand slam tournaments, for example. Serena is Serena. The fact that Azarenka has never posed a serious challenge to her is about Azarenka as much as it is about Serena.

 

[BTExpress]

I also think she has never come close to living up to what seemed like endless promise 7 or 8 years ago.

Azarenka not having quite lived up to her promise isn't just about Serena.

So which is it? "Never coming close" to achieving something seems to be a far cry from "not quite" achieving it. I tend to agree with the second sentiment. It's the first I take issue with.

 

[BTExpress]

Meanwhile . . .

SI's 2015 Sportsperson of the year has not won a tournament since August.

And the person who should have won the award has won 8 tournaments since Serena last won.