BBC Home

Explore the BBC

Browse: Tennis US Open

25 comments

user rating: 1 star

Womens' Final poor Ad for Womens' Tennis?

US Open
by marquess (U14319087) 12 September 2010
comment on the article

I suppose the real final was between Kim and Venus, last nights was almost as bad as Natalia Zerava v Graf in the French (88). I thought that it was a poor ad for the Womens' Tour. Please come back Serena at least a final between you and Kim would have been worth staying up to watch. Thoughts please!

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by molala (U14521549)

posted Sep 12, 2010

Up to the final Nadal (who got through EASILY without dropping a set) has spent 14:23 on court. Djokovic 15:45!
===

These are two really slow players who spend a lot of time between points. I know Djoko had 5-setters but he could have cut his court time by bouncing the ball just 5 times prior to a serve. And Nadal has been given warnings about delaying the game.

What was Federer's on court time? It's probably fairer to compare Zvonareva's to that.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2010

JW22: Yeah it's a joke really. A player like Clijsters can take a break for a few years playing the role of a mother, and come back and still whip the current crop.
========================================================
What are your proposing? That she should have played while pregnant?

Clijsters is two years younger than Federer.

----------------

Err wasn't proposing anything, just highlighting how weak the current standard is in women's tennis, when a player (admittedly a good one) can go away for a few years and come back and not get a real challenge. She probably would have still won if she WAS pregnant against this lot.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by molala (U14521549)

posted Sep 12, 2010

Err wasn't proposing anything, just highlighting how weak the current standard is in women's tennis, when a player (admittedly a good one) can go away for a few years and come back and not get a real challenge. She probably would have still won if she WAS pregnant against this lot.
===

Kim was a burnt out, frequently injured 23-year-old when she retired. She had more potential than results, that was her first career in summary. She trained really hard at 25 to come back at 26 and won two Slams in her first 5.

If she hadn't retired, I don't think she would be dominating now.

And I don't think this reflects badly on the rest of the tour.

When Kimiko Date-Krumm starts to dominate (and even though I'd love for her to succeed), then I will agree that the women's tour has problems.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2010

@molala
ok, federer spent 12:36 on court with one game less. (zvonareva 9:05 excluding final) that's still 25% more. but how is that fair? federer is far and away the exception! the other losing semi-finalist youzhny, spent 16:20 on court. both federer and youzhny recieve less prizemoney zvonareva. look, the point is the maximum the women is the minimum the men play. and that's not fair. especially when you take into account that because they only play best of 3, most women can also play doubles, bumping their prizemoney up even further. and yes, yes, before any else posts it, youzhny also played doubles. but for any man who is serious about winning a slam, playing both is impossible!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Lydian (U13373500)

posted Sep 12, 2010

I dont think this is the best era (and advert) for women's tennis right now. I just cant get into it at all and find Clijsters dull and boring to be fair.

We're still awaiting the next truly great player in the women's game to emerge...I mean since Navrat/Graf/Seles really. Williams have been good but are inconsistent, Henin/Clijsters similar, the rest are footnotes. Where is the next Graf...i.e. someone who can win the Grand Slam?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by molala (U14521549)

posted Sep 12, 2010

@dutch
Thanks for the time stats. I thought the hours were about Vera's excuse that she was tired/didn't pace herself throughout the tournament. And you were comparing it to the men's finalists.

When it's about prize money, I don't think time on court is the right argument. I think it's sport popularity (do they sell tickets and advertisements?). The women only achieved equal prize money a few years ago and women's tennis was very popular then (Williams in their prime, Belgians just starting to win, attractive Russians in tournaments and winning) compared to the men's (pre Rafa-Roger era).

Nowadays, women's tennis is very weak compared to the popularity of the men's top 5. If prizemoney cuts have to be made, then I support that we can cut into the women's cheques a bit. But if the Grand Slams are still making a profit, I don't see the point in opening that can of worms.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2010

Kim Clijsters was ruthless in the final.I think she would have beaten anyone in the final.I hope she can go on to win at the Australian, Wimbledon and the French.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Sasha (U13722213)

posted Sep 12, 2010

I knew people would say that this is bad for women's tennis, but IMO it's not. Kim schooled a player who she is far better than by playing a good match(steady from the baseline, excellent retrievals, punishing anything short) against somebody who has nothing to hurt her with. It would've been worse had Zvonareva edged it in three, because that would've meant that Kim had played horrible tennis.

I think what is a worse ad for women's tennis are the rankings. On Monday, Zvonareva will be ranked fourth and Clijsters fifth, but really you know that is just nonsense as Clijsters is clearly a far better player to Zvonareva.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2010

^ So much better, in fact, that Vera had beaten Clijsters in their two meetings prior to the US Open final. erm

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Sasha (U13722213)

posted Sep 12, 2010

^Because Clijsters was playing really badly (slightly less so at Wimbledon compared to Montreal, but then Vera was inspired during that match).

When Kim plays over 60% of her ability as I'd say she probably did last night, Vera has nothing to hurt her with. No, Vera did not do herself justice with her performance, but she still wouldn't have won yesterday even if she'd played the most phenomenal tennis of her life. She just isn't good enough.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5
    0 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 100.00%
    2 votes

average rating:
1.00 from 2 votes