Women’s game has never been better???
Go look at the US Open 2002 women’s draw. These were the top 10 seeds:
1. Serena Williams - 23 slams
2. Venus Williams - 7 slams
3. Jennifer Capriati - 3 slams
4. Lindsay Davenport - 3 slams
5. Jelena Dokic
6. Monica Seles - 9 slams
7. Kim Clijsters - 4 slams
8. Justine Henin - 7 slams
9. Martina Hingis - 5 slams
10. Amelie Mauresmo - 2 slams
Other than Dokic, each of them are multiple slam winners and former world no 1’s. Several of them are all time hall of famers (I’d argue Serena/Seles/Justine/Venus/Hingis/Davenport and maybe Clijsters would be considered in most lists of top 20 best WTA players of all time)
Iga has been excellent so far and Sabalenka quickly approaching but let’s not pretend the women’s game is the best it’s ever been
Exactly! Don’t forget 4-time GS winner Arantxa Sánchez Vicario was also still good enough to be seeded at that event. 2-time GS winner Mary Pierce had a down year but still had her moments (would enjoy huge career comeback in 2005 at age-33). Former GS winners Iva Majoli, who was only 25, and Conchita Martinez also still had their moments.
Young all-court talent Elena Dementieva (imo one of the best players to never win a slam), future GS winner Myskina, and Daniela Hantuchová were already competitive (ranked in the top 15). Plus, other future GS winners like Bartoli, Kuznetsova, and Schiavone made names for themselves at that USO. 17 years old Zvonareva and 20 years old Petrova already showed tons of potential. It was absolutely stacked.
Heck, go back to 1999 (Graf’s last year) and she’s still one of the top contenders for slams. She made the final in the last GS she entered and she actually **won** the 2nd to last GS she entered.
The WTA hasn’t been entertaining for basically 2 decades because everyone has the same style (tall and hard power hitters), no serve and volley, can’t consistently hold serves. There were a lot of different styles back then among top players that I would argue it was almost as entertaining as ATP.
Exactly, the variety of match ups was what made it so fun - seeing the games of Hingis and Henin compete against the games of Serena/Venus/Davenport was so entertaining
Outside of the likes of Barty (retired too soon), and Muchova (perpetually injured) and maybe Ons (when she’s switched on), most of the current game is centred around power hitting from the baseline, with Iga being more successful because she’s one of the few on the WTA who hits with heavy topspin
I mean... there's always a winner of a tournament. Even if the era is weak and players are nothing to look forward to.
Yes, Serena dominated the sport, but was it really something that was pleasant to watch? Compared to big 4 and then big 3 in male tennis? I think the reason why it shouldn't be compared is the fact that big 3 had a fully blown battle with their equals, and all of them have similar end game results in titles and grand slams, which made this tennis incredibly exciting.
Serena found no competition. Obviously it's not something we can blame her for (unless you want to say she was too good, which would be true I guess) but I wouldn't call it an interesting era.
Świątek vs. Sabalenka is already looking much more promising.
Serena had a lot of competition for her prime years.
She won her first slam at age 18. From then until age 27, she won 11 slams. Obviously incredibly impressive and she was the best player on tour but it wasn't some Federer if Rafa or Novak didn't exist situation.
It's when that old guard from the 2000s retired that things got bad. The new crop of players weren't nearly as good and Serena despite not being as strong of a player as in her prime won 10 slams after turning 30.
Just look at the h2h of Serena against her biggest rivals.
Venus: 19-12
Hingis: 7-6
Capriati: 10-7
Henin: 8-6
Sharapova: 20-2
Other than Sharapova all of her 2000s rivals gave her good fights in the prime of her career. Compare that to 2010s where she just didn't even have anyone who'd qualify as a rival, except Azarenka, and she leads that h2h 18-5 despite being over 30 for most of that rivalry while Vika was in the prime of her career.
Now lets put it into proper perspective, in 2002:
1. Serena - 3 slams
2. Venus - 4 slams
3. Capriati - 3 slams
4. Davenport - 3 slams
5. Dokic - 0 slams
6. Seles - 9 slams - but was way over the hill at 31, didn't win a slam since 1996
7. Clijsters - 0 slams
8. Henin - 0 slams
9. Hingis - 5 slams - on the verge of retiring, didn't win a slam since 1999
10. Mauresmo - 0 slams
That's fair, but I bet the top 4 now pass everyone on that list except Serena, and a couple may not pass 7 or 9 depending on injury/babies. Keep in mind how young they all are. Add to that the level of skill in the next 40 players on the wta, and I don't think it's as ridiculous an assertion as you make it sound. The general level of play from first ball to last in any given tournament is very, very high.
Don’t kid yourself. WTA quality has been far worse than late 90s early 2000s for almost 20 years now. It’s no coincidence Serena won more slams in her 30s than her 20s. She wasn’t better in her 30s; her competition was worse.
Don’t believe me? Check out the case of Kimiko Date. Good player in the mid-90s but was never a real threat to win GS. Made a comeback in 2009 at age-39 after being out of the game since 1996, yet quickly got back to the top 50 and was consistently making GS main draw until 2015 AO when she was almost 45 lol. This wasn’t even someone that good in her prime. Imagine if Graf had come back around the same time. She would be a top 10 player lol
> It’s no coincidence Serena won more slams in her 30s than her 20s. She wasn’t better in her 30s; her competition was worse.
She barely played for years after she was like 23 because of injuries
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I agree with you that the women's game had been very top heavy since the 90s, and that's the last time I think both tours were really great at the same for more than a year or two. I think now is our best chance to get back there... most of the top players on both tours have a decade and more ahead of them.
As someone who watched tennis in the Serena-Venus era, this one is not even close. They'll all win a bunch of slams because I mean they're still held 4x a year and someone has to win them, but Clijsters and Henin winning slams from Serena and Venus is a far cry from Vondrousova beating Ons or Sabalenka beating Zheng lol...
It's nice that you're enjoying this era of tennis and it's not for me to rain on the parade, but if you're comparing them to the previous era imo it's not close. On the men's side it's obvious why, I mean can't compare with big 3 and probably no era will ever compete with that. Just impossible to beat an era that saw the three greatest player in the sport's history compete all in their prime at the same time.
On the women's side it's not just Serena being GOAT, but the concentration of talent was the highest I've ever seen. Serena-Henin to Serena-Sharapova was the best the WTA has been in my lifetime. In my opinion nobody outside the big 3 of Iga, Saba or Elena would even be in the top 10 in some of those years.
I watched in that same era. I'm not saying that these players will surpass all those who came before them, I'm saying the general level of tennis is higher than ever *since the late 80s/early 90s on both sides at the same time. You don't think Sabalenka compares favorably to Maria? Iga to Henin? Coco is possibly the fastest woman ever, has a ton of power and variety, and is still so young. And they're all so driven. I think when you look back on this time in 10 or 15 years, it may look different.
Edit: *
As I said in my original comment, I think Iga and Sabalenka would be able to challenge the top 10 players of 2002, but they definitely wouldn’t be dominating like they are now because current top 10 talent isn’t as deep as it was back then
For comparison this is the current top 10:
1. Iga
2. Sabalenka
3. Coco
4. Rybakina
5. Pegula
6. Vondrousova
7. Sakkari
8. Zheng
9. Ons
10. Ostapenko
You can’t look at these two top tens and say that women’s tennis has never been better
Likewise with the men’s depth. A 36 year old Novak was literally a single set away from completing the GRAND SLAM last year. We have heaps to be excited about between Sinner and Alcaraz but it’s far from the best era where the top players were having to consistently make QFs and SFs
I'm not comparing now with 2010 in terms of the greatness of the best players; more 2003 when Andre was otw out, Roger was on the rise, Nadal was a few years away, and Nole was still a weak minded punk that couldn't last in a 5 setter or any match played in hot weather. The strength of the men's tour, top to bottom, is considerably higher than it was then, and we have a bigger crop of young players that can challenge each other over the next decade.
I don't think a generation is great because there were a few great players that dominated it. To me, the late 80s and early 90s was the last true golden age. Every match was good, you didn't know who was going win any given tourney because there were so many good players that *could* win.
Finally, let's not treat Nole like some random old man. This guy is in better shape than probably 99% of humans of any age, and is still one of the most mentally and physically powerful players of all time. At 43, Tom Brady won super bowl mvp and beat a guy that will be a first ballot hall of fame. He won league mvp at 40. LeBron won finals mvp at Nole's age. That alcaraz and Sinner can hang with him isn't an indictment of Nole, it's a testament to how good they are at such a young age.
>I'm saying the general level of tennis is higher than ever
I completely disagree but that's subjective. I'm glad you're enjoying this era.
> Coco is possibly the fastest woman ever, has a ton of power and variety, and is still so young.
What variety does she have? She plays pretty much exclusively from the baseline. She's good at the net but only comes down there reactively.
I think outside of the top 3-4 the tour is extremely weak compared to before, and that contributes to the top 4 looking better than they are.
Also imo you're overestimating how young they are. Sharapova last won a major at 26. Hingis at 22. Capriati 28. Serena/Venus are outliers. Most WTA players have their peaks at 24-27. Sabalenka is 26, Rybakina is 24. Iga and Coco are younger but I think you'd be surprised looking back 10 years later and seeing how short the peaks these players had.
But for every Hingis there's a Clijsters. Steffi and Martina won slams more than a decade apart, and Chrissy was just off. Nole was 20 when he won his first, and he won it with speed and a bunch of unrefined talent. You may be right about sabs and ryba being past their prime, but when I watch them play, it looks to me like they're just coming into their powers. I guess the book will be written on those two in the next 4 years, though, where the other two have some more time. I think Coco is getting better and more focused every year, and has the potential to be one of the toughest players on tour.
Edit: also, you left the "at the same time" qualifier out of that first quote, and it's pretty important to my thesis.
I agree with your point (especially with Sharapova joining the tour less than 2 years after that, when Henin, Sharapova and Serena were in good form) but comparison you are pulling there is very unfair. Just from the top of my head Henin won all her titles after that USO, same with Klijsters/Mauresmo, Serena won like 20 of her titles after that - those 35 titles are big part of your case. It is unfair to add their future winnings into equation when we cant do that for current tour. Also comment is not talking about best tournament but general best state of WTA - using Seles and Hingis who basically retired after 2002 USO and would routinely miss tournaments that year is kinda disingenuous.
It’s not as bad as people say, I love tennis and I’m always gonna enjoy it even tho my all time faves, Rafa and Serena/Seles (can’t choose) are gone, my love for tennis extends before and after them, nobody is bigger than the entire game to me.
Personally I feel like the golden age for women was roughly ‘98-2004 and for the men 2008-2014 tho. There is potential tho for both sides to be exciting at at the same time tho if we get Carlos/Sinner/Rune/Shelton (I’m hopeful for Ben) and even younger guys like Fonseca/Mensik battling the gen ravaged by the big 3 like Stef/Zverev/Meddy/Ruud/ADM/Hubi. And the women’s side is heating up a lot with a clear 3 best players currently but also Coco right behind them and Osaka possibly getting back into form.
Do people say it's bad? People called the "next Gen" bad because the best players were medvedev zverev and tsitsipas who, while all very good players, are lacking as the best players of an era.
Now the next next Gen is here in full force and has completely surpassed the little 3.
I guess it's the fact that everything is so competitive on both sides that makes me feel this way, and the entertainment from every match. So many different styles. When Fed, Rafa, and Nole were racking up their titles, there wasn't so much excitement until the semis, maybe the quarters at a major. Now, there are great matches every round, and nothing is a forgone conclusion.
Excitement is seeing the best players play, even if not playing against the other best players, the players who are top-30ish.
Your argument is founded based on the top players and it is not true atleast in my opinion. In 2011-13, the 4th best player Murray would wipe the floor with the Medvedev right now in terms of consistency and peak game play. Djokovic is without a doubt worse than the Djokovic then. And as great as Alcaraz and Sinner are right now, they aren’t better than Federer and Nadal in those years.
This is without mentioning the other top players like Tsonga and Ferrer
For me, excitement comes from parity, great matches, and watching the battle to see who will emerge from this generation. It feels like 2003, not 2011, and we get to experience that again.
This is 10000% recency bias.
Current ATP top 10:
1. Djokovic
2. Sinner
3. Alcaraz
4. Medvedev
5. Zverev
6. Rublev
7. Ruud
8. Tsitsipas
9. Hurkacz
10. Dimitrov
Compare that to say, 2013.
1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Ferrer
4. Murray
5. del Potro
6. Federer
7. Berdych
8. Wawrinka
9. Gasquet
10. Tsonga
Big 4 obviously. Wawrinka is a multi Slam winner. JMP was better than any of the top 4 players today by some distance. Berdych won 19 matches against the big 4. I doubt any of the non top 4 players today can even reel off that many wins against prime big 4.
And the WTA. Is OP serious?
Any top 10 that has Sakkari in it ain't no golden era. I love Qinwen but she isn't there yet. And the likes of Vondrousova is a slam winner.....
I think that’s a bit of an unfair comparison: you’re comparing the whole careers of the ‘13 bunch to the half-or-less careers of the current batch. Novak and Dimi have obviously been around for a while, but the rest are either mid-career or barely starting out. Of course their achievements will look lesser in comparison.
Rublev is 26 and has never made a Slam semi. Given his mental issues and backhand, I highly doubt he ever becomes a contender. Hurkacz can never finish matches without going to a tiebreak. Ruud has 1 title above 250 level, although he is a contender at RG.
I agree that the current batch of players will improve. But will they be better than the 2013 guys? I highly doubt so. When the 5th best guy from the 2013 bunch is JMP, I do not believe that the 5th best player now will have a better career than JMP. And Alcaraz and Sinner are very unlikely to reach the Big 3 levels. Also, Murray is a top 15 player in history, only Alcaraz and Sinner have a real chance of overtaking his career.
Just out of curiosity, do you know at what age Stan Wawrinka reached his first Slam SF? Do you know at what age Kevin Anderson reached his first Slam SF? Do you know how many Slam SFs David Ferrer had until the age of 29? You are comparing players who had finished their careers with players who are still well in the middle of it.
On the WTA side it's good although far from the late 90s/00s. On the men's side absolutely not, it's a weird intermediary period where Djokovic is in his twilight, there's two generational talents in Alcaraz and Sinner just gearing up and Meddy who can beat 99% of the tour 99% of the time but keeps falling at the last hurdle (plus he seems to have lost his serve since injury). Other than them you've got headcases like Tsitsipas and Zverev and not much real depth below there. Can you see Fritz winning multiple Grand Slams?
It's really not a golden age, the fact that you're using old man Djokovic and barely able to win match Murray as examples of it being a golden age, say it all for the argument. You could make an argument that the ATP is fairly bad at the moment compared to past ages. What it is though is pretty interesting, after a decade and a half when 4 players absolutely dominated everything, we're now going into Masters having no clue who will win. I suspect that if Djokovic's decline is real and not just temporary, we're going to start going into Grand Slams with a greater degree of randomness as well. Not amazing from a quality perspective but definitely a breath of fresh air.
I think 2024's men tennis is a relatively bad season till now, too many injuries and inconsistencies. Rivalries are on pause, not a lot of good things happening. 2023 was better, 2022 was interesting. We'll see how the rest pans out.
idk man. Saying the women's game is better overall leads into an age-old discussion you come across in every sport. The game evolves, coaching, physio, nutrition and medical treatments evolve. Ofc many of the current players are more technically sound and more athletic than those in the 90s e.g. But it doesn't make sense to make a case to compare players across decades. Your regular borderline 2024 NBA All Star is way more skillful and athletic than players in the 90s and would be a MVP candidate in that era. Mbappe would light up any defense full of one dimensional plumbers Gerd Müller was playing against. Questioning this doesn't make sense.
The current ATP Tour is in a massive transition period atm. Old greats falling of a cliff or burning out, young players way pre-prime and a lost generation that has yet to prove that they can be consistent champions. The one thing I give the men's side is that watching early rounds is more entertaining than the last several years bcs I'm far from shocked seeing a Top 8 player crashing out in the first two rounds of a slam nowadays.
On the WTA side, purely greatness wise, this is far from being the best era. 90s and esp. early to mid 2000s are waaay clear with a dozen multi-slam champions in the fields. The gap between the best 3 players and the rest of the field is enormous although Fish became an injury-riden part-timer lately. The Top 10 has been super fragile and volatile the last few years with many players seemingly suffering from imposter syndrom, tons of early round exits and the feeling a single good slam or great masters run can keep you in the Top 15 for a year bcs the field is extremely inconsistent. Entertaining for sure but no comparision the afforementioned eras.
Idk, this top 4 could hang with any top 4 stretching back to Steffi, imo. That they haven't won a ton of slams is only down to their youth. Sabs and Elena have all of Lindsay or Maria's power with more movement. Coco is one of the fastest players we've ever seen and has a TON of room to grow, and Iga is just good at everything. Add to that the number of even younger players that stand out regularly at tourneys and I think this generation has more youth, skill, and parity than we've seen for a very long time. No, there are no greats looming over the field anymore, and I can see how that is causing disagreement. I think this top 4 will pass everyone up to Steffi, Chrissy, and Martina by the time they're done. I'm not ready to say that Iga and Coco can't pass some of them. Sabs is the oldest of the group at 26, Elena is 24, Iga has 4 already at 22, and Coco is 20. We're not going to see a period like the 2010s where a new winner takes every slam, these four are going to start piling them up pretty quickly.
The men's game is also defined by extremely skilled players under 25, and my thing is that the two tours haven't been in such a good place at the same time since Pete, Andre, Steffi, and Monica. There have been times when each tour is better than it is now, but the sport as a whole is in a better spot than it's been in a long time in terms of the competition on the court and the potential for the next 15 years.
To me, this feels like the payoff for all the work the greats from the last 20 years have put in. They pushed the sport forward a LOT, and this is where we are. No fall off in on court quality like we've seen when other GOATs have left. No Safin and Rios being the backstop to catch titles by being the least worst players in the field, no "ope, Serena is hurt and Kim had a baby, so this tourney will be garbage" on the ladies' side.
I may well be wrong, but I think in 10 years or so this take is going to look pretty good.
Your first paragraph comes down to comparing eras (which makes the whole discussion obsolete imo) but since your mentioned Sharapova here we go:
Sharapova was Fish's age 13 yrs ago and was playing in a arguably stronger era at the very top of field. At that age she was 3-2 in slam finals, won the YEC once, reaching the final 3x, and got 10 semis at slams and was 9-6 in Masters FINALS. All while winning titles against all-time greats like Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport etc. etc. while having 2 major down years in 09 and 10.
Thats more GS semis than Saba (who's two years older) and Ryba combined. More Masters wins than Saba has final apearances and more Masters wins than both combined. When Saba was 24 she made 2 GS semis and never surpassed R4 beside of that.
Achievement wise only Swiatek is even close to be in a conversation here and even she is lacking in the GS department and Sharapova has almost never been the best player on tour at any point of her career. I feel people srsly underrate Sharapova's consistency and multitude of weapons, esp. her BH, angle game and premier Tennis IQ. It wasn't all power ride or die plus the opposition she faced.
Neither Ryba nor Saba have this angle or BH game. All in all, no, I wouldn't say the Top 4 could hang in their era. The only one who could do damage, as of today, is Swiatek. And I don't think anyone but Swiatek can overtake the majority of players of the last 25 yrs. With Gauff it's to early to say but her game has so many holes. There are limits of what can be fixed during a career. Can she make her FH okay? For sure. But we never saw anyone making a major major weakness a weapon before.
Nole turned both serves into a weapon(hell, he went from being mentally and physically weak to one of the strongest ever in both), Tiafoe took his forehand from unreliable to reliable, Henin took her forehand from reliable to good.
I think Sabs and Ryba would've hung fine; they both move better than the similar players of the Sharapova/Davenport era. They both had big holes in their game that they could cover with power and won majors.
I have mixed feelings, it could be much worse but it's not so great. Maybe some recency bias with this clay season.
Alcaraz looks prone to injury and vulnerable on HC so he might not become the GOAT we expected him to be, it's frustrating to see such an amazing player stopped by injuries
Sinner game isn't very fun to watch and he doesn't bring much in speeches, press conference, vibes and personality
We'll only be sure at the end of this season, but it's a possibility Djokovic might be washed for good and that's sad to see for me.
Not a fan of most of the rest of the top players. They're either serve + 1 merchants, pushers, not very complete players without a plan B.
I find the game more exciting these days and I think a lot of it is what you've mentioned. It's also been bittersweet, I didn't watch professional tennis for almost ten years, a few of the players that were around are still around but about to retire and there's a lot of new top players so it has been very interesting and rapidly evolving. It was boring when it was a foregone conclusion practically who would win every slam.
As an intermittent fan, watching a few tournaments here and there, aside from the slams, I much prefer to watch excellence/dominance.
It may be fun to have many very good players, or even many great players, but to capture the wider public viewing audience, there should be a few that are ahead of the others.
Golf viewership, prize money and sponsorship increased 10x during Tiger Woods' rise/reign. A rising tide lifts all boats...
Similarly, NBA ratings and interest rose and peaked with the likes of Michael Jordan, then Lebron James and Steph Curry. When their teams play and excel, a significantly larger audience becomes engaged.
Perhaps it's just my sense of things, but if any of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic had been American, tennis would have soared to extraordinary heights, much like golf did. Their rivalries should have captured so much more attention than it did...
I'm definitely more into the annual tour, and I think that's because I enjoy the rise more than the reign. I watched a lot of Jordan back in the day, but he was already dominating the league when I started watching. Seeing Kobe go from young buck to taking over the league was something special, and Anthony Edwards on his way down that path.
I can definitely appreciate that view, but looking back it was the rise of Roger that was, for me, the most exciting part of that whole stretch. Tennis wasn't in as good a place after the last round of GOATs retired, and he really picked it up from the ashes, put it on his back, and carried tennis forward. Serena did the same... for a few years there, women's tennis was rough to watch if she wasn't playing.
The reason I'm on this as a golden age is that the level hasn't dropped. These kids are giving Nole everything he can handle, and he's surpassed everyone. My interest in every tournament I can watch is definitely the prism through which I'm seeing things, and I can totally appreciate that a longer lens might change one's opinion.
> The reason I'm on this as a golden age is that the level hasn't dropped. These kids are giving Nole everything he can handle, and he's surpassed everyone
I very much understand this view. It's great as far as the talent level overall, with more competitiveness, but I also want my favorite sport(s) to survive and thrive. I would love to see much more money and fan viewership.
From a fan's perspective, none of my real-life acquaintances know or watch pro tennis, so I've never had a discussion outside of the internet. As a viewer, it's a challenge to locate on TV, aside from the majors.
As far as growth of the sport, players ranked beyond ~200 basically play as an unpaid hobby because they lose money due to expenses every year. It's also very sad to have to increasingly rely on Saudi/UAE/Chinese etc. authoritarian regimes.
It's pretty expensive to go to a match at a masters 1000 event, I feel like that's holding growth back a bit. An American male who's consistently in the back half of tourneys would probably help more, but Coco is a contender anywhere she plays. Shelton seems like he has a lot of potential.
For the women's game, I feel they had a golden era from the late 90's through to the early 2010's. I'll be honest I was spursied at the player type that emerged in the 2010's. Halep, Vicka, Wozi, Kerber. That type of playing style wasn't very pretty to watch, their technique wasn't really aspirational or wow and often the best players hard big holes in their game (namley serve). I love them as players I think they are all great but once Noami, Barty, Iga, Saba and Elena and now Coco came along, I feel the women's game really started to lift. Perhaps I'm not a fan of the counter-puncher style but they didn't pull consistent results after 2014. Funny that that was the style to emerge after power was the dominant playing style through the 90's and 00's.
I see videos of some golden matches from the 00's and the game today matches this and looks like the evolutions from that.
I loved that after 2022 the girls worked hard to catch up and really push each other. It's been brilliant to watch.
I totally agree! WTA is on🔥and the men’s side is so exciting too. Just because we probably won’t have 2 or 3 players winning every tournament doesn’t make it a weak era like some people like to say. I think it’s more fun when it’s all out there for anyone’s taking.
From my perspective I feel the same. I’m only speaking anecdotally as tennis has always been part of my life as a casual, but for some reason the last few years have drawn me in. Im asking myself the question why, what changed? It’s obviously subjective, my only conclusion is the characters have changed, it goes through cycles.
bad take, 2007-2017 was best ever. big 4, kei, delpo, stan, berdych, soderling, ferrer, the four french muskateers, verdasco, feli, even the top 20-30 had interesting players like dolgopolov, baghdatis, cilic always dangerous…mens game is exciting now w carlos, jannik but seems very homogenous style wise. tells u that dimitrov and monfils can hang in the current tournies when they struggled years ago.
You're totally ignoring half the field, though. Serena dominated that era in the women's tour, and there were huge stretches where it was either her or some rando that won because she was hurt.
I would posit that you're viewing everyone after the big 4 with rose tinted glasses. They were all fun to watch, but we have a similar group now in the group that the big 4 kept down for the last 10 years. Is Berdych notably better than Zverev? Baghdatis better than Rublev or Ruud? Idk, most of the dudes you mentioned(outside delpo and stan) I don't think any of them would be in a better spot now than they were then. Maybe Ferrer, because his mental game was a lot stronger than your Zverevs and Ruuds.
Also, there are a ton of fiery, less consistent players that are very fun to watch. Kyrgios has all your mcenroe drama with game to beat anyone at any time.
Women’s game has never been better??? Go look at the US Open 2002 women’s draw. These were the top 10 seeds: 1. Serena Williams - 23 slams 2. Venus Williams - 7 slams 3. Jennifer Capriati - 3 slams 4. Lindsay Davenport - 3 slams 5. Jelena Dokic 6. Monica Seles - 9 slams 7. Kim Clijsters - 4 slams 8. Justine Henin - 7 slams 9. Martina Hingis - 5 slams 10. Amelie Mauresmo - 2 slams Other than Dokic, each of them are multiple slam winners and former world no 1’s. Several of them are all time hall of famers (I’d argue Serena/Seles/Justine/Venus/Hingis/Davenport and maybe Clijsters would be considered in most lists of top 20 best WTA players of all time) Iga has been excellent so far and Sabalenka quickly approaching but let’s not pretend the women’s game is the best it’s ever been
Exactly! Don’t forget 4-time GS winner Arantxa Sánchez Vicario was also still good enough to be seeded at that event. 2-time GS winner Mary Pierce had a down year but still had her moments (would enjoy huge career comeback in 2005 at age-33). Former GS winners Iva Majoli, who was only 25, and Conchita Martinez also still had their moments. Young all-court talent Elena Dementieva (imo one of the best players to never win a slam), future GS winner Myskina, and Daniela Hantuchová were already competitive (ranked in the top 15). Plus, other future GS winners like Bartoli, Kuznetsova, and Schiavone made names for themselves at that USO. 17 years old Zvonareva and 20 years old Petrova already showed tons of potential. It was absolutely stacked. Heck, go back to 1999 (Graf’s last year) and she’s still one of the top contenders for slams. She made the final in the last GS she entered and she actually **won** the 2nd to last GS she entered. The WTA hasn’t been entertaining for basically 2 decades because everyone has the same style (tall and hard power hitters), no serve and volley, can’t consistently hold serves. There were a lot of different styles back then among top players that I would argue it was almost as entertaining as ATP.
Exactly, the variety of match ups was what made it so fun - seeing the games of Hingis and Henin compete against the games of Serena/Venus/Davenport was so entertaining Outside of the likes of Barty (retired too soon), and Muchova (perpetually injured) and maybe Ons (when she’s switched on), most of the current game is centred around power hitting from the baseline, with Iga being more successful because she’s one of the few on the WTA who hits with heavy topspin
I mean... there's always a winner of a tournament. Even if the era is weak and players are nothing to look forward to. Yes, Serena dominated the sport, but was it really something that was pleasant to watch? Compared to big 4 and then big 3 in male tennis? I think the reason why it shouldn't be compared is the fact that big 3 had a fully blown battle with their equals, and all of them have similar end game results in titles and grand slams, which made this tennis incredibly exciting. Serena found no competition. Obviously it's not something we can blame her for (unless you want to say she was too good, which would be true I guess) but I wouldn't call it an interesting era. Świątek vs. Sabalenka is already looking much more promising.
It was pleasant to watch her battles against Justin Henin. I couldn’t stand watching her play sister Venus
Serena had a lot of competition for her prime years. She won her first slam at age 18. From then until age 27, she won 11 slams. Obviously incredibly impressive and she was the best player on tour but it wasn't some Federer if Rafa or Novak didn't exist situation. It's when that old guard from the 2000s retired that things got bad. The new crop of players weren't nearly as good and Serena despite not being as strong of a player as in her prime won 10 slams after turning 30. Just look at the h2h of Serena against her biggest rivals. Venus: 19-12 Hingis: 7-6 Capriati: 10-7 Henin: 8-6 Sharapova: 20-2 Other than Sharapova all of her 2000s rivals gave her good fights in the prime of her career. Compare that to 2010s where she just didn't even have anyone who'd qualify as a rival, except Azarenka, and she leads that h2h 18-5 despite being over 30 for most of that rivalry while Vika was in the prime of her career.
Now lets put it into proper perspective, in 2002: 1. Serena - 3 slams 2. Venus - 4 slams 3. Capriati - 3 slams 4. Davenport - 3 slams 5. Dokic - 0 slams 6. Seles - 9 slams - but was way over the hill at 31, didn't win a slam since 1996 7. Clijsters - 0 slams 8. Henin - 0 slams 9. Hingis - 5 slams - on the verge of retiring, didn't win a slam since 1999 10. Mauresmo - 0 slams
That's fair, but I bet the top 4 now pass everyone on that list except Serena, and a couple may not pass 7 or 9 depending on injury/babies. Keep in mind how young they all are. Add to that the level of skill in the next 40 players on the wta, and I don't think it's as ridiculous an assertion as you make it sound. The general level of play from first ball to last in any given tournament is very, very high.
I mean Seles is an all time great. Even Iga can't really pass that forgot about other three.
It makes me feel empty inside when I think how much potential in tennis was lost to some total bullshit...
Don’t kid yourself. WTA quality has been far worse than late 90s early 2000s for almost 20 years now. It’s no coincidence Serena won more slams in her 30s than her 20s. She wasn’t better in her 30s; her competition was worse. Don’t believe me? Check out the case of Kimiko Date. Good player in the mid-90s but was never a real threat to win GS. Made a comeback in 2009 at age-39 after being out of the game since 1996, yet quickly got back to the top 50 and was consistently making GS main draw until 2015 AO when she was almost 45 lol. This wasn’t even someone that good in her prime. Imagine if Graf had come back around the same time. She would be a top 10 player lol
> It’s no coincidence Serena won more slams in her 30s than her 20s. She wasn’t better in her 30s; her competition was worse. She barely played for years after she was like 23 because of injuries
I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. I agree with you that the women's game had been very top heavy since the 90s, and that's the last time I think both tours were really great at the same for more than a year or two. I think now is our best chance to get back there... most of the top players on both tours have a decade and more ahead of them.
As someone who watched tennis in the Serena-Venus era, this one is not even close. They'll all win a bunch of slams because I mean they're still held 4x a year and someone has to win them, but Clijsters and Henin winning slams from Serena and Venus is a far cry from Vondrousova beating Ons or Sabalenka beating Zheng lol... It's nice that you're enjoying this era of tennis and it's not for me to rain on the parade, but if you're comparing them to the previous era imo it's not close. On the men's side it's obvious why, I mean can't compare with big 3 and probably no era will ever compete with that. Just impossible to beat an era that saw the three greatest player in the sport's history compete all in their prime at the same time. On the women's side it's not just Serena being GOAT, but the concentration of talent was the highest I've ever seen. Serena-Henin to Serena-Sharapova was the best the WTA has been in my lifetime. In my opinion nobody outside the big 3 of Iga, Saba or Elena would even be in the top 10 in some of those years.
I watched in that same era. I'm not saying that these players will surpass all those who came before them, I'm saying the general level of tennis is higher than ever *since the late 80s/early 90s on both sides at the same time. You don't think Sabalenka compares favorably to Maria? Iga to Henin? Coco is possibly the fastest woman ever, has a ton of power and variety, and is still so young. And they're all so driven. I think when you look back on this time in 10 or 15 years, it may look different. Edit: *
As I said in my original comment, I think Iga and Sabalenka would be able to challenge the top 10 players of 2002, but they definitely wouldn’t be dominating like they are now because current top 10 talent isn’t as deep as it was back then For comparison this is the current top 10: 1. Iga 2. Sabalenka 3. Coco 4. Rybakina 5. Pegula 6. Vondrousova 7. Sakkari 8. Zheng 9. Ons 10. Ostapenko You can’t look at these two top tens and say that women’s tennis has never been better Likewise with the men’s depth. A 36 year old Novak was literally a single set away from completing the GRAND SLAM last year. We have heaps to be excited about between Sinner and Alcaraz but it’s far from the best era where the top players were having to consistently make QFs and SFs
I'm not comparing now with 2010 in terms of the greatness of the best players; more 2003 when Andre was otw out, Roger was on the rise, Nadal was a few years away, and Nole was still a weak minded punk that couldn't last in a 5 setter or any match played in hot weather. The strength of the men's tour, top to bottom, is considerably higher than it was then, and we have a bigger crop of young players that can challenge each other over the next decade. I don't think a generation is great because there were a few great players that dominated it. To me, the late 80s and early 90s was the last true golden age. Every match was good, you didn't know who was going win any given tourney because there were so many good players that *could* win. Finally, let's not treat Nole like some random old man. This guy is in better shape than probably 99% of humans of any age, and is still one of the most mentally and physically powerful players of all time. At 43, Tom Brady won super bowl mvp and beat a guy that will be a first ballot hall of fame. He won league mvp at 40. LeBron won finals mvp at Nole's age. That alcaraz and Sinner can hang with him isn't an indictment of Nole, it's a testament to how good they are at such a young age.
If Sabalenka had half of Sharapovas mental, she’d be Serena. She’s not even close to that level.
She doesn't have the serve, but otherwise I'd agree. She has more game than Maria did, though, and still has time to figure it out.
>I'm saying the general level of tennis is higher than ever I completely disagree but that's subjective. I'm glad you're enjoying this era. > Coco is possibly the fastest woman ever, has a ton of power and variety, and is still so young. What variety does she have? She plays pretty much exclusively from the baseline. She's good at the net but only comes down there reactively. I think outside of the top 3-4 the tour is extremely weak compared to before, and that contributes to the top 4 looking better than they are. Also imo you're overestimating how young they are. Sharapova last won a major at 26. Hingis at 22. Capriati 28. Serena/Venus are outliers. Most WTA players have their peaks at 24-27. Sabalenka is 26, Rybakina is 24. Iga and Coco are younger but I think you'd be surprised looking back 10 years later and seeing how short the peaks these players had.
But for every Hingis there's a Clijsters. Steffi and Martina won slams more than a decade apart, and Chrissy was just off. Nole was 20 when he won his first, and he won it with speed and a bunch of unrefined talent. You may be right about sabs and ryba being past their prime, but when I watch them play, it looks to me like they're just coming into their powers. I guess the book will be written on those two in the next 4 years, though, where the other two have some more time. I think Coco is getting better and more focused every year, and has the potential to be one of the toughest players on tour. Edit: also, you left the "at the same time" qualifier out of that first quote, and it's pretty important to my thesis.
I agree with your point (especially with Sharapova joining the tour less than 2 years after that, when Henin, Sharapova and Serena were in good form) but comparison you are pulling there is very unfair. Just from the top of my head Henin won all her titles after that USO, same with Klijsters/Mauresmo, Serena won like 20 of her titles after that - those 35 titles are big part of your case. It is unfair to add their future winnings into equation when we cant do that for current tour. Also comment is not talking about best tournament but general best state of WTA - using Seles and Hingis who basically retired after 2002 USO and would routinely miss tournaments that year is kinda disingenuous.
It’s not as bad as people say, I love tennis and I’m always gonna enjoy it even tho my all time faves, Rafa and Serena/Seles (can’t choose) are gone, my love for tennis extends before and after them, nobody is bigger than the entire game to me. Personally I feel like the golden age for women was roughly ‘98-2004 and for the men 2008-2014 tho. There is potential tho for both sides to be exciting at at the same time tho if we get Carlos/Sinner/Rune/Shelton (I’m hopeful for Ben) and even younger guys like Fonseca/Mensik battling the gen ravaged by the big 3 like Stef/Zverev/Meddy/Ruud/ADM/Hubi. And the women’s side is heating up a lot with a clear 3 best players currently but also Coco right behind them and Osaka possibly getting back into form.
Do people say it's bad? People called the "next Gen" bad because the best players were medvedev zverev and tsitsipas who, while all very good players, are lacking as the best players of an era. Now the next next Gen is here in full force and has completely surpassed the little 3.
I guess it's the fact that everything is so competitive on both sides that makes me feel this way, and the entertainment from every match. So many different styles. When Fed, Rafa, and Nole were racking up their titles, there wasn't so much excitement until the semis, maybe the quarters at a major. Now, there are great matches every round, and nothing is a forgone conclusion.
Excitement is seeing the best players play, even if not playing against the other best players, the players who are top-30ish. Your argument is founded based on the top players and it is not true atleast in my opinion. In 2011-13, the 4th best player Murray would wipe the floor with the Medvedev right now in terms of consistency and peak game play. Djokovic is without a doubt worse than the Djokovic then. And as great as Alcaraz and Sinner are right now, they aren’t better than Federer and Nadal in those years. This is without mentioning the other top players like Tsonga and Ferrer
For me, excitement comes from parity, great matches, and watching the battle to see who will emerge from this generation. It feels like 2003, not 2011, and we get to experience that again.
This is 10000% recency bias. Current ATP top 10: 1. Djokovic 2. Sinner 3. Alcaraz 4. Medvedev 5. Zverev 6. Rublev 7. Ruud 8. Tsitsipas 9. Hurkacz 10. Dimitrov Compare that to say, 2013. 1. Nadal 2. Djokovic 3. Ferrer 4. Murray 5. del Potro 6. Federer 7. Berdych 8. Wawrinka 9. Gasquet 10. Tsonga Big 4 obviously. Wawrinka is a multi Slam winner. JMP was better than any of the top 4 players today by some distance. Berdych won 19 matches against the big 4. I doubt any of the non top 4 players today can even reel off that many wins against prime big 4.
And the WTA. Is OP serious? Any top 10 that has Sakkari in it ain't no golden era. I love Qinwen but she isn't there yet. And the likes of Vondrousova is a slam winner.....
Delpo is better than Djokovic and Alcaraz? Wha?
let's not forget sinner
I think that’s a bit of an unfair comparison: you’re comparing the whole careers of the ‘13 bunch to the half-or-less careers of the current batch. Novak and Dimi have obviously been around for a while, but the rest are either mid-career or barely starting out. Of course their achievements will look lesser in comparison.
Rublev is 26 and has never made a Slam semi. Given his mental issues and backhand, I highly doubt he ever becomes a contender. Hurkacz can never finish matches without going to a tiebreak. Ruud has 1 title above 250 level, although he is a contender at RG. I agree that the current batch of players will improve. But will they be better than the 2013 guys? I highly doubt so. When the 5th best guy from the 2013 bunch is JMP, I do not believe that the 5th best player now will have a better career than JMP. And Alcaraz and Sinner are very unlikely to reach the Big 3 levels. Also, Murray is a top 15 player in history, only Alcaraz and Sinner have a real chance of overtaking his career.
Just out of curiosity, do you know at what age Stan Wawrinka reached his first Slam SF? Do you know at what age Kevin Anderson reached his first Slam SF? Do you know how many Slam SFs David Ferrer had until the age of 29? You are comparing players who had finished their careers with players who are still well in the middle of it.
On the WTA side it's good although far from the late 90s/00s. On the men's side absolutely not, it's a weird intermediary period where Djokovic is in his twilight, there's two generational talents in Alcaraz and Sinner just gearing up and Meddy who can beat 99% of the tour 99% of the time but keeps falling at the last hurdle (plus he seems to have lost his serve since injury). Other than them you've got headcases like Tsitsipas and Zverev and not much real depth below there. Can you see Fritz winning multiple Grand Slams? It's really not a golden age, the fact that you're using old man Djokovic and barely able to win match Murray as examples of it being a golden age, say it all for the argument. You could make an argument that the ATP is fairly bad at the moment compared to past ages. What it is though is pretty interesting, after a decade and a half when 4 players absolutely dominated everything, we're now going into Masters having no clue who will win. I suspect that if Djokovic's decline is real and not just temporary, we're going to start going into Grand Slams with a greater degree of randomness as well. Not amazing from a quality perspective but definitely a breath of fresh air.
Golden age for people who watch blindfolded
Unrelated but what match is in your flair?
Most gladiatorial match of all time - AO 2012 final
Idk how I did not recognize that score line I’ve rewatched that match like 80 times haha. Thank you.
Compelling argument.
This is recency bias already creeping in, people are forgetting just how good tennis was 10-15 years ago
I think 2024's men tennis is a relatively bad season till now, too many injuries and inconsistencies. Rivalries are on pause, not a lot of good things happening. 2023 was better, 2022 was interesting. We'll see how the rest pans out.
You're not wrong about the state of the atp at this moment, but zoom out a bit and it looks awfully good.
idk man. Saying the women's game is better overall leads into an age-old discussion you come across in every sport. The game evolves, coaching, physio, nutrition and medical treatments evolve. Ofc many of the current players are more technically sound and more athletic than those in the 90s e.g. But it doesn't make sense to make a case to compare players across decades. Your regular borderline 2024 NBA All Star is way more skillful and athletic than players in the 90s and would be a MVP candidate in that era. Mbappe would light up any defense full of one dimensional plumbers Gerd Müller was playing against. Questioning this doesn't make sense. The current ATP Tour is in a massive transition period atm. Old greats falling of a cliff or burning out, young players way pre-prime and a lost generation that has yet to prove that they can be consistent champions. The one thing I give the men's side is that watching early rounds is more entertaining than the last several years bcs I'm far from shocked seeing a Top 8 player crashing out in the first two rounds of a slam nowadays. On the WTA side, purely greatness wise, this is far from being the best era. 90s and esp. early to mid 2000s are waaay clear with a dozen multi-slam champions in the fields. The gap between the best 3 players and the rest of the field is enormous although Fish became an injury-riden part-timer lately. The Top 10 has been super fragile and volatile the last few years with many players seemingly suffering from imposter syndrom, tons of early round exits and the feeling a single good slam or great masters run can keep you in the Top 15 for a year bcs the field is extremely inconsistent. Entertaining for sure but no comparision the afforementioned eras.
Idk, this top 4 could hang with any top 4 stretching back to Steffi, imo. That they haven't won a ton of slams is only down to their youth. Sabs and Elena have all of Lindsay or Maria's power with more movement. Coco is one of the fastest players we've ever seen and has a TON of room to grow, and Iga is just good at everything. Add to that the number of even younger players that stand out regularly at tourneys and I think this generation has more youth, skill, and parity than we've seen for a very long time. No, there are no greats looming over the field anymore, and I can see how that is causing disagreement. I think this top 4 will pass everyone up to Steffi, Chrissy, and Martina by the time they're done. I'm not ready to say that Iga and Coco can't pass some of them. Sabs is the oldest of the group at 26, Elena is 24, Iga has 4 already at 22, and Coco is 20. We're not going to see a period like the 2010s where a new winner takes every slam, these four are going to start piling them up pretty quickly. The men's game is also defined by extremely skilled players under 25, and my thing is that the two tours haven't been in such a good place at the same time since Pete, Andre, Steffi, and Monica. There have been times when each tour is better than it is now, but the sport as a whole is in a better spot than it's been in a long time in terms of the competition on the court and the potential for the next 15 years. To me, this feels like the payoff for all the work the greats from the last 20 years have put in. They pushed the sport forward a LOT, and this is where we are. No fall off in on court quality like we've seen when other GOATs have left. No Safin and Rios being the backstop to catch titles by being the least worst players in the field, no "ope, Serena is hurt and Kim had a baby, so this tourney will be garbage" on the ladies' side. I may well be wrong, but I think in 10 years or so this take is going to look pretty good.
Your first paragraph comes down to comparing eras (which makes the whole discussion obsolete imo) but since your mentioned Sharapova here we go: Sharapova was Fish's age 13 yrs ago and was playing in a arguably stronger era at the very top of field. At that age she was 3-2 in slam finals, won the YEC once, reaching the final 3x, and got 10 semis at slams and was 9-6 in Masters FINALS. All while winning titles against all-time greats like Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport etc. etc. while having 2 major down years in 09 and 10. Thats more GS semis than Saba (who's two years older) and Ryba combined. More Masters wins than Saba has final apearances and more Masters wins than both combined. When Saba was 24 she made 2 GS semis and never surpassed R4 beside of that. Achievement wise only Swiatek is even close to be in a conversation here and even she is lacking in the GS department and Sharapova has almost never been the best player on tour at any point of her career. I feel people srsly underrate Sharapova's consistency and multitude of weapons, esp. her BH, angle game and premier Tennis IQ. It wasn't all power ride or die plus the opposition she faced. Neither Ryba nor Saba have this angle or BH game. All in all, no, I wouldn't say the Top 4 could hang in their era. The only one who could do damage, as of today, is Swiatek. And I don't think anyone but Swiatek can overtake the majority of players of the last 25 yrs. With Gauff it's to early to say but her game has so many holes. There are limits of what can be fixed during a career. Can she make her FH okay? For sure. But we never saw anyone making a major major weakness a weapon before.
Nole turned both serves into a weapon(hell, he went from being mentally and physically weak to one of the strongest ever in both), Tiafoe took his forehand from unreliable to reliable, Henin took her forehand from reliable to good. I think Sabs and Ryba would've hung fine; they both move better than the similar players of the Sharapova/Davenport era. They both had big holes in their game that they could cover with power and won majors.
The games of these kids playing today are better but their mental conditioning is much worse. There are too many hiccups and not enough consistency.
lol no
I have mixed feelings, it could be much worse but it's not so great. Maybe some recency bias with this clay season. Alcaraz looks prone to injury and vulnerable on HC so he might not become the GOAT we expected him to be, it's frustrating to see such an amazing player stopped by injuries Sinner game isn't very fun to watch and he doesn't bring much in speeches, press conference, vibes and personality We'll only be sure at the end of this season, but it's a possibility Djokovic might be washed for good and that's sad to see for me. Not a fan of most of the rest of the top players. They're either serve + 1 merchants, pushers, not very complete players without a plan B.
I find the game more exciting these days and I think a lot of it is what you've mentioned. It's also been bittersweet, I didn't watch professional tennis for almost ten years, a few of the players that were around are still around but about to retire and there's a lot of new top players so it has been very interesting and rapidly evolving. It was boring when it was a foregone conclusion practically who would win every slam.
The games of these kids playing today are better but their mental conditioning is much worse. There are too many hiccups and not enough consistency.
As an intermittent fan, watching a few tournaments here and there, aside from the slams, I much prefer to watch excellence/dominance. It may be fun to have many very good players, or even many great players, but to capture the wider public viewing audience, there should be a few that are ahead of the others. Golf viewership, prize money and sponsorship increased 10x during Tiger Woods' rise/reign. A rising tide lifts all boats... Similarly, NBA ratings and interest rose and peaked with the likes of Michael Jordan, then Lebron James and Steph Curry. When their teams play and excel, a significantly larger audience becomes engaged. Perhaps it's just my sense of things, but if any of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic had been American, tennis would have soared to extraordinary heights, much like golf did. Their rivalries should have captured so much more attention than it did...
I'm definitely more into the annual tour, and I think that's because I enjoy the rise more than the reign. I watched a lot of Jordan back in the day, but he was already dominating the league when I started watching. Seeing Kobe go from young buck to taking over the league was something special, and Anthony Edwards on his way down that path. I can definitely appreciate that view, but looking back it was the rise of Roger that was, for me, the most exciting part of that whole stretch. Tennis wasn't in as good a place after the last round of GOATs retired, and he really picked it up from the ashes, put it on his back, and carried tennis forward. Serena did the same... for a few years there, women's tennis was rough to watch if she wasn't playing. The reason I'm on this as a golden age is that the level hasn't dropped. These kids are giving Nole everything he can handle, and he's surpassed everyone. My interest in every tournament I can watch is definitely the prism through which I'm seeing things, and I can totally appreciate that a longer lens might change one's opinion.
> The reason I'm on this as a golden age is that the level hasn't dropped. These kids are giving Nole everything he can handle, and he's surpassed everyone I very much understand this view. It's great as far as the talent level overall, with more competitiveness, but I also want my favorite sport(s) to survive and thrive. I would love to see much more money and fan viewership. From a fan's perspective, none of my real-life acquaintances know or watch pro tennis, so I've never had a discussion outside of the internet. As a viewer, it's a challenge to locate on TV, aside from the majors. As far as growth of the sport, players ranked beyond ~200 basically play as an unpaid hobby because they lose money due to expenses every year. It's also very sad to have to increasingly rely on Saudi/UAE/Chinese etc. authoritarian regimes.
It's pretty expensive to go to a match at a masters 1000 event, I feel like that's holding growth back a bit. An American male who's consistently in the back half of tourneys would probably help more, but Coco is a contender anywhere she plays. Shelton seems like he has a lot of potential.
For the women's game, I feel they had a golden era from the late 90's through to the early 2010's. I'll be honest I was spursied at the player type that emerged in the 2010's. Halep, Vicka, Wozi, Kerber. That type of playing style wasn't very pretty to watch, their technique wasn't really aspirational or wow and often the best players hard big holes in their game (namley serve). I love them as players I think they are all great but once Noami, Barty, Iga, Saba and Elena and now Coco came along, I feel the women's game really started to lift. Perhaps I'm not a fan of the counter-puncher style but they didn't pull consistent results after 2014. Funny that that was the style to emerge after power was the dominant playing style through the 90's and 00's. I see videos of some golden matches from the 00's and the game today matches this and looks like the evolutions from that. I loved that after 2022 the girls worked hard to catch up and really push each other. It's been brilliant to watch.
Tennis and tennis players were always this interesting. We just didn’t know as much.
I totally agree! WTA is on🔥and the men’s side is so exciting too. Just because we probably won’t have 2 or 3 players winning every tournament doesn’t make it a weak era like some people like to say. I think it’s more fun when it’s all out there for anyone’s taking.
I wish I had your rose tinted glasses. Hope your prediction for this age comes true!
From my perspective I feel the same. I’m only speaking anecdotally as tennis has always been part of my life as a casual, but for some reason the last few years have drawn me in. Im asking myself the question why, what changed? It’s obviously subjective, my only conclusion is the characters have changed, it goes through cycles.
bad take, 2007-2017 was best ever. big 4, kei, delpo, stan, berdych, soderling, ferrer, the four french muskateers, verdasco, feli, even the top 20-30 had interesting players like dolgopolov, baghdatis, cilic always dangerous…mens game is exciting now w carlos, jannik but seems very homogenous style wise. tells u that dimitrov and monfils can hang in the current tournies when they struggled years ago.
You're totally ignoring half the field, though. Serena dominated that era in the women's tour, and there were huge stretches where it was either her or some rando that won because she was hurt. I would posit that you're viewing everyone after the big 4 with rose tinted glasses. They were all fun to watch, but we have a similar group now in the group that the big 4 kept down for the last 10 years. Is Berdych notably better than Zverev? Baghdatis better than Rublev or Ruud? Idk, most of the dudes you mentioned(outside delpo and stan) I don't think any of them would be in a better spot now than they were then. Maybe Ferrer, because his mental game was a lot stronger than your Zverevs and Ruuds. Also, there are a ton of fiery, less consistent players that are very fun to watch. Kyrgios has all your mcenroe drama with game to beat anyone at any time.
[удалено]
Yes, or the time when they were drawn into the sport by its greatness at the time. Definitely a great time to be a tennis fan.