Does a seed even mean anything anymore? That's the question that many tennis fans must surely be asking themselves over much of 2016, but especially the past two weeks in Madrid, and now Rome. And it's becoming reality that top seeds will fall in what seems like huge upsets weekly and pandemonium quickly spreading throughout the draw. So, what should we make of the current state of the WTA?
Before answering that question, it's important note that a huge reason for why it feels like there has been more crazy draw sheets this year, as opposed to years past, is because Serena Williams has been out for much of the year and thus, while in years past there might have been a lot of drama with seeds, it was shielded by a constant presence on top of the women's game. One always knew that Serena would be there at the end of the tournament and that, through all of the noise, consistency would reign at the top of the game.
And, ultimately, I think that the dominant presence of Serena was good for the game, as tennis fans knew that Serena would play well and exemplify the quality of tennis to be expected from the top of the women's game. This year, Serena's age (24 years old) looks to be effecting her play and injury/illness concerns have also hampered her game, so the flaws in other WTA top players are more visible. But, with Serena's retirement not too far in the future, it's important to look at how the tour will be without her.
To help look at this issue further, let's look at examples of what I have been discussing, first showing how the seeds did in Madrid, and are currently performing in Rome. In Madrid, at the end of the First Round, five seeds were out, but these included both the number one and two seeds, Agnieska Radwanska and Angelique Kerber, respectively. But, the seeds continued to fall in the Second Round, as six more seeds were sent packing (or in Safarova's case, withdrew) including the three seed, Garbine Muguruza. It got to the point where by the Quarterfinals, the only seed remaining was sixth-seeded Simona Halep.
And while you can make the argument that much of this "craziness" was negated by Halep being the eventual winner of the tournament, I just find it impossible to get past that out of the 16 players seeded in this tournament on the women's side, only one could manage to win three matches in a row. And while some of the losses are understandable, Cibulkova has given Aga problems ever since she double-bageled Dominka in Australia in Sydney in 2013, other losses, such as Muguruza flaming out to Irina-Camelia Begu were unacceptable for a player of her ability.
And so far, for the WTA in Rome this week, the same general pattern has continued, besides Serena finally bringing a level of calmness to the top of the draw. While in the First Round of Rome there weren't many upsets, with only three seeded players falling, it is important to note that this could be due to the fact that the top eight seeds had byes into the Second Round. So, when put into that light, 3/8 seeded players who actually played in the First Round losing actually is worse than it initially seems. However, in the Second Round, eight more seeds were lost, meaning that 12/16 seeds were gone before the Round of 16, and of the 12 seeds in the Second Round, 2/3 were dismissed. And these seeds included the number two seed, Angie Kerber, the four seed, Victoria Azarenka, fifth seed Petra Kvitova, and Madrid champion (and sixth seed) Simona Halep. It's safe to say that today was disastrous for seeded players in Rome. This means that the Round of 16 will feature only one matchup of seeded players on the WTA side, with Suarez Navarro and Bacsinszky playing each other tomorrow.
There are two different main arguments that can be debated regarding the wild results from this season, and specifically in Madrid/Rome. The first possibility that could possibly be deliberated is that the results are a direct consequence of the parity of the of WTA. By parity, I mean that because the level of a top player (with, personally, the exception of Azarenka on hard courts and Serena on any surface) and lower ranked players are not that huge, so that when a player lower in the rankings upsets a seeded player, it really isn't very surprising at all. Pundits making this argument would say that, for instance, Eugenie Bouchard is only slightly worse than Angelique Kerber, despite the 44 places separating them in the live rankings. Therefore, it would be completely understandable to these people that Bouchard dispatched Kerber today. However, doesn't this "parity argument" merely seem like an excuse for players who lose early, as opposed to a legitimate reason for the results? Because, in reality, the players at the top are there for a reason: they earned the most points. So, if we throw aside the possibilities of players being ranked low due to injury and that a player might obtain more points from playing more tournaments, the players with more points should be better than those below them.
The opposite side of the coin here would be that the wave of upsets that has hit the WTA Tour this year is due to a lack of star power, where a group of players can just take over the tour and will constantly be battling in the later stages of tournaments, week after week. On the men's side, this would be the equivalent of the Big Four (Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer, and RafaelNadal). Obviously, there are some flaws with this line of thinking. First off, Serena and Venus Williams are still on tour, so despite Maria Sharapova being out on suspension, these are two big names who have won many, many majors between them. The counter to this opposing viewpoint would be that Venus is obviously finished as top tennis player (due to her age and Sjogren's Syndrome) and so while she might have a big name, it is unrelated to the argument at hand. And with Serena's issues this season, as previously mentioned, this fails to address what will happen when she retires, along with the results when she was gone this season. And, one could say that Victoria Azarenka has dominated the spring hard court season this year, winning Indian Wells and Miami. However, as Madrid showed us, who wins the tournament is less related to this topic as opposed to how seeds on the whole are doing.
However, if we are to take this argument at face value, we would be led to believe that because there is not a group of "commanding players" on tour (besides Serena), it is no surprise that upsets are so frequent nowadays on the WTA. Because there is this "feeling" that the playing field is equal, whether one is ranked number two or number 46 psychologically doesn't matter because players like Radwanska and Kerber do not have the mindset of typical top players. And perhaps this is a direct result of Serena winning so many majors over the past few years, that she hinders other players from reaching stardom, and the mindset that comes with it. I mean, if anything, Kerber winning a major has worsened her results, and while this may be because she is struggling with media attention that a major winner attracts, it is certainly not something that would be expected of the number two player in the world.
So, ultimately, is there a clear-cut answer to whether parity or a lack of star power is producing the current results on the WTA Tour? I don't think so. Throwing aside the obvious possibility of confounding factors not considered in this article, I think that it's probably a combination of the two sides that lead to the present state of the WTA. Despite my earlier, big spiel on ranking points, perhaps women's tennis, with, for the most part, a lack of big weapons, lends itself to closer matches and more parity. However, at the same time, it's very valid to say that because there hasn't been consistent winners on the WTA Tour recently, especially in majors, this definitely diminishes the star power of everyone but Serena, so when Serena is not playing well or is off the tour for some reason, it almost feels as if the WTA is an uninteresting free-for-all. And, from a financial perspective, this is definitely not a good thing. Because, a lack of stars means a lack of attendance at WTA matches (and non-joint events, in general).
However, I don't want to say that the future of tennis is bleak. It's also important to remember that when Serena leaves the tour, all players, but especially the top ones, will have a much better shot at winning majors, and eventually more WTA players will win three, four, five, etc. majors and find consistency in their games. And, inevitably this will lead to stardom, and the WTA will be perfectly fine. However, currently, with Serena not being as dominant as she once was (at least currently) and many other players high in the ranking unable to fulfill the void this has left, the current and immediate future of the WTA is not a pretty sight. However, I urge tennis fans and members of the tennis media not to panic, and to see the big picture on this issue. Everything will be fine.
And, anyways, if Serena wins the French Open, all of these problems will disappear from sight, put on the backburner for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment