I have been in denial for quite some time now. After Justine Henin retired, fans said the WTA was going downhill. I didn't believe them though because I watched an exciting Australian Open final between rising star Ivanovic, and big star Sharapova who crushed the women's tennis equivalent to Roger Federer, Justine Henin, on the way to the final in '08. Sure, Henin hadn't retired yet but she would soon after, and famously didn't play the upcoming French Open, which was a slam she dominated. Sharapova has never done her best at the French Open, and the rising star Ivanovic raced to the final and claimed her maiden grand slam, fully taking advantage of the opportunity.
This was the beginning of when the WTA started going downhill. The newly cemented star of the WTA dropped off quickly after her slam win, falling as low as the top 50. She suffered through injuries, and a complete loss of confidence. It shocked me. I thought Ivanovic was going to carry her momentum and be a slam contender at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, but she wasn't. But things weren't looking too bad because Venus William successfully defended her Wimbledon trophy, having won it in 2007 previously. I also personally was glad that Ivanovic was floundering at the time, because I was a fan of her compatriot and rival, Jelena Jankovic, a player that was consistently named the "dark horse" for every slam. I badly wanted her to win one.
After Wimbledon in '08, the draw was beginning to open up. Ivanovic was failing, Sharapova did not play the US Open because she discovered that she had a shoulder injury, and Henin had retired. I was not worried though, because I knew it was time for Jankovic to step and take the opportunity to win a slam. Jankovic was on fire, winning several tournaments in a row at the end of '08. She became number one and made it to the final of the US Open but was denied the title by a tenacious multiple slam champion, Serena Williams. Still, we had a slamless number #1 in Jelena Jankovic.
Unfortunately, in 2009, Jankovic did not maintain form. She was a slamless #1, labeled a pusher, and therefore had more pressure on her. Many players gain momentum and confidence after reaching a grand slam final, but not if they are #1. Instead of momentum and confidence, a slamless #1 reaching a grand slam just receives added pressure. Jankovic's boat sailed away, and another slamless player stringing tournament wins took over the #1 position. This was Dinara Safina.
Dinara Safina had better grand slam results than Jankovic, but also failed to win a slam. Like Jankovic, she was pressured by the media. She made it to the final of the Australian Open in 2009, where she was defeated by Serena Williams. That is understandable. But when she BREEZED her way through the French Open '09 draw only to completely self-destruct to Kuznetsova and fail to win the title, it was shocking. She was the heavy favorite in the final, and her performance in the tournament before the final match indicated that she should have won. I think the match was on Dinara's racquet, and the task was bigger than beating Kuznetsova, it was winning a grand slam. That is why she lost.
Today (1/28/2011) Jankovic, Ivanovic, and Safina are in dreadful form. While Ivanovic did win a slam, she had a lot more potential and had the star power to fuel the WTA, but she dropped off. They all did.
Serena collected a few slams during this time and even overcome her sister, the Queen of Grass, to take the 09 Wimbledon title. Serena was probably the true #1 all this time, but the problem was is that she didn't play enough to gain the appropriate ranking points to keep that position when she did earn it. That is why slamless #1's interrupted Serena's number #1 position.
Even then, things didn't look too bad. Serena was winning slams and the top 10 was competing with eachother for Tier I events and at times testing Serena's mettle in grand slam draws.
2010 seemed to start off right. Justine Henin returned and made it to the Australian Open final, where she lost to Serena Williams. But then a veteran player, despite all those years on the tour, that had never been in the top 10 won the French Open '10, defeating heavy favorite Sam Stosur in the final. Sam was on the rise and already a grand slam doubles winner, but was beginning to have great success in singles (which started with her surprise semifinal appearance in the French Open of 2009). On her way to the French Open '10 final, she defeated Henin, Serena, and Jankovic and because of this, it was a shock that she lost to Schiavone who had a comparatively easier draw and a losing head-to-head with Stosur. Perhaps this was another player that couldn't overcome their nerves and just win a slam! It also made the French Open gain the reputation of producing random slam winners. Before, the French Open was dominated by Henin, and on the men's side Rafael Nadal. It actually still is dominated by Nadal. But the French Open is wide open because Serena doesn't play well on clay. The different French Open winners every year (and still not won by a #1) was giving WTA critics plenty of ammo.
It seemed that Serena was the only consistent force on the tour anymore. She held things together and drew interest. She served as the one to beat despite the fact that she did not maintain the #1 ranking. Serena however had been gathering bad press from her stating that she was the true #1 while Jankovic was #1 and screaming and cursing at a lines woman who called a foot fault against Serena during a match against Clijsters in the semifinals USO '09, who, like Henin also came out of retirement, probably seeking to take advantage of the women's fragile draw.
Although Serena had a great slam season in 2010, winning the Australian and Wimbledon, she had to withdraw from the US Open due to a foot injury. Caroline Wozniacki had been the latest player stringing tournament wins under the slam level, and became the new slamless #1. Wozniacki probably gained momentum from her 2009 US Open final appearance, and began to see more success and became the next slamless #1 in 2010. Before she even cracked the top 10, commentators always referred to Wozniacki as a talent that had a future in the top at tennis. However, as number #1, like Jankovic, and Safina, she is criticized for being slamless and is, like Jankovic, criticized for her defensive style of play, except even moreso.
It is true that Wozniacki is now prematurely #1 because of the slumps that the more capable players now seem to be in. At least, Zvonareva has stopped underachieving though, reaching two slam finals in a row. Which is good on her, but she has also helped produce two of the most uncompetitive slam finals in a long while now, losing one-sidedly in both of them to Serena and Clijsters (at least Jankovic had set points against Serena, come on!)
Clijsters has taken over the limelight in Serena's absence but her early Slam exits after winning the US Open 2009 were cringy worthy. Clijsters did win the US Open 2010, and now looks like she is about to win the Australian Open 2010. Whoo hoo. Could it be that she is on a roll and has stepped in to keep interest in the WTA alive while Serena is gone? Well, maybe, except Clijsters has played poorly throughout the tournament, having streaks of bad play, but still winning. It really makes you think that Clijsters is winning this by default, playing a little less worse than the rest of the field. This is when I finally agree that the WTA needs help. Despite the great match between Schiavone and Kuznetsova (the '09 and '10 French Open winners), the tour has been extreemly lackluster as of late.
What they can do:
Encourage the women to play less. The WTA has become too much about money and less about glory. The tournaments try to draw top players with competitive prize money and the well-to-do tennis girls that were forced to train relenetlessly by their tennis moms and pops are using the system to rank in the dough. The WTA can put a stop to this by increasing the points won for grand slam results, and decreasing the point totals for other events. But maybe this is too much to ask for from the WTA, who are separate from the grand slams, as they would take money away from their own tour. Still, don't they pose to lose more if their players are too exhausted to avoid being upsetted in a slam, and slamless #1's miss the big win time and time again?
or they could just lower the threshold of how many tournaments count towards your point totals. Make it the best 12 results instead of 16.
Make the women have to play best of 5 sets at the slams. I don't believe that the women are incapable of this, and this will encourage them not to overplay the season so that they save their energy for potential five setters. I think this would limit ballbashers having hot streaks from pulling upsets, set a higher standard for fitness, and have greater potential for more interesting slam finals.
