Women are more emotional and can't handle big points well? How many racquets getting destroyed on ATP tour and how many fines the Tistipas brothers have paid in every grand slam ?
Yea I can’t believe she thinks that. It’s giving internalized misogyny. I really think people forget that anger is an emotion. Men on the tour are emotional.
@@Keedy95 yeah, you hit the nail on the head with people forget that anger is an emotion. you might see more tears on the WTA during stressful moments, but you're less likely to see someone on the WTA get in trouble for hitting a tennis ball at a linesman, spectator, or umpire or getting into a physical altercation with their opponent
More like they get to a high level, realize they aren't fulfilled and go and have kids and come back for a bit after. Men and women have different priorities based on biology.
@@kalebball5144ahhh yes, classical mansplaining.... Not biology, but society (societal pressure and expectations) is the main thing! Society (especially men) talking into women that they are only fulfilled if they get kids is the real reason and problem here....
Yes 100%, but why is the video implying that this is a muscle thing? I'm pretty sure the obvious main reason is the difference in height..... (Muscles for sure also play a role)
"Men are less emotional". That is just misoginy talking. Man can be a lot emotional. Look at Rublev, a top10 that has outbursts that would be embarassing for a top200 woman.
@@GQAga4Life yeah that's why it's called "internalized misogynie".... Because in reality there isn't really a prominent biological reason for differences in emotionality between sexes.... Neither some biological determinism for that (no scientific evidence yet). But a lot of internalized prejudices and expectations from society, that men apparently aren't emotional (/are supposed to show no emotions) and the opposite for women....
@@GQAga4Life yeah that's why it's called "internalized misogynie".... A lot of internalized prejudices and expectations from society, that men apparently aren't emotional (or are supposed to be not emotional/to show no emotions) and the opposite for women....
Not sure ‘Gabriela’ is the best voice for wta player perspective… Her comments re: emotional control and 5 set play is very very interesting to put it mildly.
That’s her perspective. On the 5-set matches, I don’t see how anyone could think she is wrong on that. You think the majority of women on tour could play five sets effectively?
I feel like there's an added element in that women's sports is garnering more support in countries all around the world. So the parity is continuing to grow all around the world, making it harder and harder to be dominant. That being said, if you take out Roger, Rafa, and Novak, the 2010"s are all over the place in men's too.
But why would you take out the three Best players of all time from a sport.. if you do, its quality is bound to be all over the place.. not just tennis but any sport
@@suchitapage4725 Rafa and Nadal are gone and Novak is loosing many tournamets. Since then, the top 10 in men's tennis is also inconsistent, so this argument is valid.
Now? Women's tennis has always felt like a bit of a lottery, at least since the mid 2000s when I started paying attention, maybe aside from the Williams sisters
I guess I was spoiled growing up in the 80-90s when there were rivals and tennis was more important. Now a days seems more like a job and if things aren't going your way you quietly bow out.
Women's tennis historically had more dominance of the same players actually which you can see by the grand slam records. Simple explanation is that women's game was more about consistency, less aggressive. Same player tends to win more then. Nowadays women's game has shorter points than men though and it's less consistent.
Great video. One unmentioned reason is uniformity in styles. Not long ago, you had a lot more variety in styles and unique shots. For example, Henin's game, Mauresmo's, Venus', Ivanovic's, Davenport's, Kvitova's, Barty's game etc., are pretty different from each other. The success of Serena and Sharapova caused coaches to train newcomers with the same game style (as Novak and Andy did on the men's side). A dominant one is more likely doing something different from the others, which is a rare case nowadays.
@@kalebball5144nope! Biology is only one reason, but there are also other equally important/impactful reasons, like different socialization of women vs men in our society. Or general differences in atp vs wta (eg. time of existence, number of players, different phases of development,....), which also have some impact that can't be quantified To only pinpoint it on biology just shows a dislike or ignorance on womens Tennis in general.....
In 80s & 90s, and early 00s their were periods where there were awesome matches on WTA. Back in mid/late 80s, it was Martina Navratalova, Chris Evert, and whatever moonballer they were crushing to reach each other in the final. I'd argue that women don't move as well, so the power they do hit with is effective even against higher ranked player. Yes, men hit harder than women, but even with that pace, the fastest men can often chase down shots. Nadal, for example, forced Soderling in 2010, to hit hard shot after hard shot, shots that would have been winners against slower players. Women, on the other hand, can often hit a good hard shot, and it can be a winner against most anyone. Plus, women don't serve as well, so they're broken more often than men. So the women's game tends to favor higher risk hitting, but that introduces errors, so the game can be more up-and-down for women.
The women have awesome players what they don’t have are consistent rivalries that they did with Navratilova/evert, Graf/Seles, Williams/Belgians etc The top players dont meet often or consistently enough for their matches to have a sense of weight or importance, which leads to a lack of fan draw. That’s why people were so excited to see Swiatek, Sabalenka, Rybakina and coco form a sort of big 4 last year. Right now slam finalists or SF seem like RNG
Seems like most if not all of the mental resilience arguments are coming from a place of misogyny. Men on tour are definitely not just naturally more mentally sound in clutch moments. This is an individual aspect of players, not just one sweeping analysis of an entire gender of players.
The whole you would see more upsets if men played best of three , doesnt hold up when you remember how Djokovic ,Nadal, Federer and Murray dominated the Masters events where on average you play higher ranked players vs the slams .combined they once went on a run of winning 49 of 55 masters events even locking the semis a few times . then look at this years Masters events Popyrin in Toronto with no Novak,Alacaraz and the rest coming off the olympics and none of the other winners were big surprises
Thats just bc there's more than double the amount of Masters titles as there is GSs. If you look at the ratio of tournament wins won by the big 3 vs by the field at Masters tournnaments, its mindboggling but not as mindboggling at GSs. The same for the World Tour Finals. And the big 3s medaling ratio at the Olympics is actually surprisingly unremarkable Further, in the post 2017 era where the big 3 stopped attending every Masters tournament, its not like 1 or 2 players stepped up and started sweeping up most of the titles where they didn't have to face any of them. There's been 22 different Masters 1000 title winners in the last 8 years, and outside of the big 3, none of those winners have achieved more than 6 in the span of their careers. 12 have only won 1. Its a pretty reasonable argument that in best of 3, there's about as much parity on the mens tour in the last 8 years as the women's tour. Another interesting thing to consider is Alcaraz, arguably the next big 3 tier player, has seen signufucantly more success in best of 5 over best of 3. As his legend grows, I'm sure he'll get more consistent in best of 3. But the point being his skillsets (mental strength and incredible endurance) first and foremost are rewarded in the best of 5 format. The tour rev9pves around grand slans and on the mens tourbthose slams require a unique skillset. Build your reputstion at grand slams and itll snowball into the rest of the tour
I'm not so sure women are more emotional as Gabriela said, or at least, I'm not sure it depends on biological reasons. Probably educational reasons, yes, but I think that if parents and society behaved in the same way with boys and girls there would be no "emotional difference". Probably a scientist (evolutionary scientist or even better social scientist) quoting a few studies would have been more competent to explain this point. She has the right to feel that way of course, and maybe she's right, and it's important to interview female players since it's about them, but it seems her opinion rather than a fact. And an opinion a little "old". I would even add that men break much more rackets, so they don't seem so emotionally in control as she said. And I don't think you really feel better after having broken a racket in front of millions of people (or your knee if you are Rublev 😂)
Would have been interesting to see some opposing viewpoints on some of the issues. Like Knudsen says one thing but then you might be like: “not everyone agrees, though. Here’s some tweets from these other players that suggests women SHOULD play best of 5” Not that I think they should necessarily, but there must be some folks out there who do think that, and I’d love to see why. Also, thank you for your consistent top-quality content!!
I miss the early 2000s when we had the Williams sisters (Venus, Serena), the Belgian duo (Justine, Kim), Davenport, Capriatti, Hingis (before they retired), Mauresmo, and the Russian army (Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Myskina, etc) competing for titles.
@@syeedchowdhury2501 not sure what you're responding to, but it was quite competitive back then and there's definitely lots of intrigue and excitement. FAR MORE than today.
I completely disagree that having more variety of winners is good for the sport. It's good fun for the people who already follow tennis but you can't gain new fans with this. Today with all the social media sports have become much more individual centric. We need superstar players to increase a sport's popularity and bring in new fans.
My girlfriend played tennis on national level in her youth and is now a coach. She thinks an important reason is the menstrual cycle, that for many players has high impact on the the performance.
Very concise and well put together opinions, stats and facts. You always seem to be fair in the way you analyse and explain things which is wonderful to see given how poor a lot of content creation and media publications can be in Tennis these days. Nice work!
Parity is actually the best word to use - the quality of the average wta player is extremely high. Anyone can beat anyone on a given day except those rare players like a Swiatek or Sabalenka who have both the athleticism and the power to take racquets out of hands, and even they aren’t invincible. You have to remember that even in the ‘golden era’ of the wta, that is between 1997-2008, there were those in the top 10-15 and then everyone else was a far cry level below. You had Hingis, Clijsters, Venus/Serena, henin, mauresmo, Pierce, Capriati, Davenport, ASV, Graf, Seles, Sharapova, Kuzenersova, Myskina, then Jankovic/Ivanovic back when they were still good Below that you had Safina, Dementieva, Penetta, Schiavone, Dokic, Hantuchova, Petrova, all amazing players in their own right who won slams, or Indian wells or made slam SF or f’s Every single one of those names - you see them, you think great player/Threat But below that there was virtually no one of note below the top 20. The wta did have a ruling class, albeit a much larger ruling class than the men’s Big 4 plus Wawrinka/Delpo/Thiem, who dominated all events and made all the slam SFs and QFs and beyond. They absolutely dominated the early rounds at slams. At present no one dominates the early rounds. The depth of the rest of the field has caught up
How much of Swiatek, Sabalenka, Rybakina & Gauff's reign at the top is a result of them consistently getting easy draws in the early rounds (often up to the SF or F) of every tournament they play? If they constantly have to face one another or heavy hitters like Ostapenko, Keys, Collins, Anisimova, Vekic, Pegula et. al. in the early rounds like everyone else they wouldn't be half as "consistent". Gauff's record against top 50 players this year has been abysmal, yet she remains in the Top 10 because she keeps getting cakewalk draws esp. in slams.
I feel it is 5-set matches vs 3-set matches. Even in ATP tour, we find low ranking players other than top 3 winning the tournaments. But in grand slam, 5-set matches shows the class and consistancy of the federers/nadal/djokovics of the world. 3-set matches you somehow loose the 1st set, all the pressure is on you as you are thrusted into do or die situation.
@@whuang03 Rybakina is a much more versatile baseliner than Isner, and women are way worse returners than men. Serena's key to success was her monstruous serve. Rybakina with such a serve and solid baseline work should be more dominant on fast hc and grass than she is.
Women's tennis is so unpredictable because of a ceiling in power. The reason someone like Serena dominated for so long was because she had unreal power for the time, but now the majority of the field is on about an equal footing in terms of physicality which is why you get so many upsets. That being said, lets not pretend that the unpredictability is because they are "all so good" because that's just not true.
Keys and Sabalenka have raw power, Osaka too - these big hitters are not consistent enough - they played and handled Serena's power no problem especailly Keys
I mean sabalenka and keys couldn’t take a set off an aging and out of practice Serena who just came back on tour. Osaka imo is above keys and sabalenka in terms of pure tennis, so she def could handle Serena tho.
@@deusexmachina9776What are you talking about? Keys & Sabalenka never beat Serena. Sabalenka couldn't even beat 39 year old Serena at 2021 Australian Open. Serena beat her.
@@JordanjamesX i didnt say they beat Serena, i said they handled Serena's power, Sabalenka was not blown off court - she was self distructing as she always did back then
The money is so huge out there that when players have success they almost instantly become millionaires. "All protoplasm is lazy" is a phrase I once heard and I think it is largely true. A lot of money just saps the willingness to sacrifice so much to be great - - your health, family, mental fitness, etc... and women I think experience these factors more than do men. So I think we are in for more of this parity until we get a cyborg type person who can dismiss all the distractions and play to be the greatest ever no matter what the sacrifice. I hope I am alive to watch this 'cyborg'. :)
💯. A top 50 player can make a very good living, so it takes a person with a strong desire to be the best to continue to improve their game. I also feel like maybe women are less competitive than men.
Love this channel but I don’t agree. This year, Saba won 2 slams, Swiatek won her clay slam. Yes, Krejčíková winning Wimbledon is a surprise but she is now a multiple grand slam champion and has won many titles. The WTA 1000s have also for the most part went to the top players. Therefore, the WTA is not nearly as unpredictable as a few years ago.. the video makes it sound like we have been getting random champs at every slam. The upsets are more common in WTA than ATP but that’s more due to how abnormally dominant and consistent the Big 3 were and now Alcaraz / Sinner
Height+Strength allows a level of optimal consistency on serve, especially for the top 20 male players. Also, even if the serve is returned, a male player can direct the second strike more effectively than a female player. Which is simple biology, emotions don't come into it. Top 20 female players can't rely on these free points anywhere near as much, apart from very rare physical specimens like Serena at her peak. So lesser players on a purple streak can reel off shock number of games back to back just by going for their groundstrokes. Over a whole season, the top players are still going to be at the top, they just won't dominate to the same degree. Lesser male players can't really do much with a purple streak since the top male players are barrelling through their service games with tons of easy points. You get the odd exception when a top player is going through a dodgy spell on serve.
As always - great video, great storytelling, incredible takes and visions of the situations. You are calm, mindful and respectful even when discussing sensitive topics. Keep going :)❤
Yep especially 2 and 3 seed already out is a bit embarrassing as they've probably been the top 2 favorites to win.... after the 3rd round USO so far out; alcaraz (3 seed), Djokovic (2), hurkacz (7) first round loss; tsitsipas (11), rune (15), FAA (19, Olympia bronce) and other honorable mentions; shelton (13, Last years semi finalist here)
As a male watching women's tennis I want to see a dominate sensation with a rivalry. I do not want to see a random lineup where someone different is winning every year. From what I see the reason the women's tennis lacks a consistant winner is largely due to lack of discipline and grinding through the tough challenges. It's not the same as it was in era of Graff and Williams and before. I think we are missing the Eye of the Tiger.
Mhmm, lets see. Swiatek is only 23 and therefore still potential to grow... Gauff is only 20 and should have a lot of untapped potential And andreeva is only 17, but already #23 in the world + reached the sf in Roland Garros this year Sabalenka (26), rybakina (25) are also still quite young. Yet this group of 4 is already for some time at the top. Feels like the 25-35 group is just missing/absent.... But a lot of talent/potential for the coming 10+ years, right?
Parity in sports is becoming a major thing in all sports. Just look at the NBA champions over the last 10 years. As soon as Djokovic retires, the ATP will go through the same phase.
How is it possible that woman are not required to play 5 seta. That's a farce that commentators are afraid to discuss. How can they possibly be awarded equal prize money.
Another reason would be the obviously best of 3 format, the same as all other WTA tournaments, if no one’s dominating in regular tournaments then no one probably will in slams either
I actually DO like seeing the same 3 or 4 players winning the tournaments. When we had Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, & Murray at their height, it was the Golden Era of tennis. 🎾
The women game is one dimensional they mostly play the same. The serve isn't as strong in women tennis. I don't like the random slam winners. Ash Barty retirement opened a huge void. It is sad to see the lack of consistency at top of women tennis.
And that’s ok why should the new generation be compared to the big 3? Let them cultivate their own legacy. Winning 10 slams should not be overlooked because Roger won 20 like it’s still an accomplishment
Tom Brady and Marcelo Bielsa have levied similar criticisms of their respective sports. Brady described it as a "lack of excellence" in the new generation of NFL quarterbacks. Both men partially attributed this in part to the changing rules of the game, but I think money is also a big factor. There's so much money in being "good" or "very good" that most players choose to stop there. There is one potential great in the WTA and maybe two in the ATP, but the ATP at least has a crop of solid elite players underneath the greats. Coco, Saba, and Elena are not reliable players for long term competitiveness. And then you have players who win once, suffer an injury/setback, and then never find a way to fight back to their previous level. Carlos has fought back from multiple injuries. Zverev fought back from a terrible injury. Serena fought back from multiple injuries and a terrible personal tragedy. The WTA version of Novak probably would have given up in 2010 and remained a journeywoman for 5-10 more years
All the top ladies have flawed games outside of Iga. Also 3 sets instead of 5 is big. How many time have we seen Novak or Nadal lose the first two sets vs a lesser player and then came back to win.
Exactly. In fact, since they're only playing 3 set matches, they're not real matches and should not be taken seriously and do not deserve equal prize money.
@@rogergarland3746 maybe not equal but it’s still close especially in America women’s tennis is very popular maybe more than the men idk. With Serena Naomi (plays for Japan but is American) and Coco being more known then any American man back to Roddick or Sampras.
@@1504Blue The women you mentioned should be required to play 5 sets just as the men do. Since the y don't, those matches should be considered exhibitions and the women should not receive the same prize money. If the situation were reversed, would that be fair?
*It should be a Max of 5-Sets at Slams* & if you win back2back sets you win the match, otherwise you play a 5th set decider At-Least if regular 5sets is too much.
No one will watch it that's why they don't do it. I think it's crazy they get paid the same as men for playing 3/5ths of what the men do and the time on court is usually way longer for men's matches even if they're both 3 sets.
The reason there is parity no dominant woman like Serena. Iga Swiatek is only dominant on clay. She isn't a great number one poor results at AO, Wimbledon, and US Open. Lack of rivalries hurts WTA. The men tennis popular two young consistent male Stars Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. WTA doesn't have that. The Wimbledon champion this year most people don't know who she is. Randoms winning slama BAD for WTA because the random fades back to obscurity. Look at Sofia Kenin, Bianca Andresscu. Where are they now? They are one slam wonders.
The un-PC reality- time of the month impacts ability to compete at the highest levels... nothing wrong with it, but pretending it doesn't factor at all won't change reality
@@daqueenbobo I think it should be PC to have the conversation, as there's literally nothing wrong with it. But there's a reason it wasn't brought up on a video specifically looking at the randomness of female tennis performance at the highest levels. I'd put in the top 2-3 reasons as to why there's a differentiation between the men and women, but that's just my opinion.
Why would he torpedo his own channel by claiming that? If that is a significant factor, then the women themselves should be the one to admit it. Does Iga not have cycles? Did Serena not have cycles? Also, do you see similar trends in other women's sports? Are there no dominant figures in track/swimming/etc?
@BoxOfOranges84 You're proving my point that even speculating that it would have an impact would "torpedo his channel". Tennis is a day-in, day-out year-round sport. The sample size of match upsets is large enough comparing women vs men that it leads to reasonable speculation as to why there is such a massive difference. The most obvious physical difference is apparently too taboo to even speculate on, even when that is the freaking topic at hand haha
@@yankeefederer1994 I agree that it's a dangerous topic, but that doesn't mean that you've proven that it's the correct explanation Women go through monthly cycles, so even a sport with a longer off-season than tennis would still show signs. Have you looked at other individual sports and do you see the same variation in results between men and women? At the very least, he would need to look into that as well before making that claim
The question is why top women no longer have consistency. The Quarter Finalists of GS tournaments be the Top 10 players but with AO (2 in both 2023 and 2024) FO was better with(4 in 2023 and 6 in 2024), Wimbledon (5 in 2023 and 2 in 2024) and USO (4 last year). The story is repeated for the WTA 1000 tournaments.
The two sets win makes the top seeds way more upset prone. Look at the men side, Djokovic would have lost agasint Djere in best of three last year and he ended up winning the title..
Stevie graf is the GOAT of women’s tennis. She achieved everything in tennis . Grand slam and gold medal in same year. And 3 out of 4 of the slams in 3 other years.
@@jahy7373 nobody vauled doubles otherwise McEnroe would have been in a GOAT debate in men's tennis. BTW if we valued only singles then Graf is the GOAT, if we valued singles, doubles & mixed then Navratilova is the undisputed GOAT. Of course Court had 64 slams but she played in different era.
I don't mind seeing different winners.Who wants to see the same dominant winner or winners (2 or 3 people) win all the time. I got enough of that with the big three.
I have to disagree. Women used to play 5 sets, and as a fan, I would love to see that at slams. In the olden days, men revised the women’s format from 3 sets to 5 despite the fact that the female champions of the day insisted that best-of-five endurance was part of the sport. The female player (not McHale, the other one) who contributed to this piece…is she familiar with the sport’s history?
You are completely correct and it is completely not fair that women do not play 5 sets in the majors. They are playing the same sets as the junior champs so their matches are a farce.
Do you really not know why women are far more incosistent than men in sport? This isn't a tennis thing. Unless there's someone miles ahead of the pack, it's always a lottery. People like Swiatek or Serena are exceptions.
It just depends on who's playing at the time. Navratilova dominated singles and doubles( and later even mixed winning in her mind 40s!!;) . Then more recently the Williams sisters. When they retire, it's potluck. The mens game is experiencing the beginning of this now, with the passing of the Big 3.
I'd like to know who she asked about the difference between 3- and 5-set playing and received the answer that players tend to give a set away if they get broken at 3-all. Sure, there more momentum swings and natural ups and downs but i think no player decides he can give the set away because "he's got 4 more anyway"
Nah, I do think it's true. In 5 set context, many top players just relax when down a break and try to regroup for the next set, so there are many 4 and 5 setters per Slam. Medvedev or Zverev are like that, for instance. Djokovic has also been shown to do it (like in 2023's RG and USO, both of which he won btw). If you are efficient in your energy management and match momentun-reading skills, a 5 set context is a big advantage, that's the secret to the B3's success imo.
@@rodrigoodonsalcedocisneros9266 sure, i know there's no need to panic snd players can tske their time to get into a match. They also might use the first set to gather information about their opponent and try out a few things. But i don't think they throw away a set after being broken for 4-3
@@al1976-v7m It depends on context. If your opponent is a strong and dangerous competitor, you might wanna break back (and if you can't and get broken a second time, then you really give away the set), but if you are confident on winning the next sets after using the present one as a gauge, then you can just let it go and focus on the next ones. There are players that try never to lose a set like Nadal, Ferrer or De Miñaur, but most players are more strategically-minded on the big picture. Djokovic let go some sets to guys like Cerundolo on RG because he felt he could eventually come back, while he locked in since the first point against Alcaraz in the final because he wasn't gonna give Carlos the chance to take the lead. Like I said, knowing when and against who to use different playing approaches is key to the B3's succes (even Nadal does it in a slightly different way, he will always push, but he will clearly push harder the moment he senses blood in the water, like Alcaraz or Schwartzman, for example).
The womens field is so varied and talented with different personalities the mens game now is so limited in depth and some are just boring go womens tennis❤
Because there's no one that's significantly better than everyone else until one day there will be someone that's hit the genetic lottery and will be significantly better
Hey man, amazing video. Editing quality + interview quality is unmatched. Just one suggestion. For a lot of your clips you are including footage that doesn't match the script which is a bit distracting. For example, showing Ukrainian Svitolina while talking about Czech women's injuries, or showing Eva Lys while introducing your interviewee. Keep it up though, I love this :) Liked + notified.
This is going to sound weird but their performance depends on how far they are from that time of the month. If they all have it on the same day, it will be more consistent.
This is a very fair point i never thought of when watching??! 😲 Fr if you have a match during the first couple days of your cycle youre cooked! Same for all physically demanding sports for women i suppose, it must be a burden
And now the same thing is happening to ATP tennis. It's a natural period of transition with newer players suddenly fighting for spots that have been left over after the last of the most recent legends leave the game.
Iga put 0 effort into preparing for Wimbledon, like Emma not playing warm up events. Always surprises me when players put no effort whilst others are grinding and then cry during press that they didnt do well.
@@0nFoot whilst that is valid for this year, for the past 4 years Iga has played only 1 tournament on grass pre Wimbledon, the year she didnt win FO she did the same whilst others played 2 grass tournaments. one year she won a played a 250 the week before W and pulled out with 'injury' when the draw release was around the corner
@@JordanjamesX I would argue that you cannot make any conclusions after 2 games. Furthermore, what even variety mean? Iga can serve really fast, has incredible forehand and unbelievable flat backhand on the line, has the best return on the tour, and has the best court movement on the tour. Are you talking about archaic slice, outdated and risky volley game or panic dropshot style? Maybe she is not playing those because she simply doesn't need it in her game. Modern tennis is dominated by power and good angle game. Sabalenka's tennis is even more blunt than Iga's and i would say that she would have dominated Barty at this point in her career.
No one wants to watch eomen playing five sets? The level would be atrocious? Women are more emotional? She has alot of internalised misogny to work through. Maybe next time you should seek yhe view of an actual winner on the women's side.
Margaret court is undeniably the GOAT; most of her slams were outside of the open era, but 24 slam titles, a grand slam, a slew of doubles slam titles (mixed and normal) as a woman born in 1942, and still holds Open Era win % and singles titles records to this day noting that SHE CAME BACK ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASSIONS FROM HAVING A CHILD.
She has the 2nd worst argument in the top 5 Steffi, Serena, Martina all have a better arguments for being the goat. That being they actually played the baccomplishment. Consistently with just as impressive accomplishments.
The biggest problem with the WTA players is consistency, they CANNOT win against lower-ranked players IF they're NOT close to their best level! Back in the day, you wouldn't see players like Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, Henin, the Williams sisters, or Sharapova lose to low-ranked players even if they weren't playing great cause they knew how to win on their B or C game! The same goes for the top ATP players, they know how to win even if they're NOT playing great! Barty knew how to win on her B of C game, unfortunately she retired way too early!
Or maybe back then there is much more power disparity between a handful of top players than the rest. Now there are at least 10-20 players with power parity who can go toe-to-toe with one another on power.
I always love your videos, but this one was a miss.. It seems this woman has some very antiquated ideas about women she's spreading around without any sort of backing in evidence whatsoever. "Women just take things harder, we're more emotional, it's how our brains are composed" what a ridiculous statement lol. And the idea that women "can't physically handle" playing 5 sets is also ridiculous. Both men and women run marathons, there's no meaningful difference in endurance over long distances/times (ofc there is still a difference in speed, but whether women can sustain athletic activity over long periods of time is not in question). Looking forward to your next video and hoping you'll stick to your own (excellent) analysis or invite some actual experts next time.
Потому что уровень упал ниже плинтуса, бабы играют отвратительно, такие персонажи как Крейчикова, Вондрушова, Кенин и т.д. к титулам большого шлема в нулевые и близко бы не подошли
Women can play 5 sets and should be required to do so. They are adult pros yet they are playing the same format as the juniors. How can that be. How can they get the same prize money as the men when the men sometimes play four and five hours. Many women's matches go ninety minutes, and the three sets allows no comebacks. This is what your segment should be about.
Women are more emotional and can't handle big points well? How many racquets getting destroyed on ATP tour and how many fines the Tistipas brothers have paid in every grand slam ?
Yea I can’t believe she thinks that. It’s giving internalized misogyny. I really think people forget that anger is an emotion. Men on the tour are emotional.
How many rackets has Kyrgios broken over the years? I've lost count.
@@Keedy95 yeah, you hit the nail on the head with people forget that anger is an emotion. you might see more tears on the WTA during stressful moments, but you're less likely to see someone on the WTA get in trouble for hitting a tennis ball at a linesman, spectator, or umpire or getting into a physical altercation with their opponent
Agreed, she was projecting her weakness on all women.
A woman said it! 🤷🏽♂️
Anger is an emotion! Men are emotional! And that’s okay.
The women’s serve isn’t as dominant and so there are more breaks, and thus more unpredictability.
More like they get to a high level, realize they aren't fulfilled and go and have kids and come back for a bit after. Men and women have different priorities based on biology.
@@kalebball5144 Please stop with this creepy obsession that women need to have kids to be fulfilled
@@kalebball5144ahhh yes, classical mansplaining....
Not biology, but society (societal pressure and expectations) is the main thing! Society (especially men) talking into women that they are only fulfilled if they get kids is the real reason and problem here....
Yes 100%, but why is the video implying that this is a muscle thing? I'm pretty sure the obvious main reason is the difference in height.....
(Muscles for sure also play a role)
@@BetaD_ it’s both. Height and power both go into the serve being a dominant part of the men’s game
"Men are less emotional". That is just misoginy talking. Man can be a lot emotional. Look at Rublev, a top10 that has outbursts that would be embarassing for a top200 woman.
Even Medvedev, Kyrios, John McEnroe… me. Are emotional, we just call it fiery. Passionate… misogyny for sure
Even when it’s coming from another woman.
@@GQAga4Life yeah that's why it's called "internalized misogynie"....
Because in reality there isn't really a prominent biological reason for differences in emotionality between sexes.... Neither some biological determinism for that (no scientific evidence yet).
But a lot of internalized prejudices and expectations from society, that men apparently aren't emotional (/are supposed to show no emotions) and the opposite for women....
@@GQAga4Life yeah that's why it's called "internalized misogynie"....
A lot of internalized prejudices and expectations from society, that men apparently aren't emotional (or are supposed to be not emotional/to show no emotions) and the opposite for women....
For some reason people don't think anger is an emotion
Not sure ‘Gabriela’ is the best voice for wta player perspective… Her comments re: emotional control and 5 set play is very very interesting to put it mildly.
That’s her perspective. On the 5-set matches, I don’t see how anyone could think she is wrong on that. You think the majority of women on tour could play five sets effectively?
I feel like there's an added element in that women's sports is garnering more support in countries all around the world. So the parity is continuing to grow all around the world, making it harder and harder to be dominant.
That being said, if you take out Roger, Rafa, and Novak, the 2010"s are all over the place in men's too.
I think so too. Roger, Rafa, Novak, three of the greatest of all time playing together. That’s not normal.
But why would you take out the three Best players of all time from a sport.. if you do, its quality is bound to be all over the place.. not just tennis but any sport
Lol what type of argument is this?
Remove the top players to show how inconsistent men players are😂
@@suchitapage4725 Rafa and Nadal are gone and Novak is loosing many tournamets. Since then, the top 10 in men's tennis is also inconsistent, so this argument is valid.
@@paweldrzazga7700 Yes it is valid.
Now? Women's tennis has always felt like a bit of a lottery, at least since the mid 2000s when I started paying attention, maybe aside from the Williams sisters
I guess I was spoiled growing up in the 80-90s when there were rivals and tennis was more important. Now a days seems more like a job and if things aren't going your way you quietly bow out.
Women's tennis historically had more dominance of the same players actually which you can see by the grand slam records.
Simple explanation is that women's game was more about consistency, less aggressive. Same player tends to win more then. Nowadays women's game has shorter points than men though and it's less consistent.
Great video. One unmentioned reason is uniformity in styles. Not long ago, you had a lot more variety in styles and unique shots. For example, Henin's game, Mauresmo's, Venus', Ivanovic's, Davenport's, Kvitova's, Barty's game etc., are pretty different from each other. The success of Serena and Sharapova caused coaches to train newcomers with the same game style (as Novak and Andy did on the men's side). A dominant one is more likely doing something different from the others, which is a rare case nowadays.
This has 0 to do with it. It's basic biology.
@@kalebball5144nope! Biology is only one reason, but there are also other equally important/impactful reasons, like different socialization of women vs men in our society.
Or general differences in atp vs wta (eg. time of existence, number of players, different phases of development,....), which also have some impact that can't be quantified
To only pinpoint it on biology just shows a dislike or ignorance on womens Tennis in general.....
In 80s & 90s, and early 00s their were periods where there were awesome matches on WTA.
Back in mid/late 80s, it was Martina Navratalova, Chris Evert, and whatever moonballer they were crushing to reach each other in the final.
I'd argue that women don't move as well, so the power they do hit with is effective even against higher ranked player.
Yes, men hit harder than women, but even with that pace, the fastest men can often chase down shots.
Nadal, for example, forced Soderling in 2010, to hit hard shot after hard shot, shots that would have been winners against slower players.
Women, on the other hand, can often hit a good hard shot, and it can be a winner against most anyone.
Plus, women don't serve as well, so they're broken more often than men.
So the women's game tends to favor higher risk hitting, but that introduces errors, so the game can be more up-and-down for women.
I agree 100% with this. And the women seem to understand this too because they constantly go for winners, more than the men I think
You forgot Serena Williams
The women have awesome players what they don’t have are consistent rivalries that they did with Navratilova/evert, Graf/Seles, Williams/Belgians etc
The top players dont meet often or consistently enough for their matches to have a sense of weight or importance, which leads to a lack of fan draw. That’s why people were so excited to see Swiatek, Sabalenka, Rybakina and coco form a sort of big 4 last year.
Right now slam finalists or SF seem like RNG
Seems like most if not all of the mental resilience arguments are coming from a place of misogyny. Men on tour are definitely not just naturally more mentally sound in clutch moments. This is an individual aspect of players, not just one sweeping analysis of an entire gender of players.
The whole you would see more upsets if men played best of three , doesnt hold up when you remember how Djokovic ,Nadal, Federer and Murray dominated the Masters events where on average you play higher ranked players vs the slams .combined they once went on a run of winning 49 of 55 masters events even locking the semis a few times . then look at this years Masters events Popyrin in Toronto with no Novak,Alacaraz and the rest coming off the olympics and none of the other winners were big surprises
Thats just bc there's more than double the amount of Masters titles as there is GSs. If you look at the ratio of tournament wins won by the big 3 vs by the field at Masters tournnaments, its mindboggling but not as mindboggling at GSs. The same for the World Tour Finals. And the big 3s medaling ratio at the Olympics is actually surprisingly unremarkable
Further, in the post 2017 era where the big 3 stopped attending every Masters tournament, its not like 1 or 2 players stepped up and started sweeping up most of the titles where they didn't have to face any of them. There's been 22 different Masters 1000 title winners in the last 8 years, and outside of the big 3, none of those winners have achieved more than 6 in the span of their careers. 12 have only won 1. Its a pretty reasonable argument that in best of 3, there's about as much parity on the mens tour in the last 8 years as the women's tour.
Another interesting thing to consider is Alcaraz, arguably the next big 3 tier player, has seen signufucantly more success in best of 5 over best of 3. As his legend grows, I'm sure he'll get more consistent in best of 3. But the point being his skillsets (mental strength and incredible endurance) first and foremost are rewarded in the best of 5 format. The tour rev9pves around grand slans and on the mens tourbthose slams require a unique skillset. Build your reputstion at grand slams and itll snowball into the rest of the tour
I'm not so sure women are more emotional as Gabriela said, or at least, I'm not sure it depends on biological reasons. Probably educational reasons, yes, but I think that if parents and society behaved in the same way with boys and girls there would be no "emotional difference". Probably a scientist (evolutionary scientist or even better social scientist) quoting a few studies would have been more competent to explain this point. She has the right to feel that way of course, and maybe she's right, and it's important to interview female players since it's about them, but it seems her opinion rather than a fact. And an opinion a little "old". I would even add that men break much more rackets, so they don't seem so emotionally in control as she said. And I don't think you really feel better after having broken a racket in front of millions of people (or your knee if you are Rublev 😂)
Would have been interesting to see some opposing viewpoints on some of the issues. Like Knudsen says one thing but then you might be like: “not everyone agrees, though. Here’s some tweets from these other players that suggests women SHOULD play best of 5”
Not that I think they should necessarily, but there must be some folks out there who do think that, and I’d love to see why.
Also, thank you for your consistent top-quality content!!
I miss the early 2000s when we had the Williams sisters (Venus, Serena), the Belgian duo (Justine, Kim), Davenport, Capriatti, Hingis (before they retired), Mauresmo, and the Russian army (Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Myskina, etc) competing for titles.
No.. unpredictability breeds competition and intrigue in the sport
@@syeedchowdhury2501 not sure what you're responding to, but it was quite competitive back then and there's definitely lots of intrigue and excitement. FAR MORE than today.
@@teej143 the sharapova grunting became followed by a whole generation. A disaster and annoying.
At that time it was fun to watch tennis. Now I can't even watch a whole video of highlights.
Best era
I completely disagree that having more variety of winners is good for the sport. It's good fun for the people who already follow tennis but you can't gain new fans with this. Today with all the social media sports have become much more individual centric. We need superstar players to increase a sport's popularity and bring in new fans.
My girlfriend played tennis on national level in her youth and is now a coach. She thinks an important reason is the menstrual cycle, that for many players has high impact on the the performance.
Very concise and well put together opinions, stats and facts. You always seem to be fair in the way you analyse and explain things which is wonderful to see given how poor a lot of content creation and media publications can be in Tennis these days. Nice work!
Parity is actually the best word to use - the quality of the average wta player is extremely high. Anyone can beat anyone on a given day except those rare players like a Swiatek or Sabalenka who have both the athleticism and the power to take racquets out of hands, and even they aren’t invincible.
You have to remember that even in the ‘golden era’ of the wta, that is between 1997-2008, there were those in the top 10-15 and then everyone else was a far cry level below. You had Hingis, Clijsters, Venus/Serena, henin, mauresmo, Pierce, Capriati, Davenport, ASV, Graf, Seles, Sharapova, Kuzenersova, Myskina, then Jankovic/Ivanovic back when they were still good
Below that you had Safina, Dementieva, Penetta, Schiavone, Dokic, Hantuchova, Petrova, all amazing players in their own right who won slams, or Indian wells or made slam SF or f’s
Every single one of those names - you see them, you think great player/Threat
But below that there was virtually no one of note below the top 20. The wta did have a ruling class, albeit a much larger ruling class than the men’s Big 4 plus Wawrinka/Delpo/Thiem, who dominated all events and made all the slam SFs and QFs and beyond. They absolutely dominated the early rounds at slams.
At present no one dominates the early rounds. The depth of the rest of the field has caught up
How much of Swiatek, Sabalenka, Rybakina & Gauff's reign at the top is a result of them consistently getting easy draws in the early rounds (often up to the SF or F) of every tournament they play? If they constantly have to face one another or heavy hitters like Ostapenko, Keys, Collins, Anisimova, Vekic, Pegula et. al. in the early rounds like everyone else they wouldn't be half as "consistent". Gauff's record against top 50 players this year has been abysmal, yet she remains in the Top 10 because she keeps getting cakewalk draws esp. in slams.
I feel it is 5-set matches vs 3-set matches. Even in ATP tour, we find low ranking players other than top 3 winning the tournaments. But in grand slam, 5-set matches shows the class and consistancy of the federers/nadal/djokovics of the world. 3-set matches you somehow loose the 1st set, all the pressure is on you as you are thrusted into do or die situation.
Since women do not play 5 sets in th majors, they are not real matches and do not deserve to be called Champion and do not deserve equal prize money.
Man, Rybakina's serve is monstrous. I'm shocked she doesn't dominate Australia and Wimbledon more.
John Isner's serve was monstrous, why he doesn't dominate Australia and Wimbledon?
@@whuang03 he's shocking at just about everything else, she isn't
@@whuang03 Rybakina is a much more versatile baseliner than Isner, and women are way worse returners than men. Serena's key to success was her monstruous serve. Rybakina with such a serve and solid baseline work should be more dominant on fast hc and grass than she is.
Health issues and a lack of variety are her biggest weaknesses.
@@madgavin7568 well almost all WTA are lack of variety, that’s why no one dominates.
Women's tennis is so unpredictable because of a ceiling in power. The reason someone like Serena dominated for so long was because she had unreal power for the time, but now the majority of the field is on about an equal footing in terms of physicality which is why you get so many upsets. That being said, lets not pretend that the unpredictability is because they are "all so good" because that's just not true.
Serena also benefited significantly from her toughest rivals (Henin, Hingis, Capriati and Dementieva) all retiring and her sister Venus aging out.
Keys and Sabalenka have raw power, Osaka too - these big hitters are not consistent enough - they played and handled Serena's power no problem especailly Keys
I mean sabalenka and keys couldn’t take a set off an aging and out of practice Serena who just came back on tour. Osaka imo is above keys and sabalenka in terms of pure tennis, so she def could handle Serena tho.
@@deusexmachina9776What are you talking about? Keys & Sabalenka never beat Serena. Sabalenka couldn't even beat 39 year old Serena at 2021 Australian Open. Serena beat her.
@@JordanjamesX i didnt say they beat Serena, i said they handled Serena's power, Sabalenka was not blown off court - she was self distructing as she always did back then
Fantastic video❤❤🎉 thank you for sharing with us the perspective of different professional tennis players from WTA tour🎉🎉 really insightful❤
Excellent analysis. I’m learning new things
I am enjoying your videos and hope u keep em coming!!!
The money is so huge out there that when players have success they almost instantly become millionaires. "All protoplasm is lazy" is a phrase I once heard and I think it is largely true. A lot of money just saps the willingness to sacrifice so much to be great - - your health, family, mental fitness, etc... and women I think experience these factors more than do men. So I think we are in for more of this parity until we get a cyborg type person who can dismiss all the distractions and play to be the greatest ever no matter what the sacrifice. I hope I am alive to watch this 'cyborg'. :)
Ufff ethically very difficult.....
Basically calling for more cases like del Potro.....
💯. A top 50 player can make a very good living, so it takes a person with a strong desire to be the best to continue to improve their game. I also feel like maybe women are less competitive than men.
@@thesovgc agree 100%
Love this channel but I don’t agree.
This year, Saba won 2 slams, Swiatek won her clay slam. Yes, Krejčíková winning Wimbledon is a surprise but she is now a multiple grand slam champion and has won many titles.
The WTA 1000s have also for the most part went to the top players.
Therefore, the WTA is not nearly as unpredictable as a few years ago.. the video makes it sound like we have been getting random champs at every slam.
The upsets are more common in WTA than ATP but that’s more due to how abnormally dominant and consistent the Big 3 were and now Alcaraz / Sinner
Height+Strength allows a level of optimal consistency on serve, especially for the top 20 male players. Also, even if the serve is returned, a male player can direct the second strike more effectively than a female player. Which is simple biology, emotions don't come into it.
Top 20 female players can't rely on these free points anywhere near as much, apart from very rare physical specimens like Serena at her peak. So lesser players on a purple streak can reel off shock number of games back to back just by going for their groundstrokes. Over a whole season, the top players are still going to be at the top, they just won't dominate to the same degree.
Lesser male players can't really do much with a purple streak since the top male players are barrelling through their service games with tons of easy points. You get the odd exception when a top player is going through a dodgy spell on serve.
Very well put together mate. That could have been a very tricky discussion but everyone participated well. Cheers
As always - great video, great storytelling, incredible takes and visions of the situations. You are calm, mindful and respectful even when discussing sensitive topics. Keep going :)❤
Thank you so much Rafael. I appreciate the kind words🙏🏼
Bro jinxed it now we’re bout to see a whole lot of upsets on the atp alcaraz loss today is prime example
Lmaooooo
Yep especially 2 and 3 seed already out is a bit embarrassing as they've probably been the top 2 favorites to win....
after the 3rd round USO so far out;
alcaraz (3 seed), Djokovic (2), hurkacz (7) first round loss; tsitsipas (11), rune (15), FAA (19, Olympia bronce) and other honorable mentions; shelton (13, Last years semi finalist here)
As a male watching women's tennis I want to see a dominate sensation with a rivalry. I do not want to see a random lineup where someone different is winning every year. From what I see the reason the women's tennis lacks a consistant winner is largely due to lack of discipline and grinding through the tough challenges. It's not the same as it was in era of Graff and Williams and before. I think we are missing the Eye of the Tiger.
Mhmm, lets see. Swiatek is only 23 and therefore still potential to grow...
Gauff is only 20 and should have a lot of untapped potential
And andreeva is only 17, but already #23 in the world + reached the sf in Roland Garros this year
Sabalenka (26), rybakina (25) are also still quite young. Yet this group of 4 is already for some time at the top.
Feels like the 25-35 group is just missing/absent....
But a lot of talent/potential for the coming 10+ years, right?
Also, I noticed you got a haircut, you handsome man
Parity in sports is becoming a major thing in all sports. Just look at the NBA champions over the last 10 years. As soon as Djokovic retires, the ATP will go through the same phase.
I disagree. NBA was designed that way with the Same 30 clubs. Tennis is different and Alcaraz will dominate the Tour after Nole retires
Alcaraz just got bounced in the 2nd round of the US Open by some low rank scrub. Parity is coming sooner than later it seems
The use of PEDs could also easily explain the rise in injuires on both the male and female tours
Thank you!!! Your content is always top tier!! ❤
Thank you so much🙏🏼
I appreciate you.
24:01 Not like this, it's not normal someone like a random Paolini to come from nowhere to win tournaments and make top 5
She has won one tournament: Dubai
Make the women’s grand slam games 5 sets and you will start seeing more consistency.
How is it possible that woman are not required to play 5 seta. That's a farce that commentators are afraid to discuss. How can they possibly be awarded equal prize money.
Another reason would be the obviously best of 3 format, the same as all other WTA tournaments, if no one’s dominating in regular tournaments then no one probably will in slams either
I actually DO like seeing the same 3 or 4 players winning the tournaments. When we had Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, & Murray at their height, it was the Golden Era of tennis. 🎾
That was really interesting, Gabriela and Christina made very good points.
Glad you enjoyed it! 😅
The women game is one dimensional they mostly play the same. The serve isn't as strong in women tennis. I don't like the random slam winners. Ash Barty retirement opened a huge void. It is sad to see the lack of consistency at top of women tennis.
They all play the same. Ball bashing side to side from the back of the court. No variety. Except for the very few exceptions.
because it works - due to the physical power disparity between the ladies - all the top ladies are physically stronger
men's tennis will look simular after djokovic quits
You don't think Alcaraz and Sinner will dominate for 5-10 years?
@@badmanskill1112they might but it’s not going to be as dominant as the Big 3 were.
@@badmanskill1112 no - not like the big 3
And that’s ok why should the new generation be compared to the big 3? Let them cultivate their own legacy. Winning 10 slams should not be overlooked because Roger won 20 like it’s still an accomplishment
yeah for sure, im having a tough time imagining sinner and alcaraz being as dominant as the big 3
Kerber won multiple slams in 2016
Tom Brady and Marcelo Bielsa have levied similar criticisms of their respective sports. Brady described it as a "lack of excellence" in the new generation of NFL quarterbacks. Both men partially attributed this in part to the changing rules of the game, but I think money is also a big factor. There's so much money in being "good" or "very good" that most players choose to stop there. There is one potential great in the WTA and maybe two in the ATP, but the ATP at least has a crop of solid elite players underneath the greats. Coco, Saba, and Elena are not reliable players for long term competitiveness. And then you have players who win once, suffer an injury/setback, and then never find a way to fight back to their previous level. Carlos has fought back from multiple injuries. Zverev fought back from a terrible injury. Serena fought back from multiple injuries and a terrible personal tragedy. The WTA version of Novak probably would have given up in 2010 and remained a journeywoman for 5-10 more years
This is all because Serena Williams has retired
I’m like 5/5 from us open to Olympics gauff to krej to Zheng
Unpredictability has increased since the rise of social media.
All the top ladies have flawed games outside of Iga. Also 3 sets instead of 5 is big. How many time have we seen Novak or Nadal lose the first two sets vs a lesser player and then came back to win.
Exactly. In fact, since they're only playing 3 set matches, they're not real matches and should not be taken seriously and do not deserve equal prize money.
@@rogergarland3746 maybe not equal but it’s still close especially in America women’s tennis is very popular maybe more than the men idk. With Serena Naomi (plays for Japan but is American) and Coco being more known then any American man back to Roddick or Sampras.
@@1504Blue The women you mentioned should be required to play 5 sets just as the men do. Since the y don't, those matches should be considered exhibitions and the women should not receive the same prize money. If the situation were reversed, would that be fair?
*It should be a Max of 5-Sets at Slams*
& if you win back2back sets you win the match, otherwise you play a 5th set decider At-Least if regular 5sets is too much.
No one will watch it that's why they don't do it. I think it's crazy they get paid the same as men for playing 3/5ths of what the men do and the time on court is usually way longer for men's matches even if they're both 3 sets.
i wouldnt call it parity... its more like inconsitency.
The reason there is parity no dominant woman like Serena. Iga Swiatek is only dominant on clay. She isn't a great number one poor results at AO, Wimbledon, and US Open. Lack of rivalries hurts WTA. The men tennis popular two young consistent male Stars Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner. WTA doesn't have that. The Wimbledon champion this year most people don't know who she is. Randoms winning slama BAD for WTA because the random fades back to obscurity. Look at Sofia Kenin, Bianca Andresscu. Where are they now? They are one slam wonders.
The un-PC reality- time of the month impacts ability to compete at the highest levels... nothing wrong with it, but pretending it doesn't factor at all won't change reality
I think thats pc. Many female athletes have spoken up about it and are trying to break the taboo around periods.
@@daqueenbobo I think it should be PC to have the conversation, as there's literally nothing wrong with it. But there's a reason it wasn't brought up on a video specifically looking at the randomness of female tennis performance at the highest levels. I'd put in the top 2-3 reasons as to why there's a differentiation between the men and women, but that's just my opinion.
Why would he torpedo his own channel by claiming that? If that is a significant factor, then the women themselves should be the one to admit it. Does Iga not have cycles? Did Serena not have cycles?
Also, do you see similar trends in other women's sports? Are there no dominant figures in track/swimming/etc?
@BoxOfOranges84 You're proving my point that even speculating that it would have an impact would "torpedo his channel".
Tennis is a day-in, day-out year-round sport. The sample size of match upsets is large enough comparing women vs men that it leads to reasonable speculation as to why there is such a massive difference.
The most obvious physical difference is apparently too taboo to even speculate on, even when that is the freaking topic at hand haha
@@yankeefederer1994 I agree that it's a dangerous topic, but that doesn't mean that you've proven that it's the correct explanation
Women go through monthly cycles, so even a sport with a longer off-season than tennis would still show signs. Have you looked at other individual sports and do you see the same variation in results between men and women? At the very least, he would need to look into that as well before making that claim
The question is why top women no longer have consistency. The Quarter Finalists of GS tournaments be the Top 10 players but with AO (2 in both 2023 and 2024) FO was better with(4 in 2023 and 6 in 2024), Wimbledon (5 in 2023 and 2 in 2024) and USO (4 last year). The story is repeated for the WTA 1000 tournaments.
The two sets win makes the top seeds way more upset prone. Look at the men side, Djokovic would have lost agasint Djere in best of three last year and he ended up winning the title..
Okay he says that too 😅
Stevie graf is the GOAT of women’s tennis. She achieved everything in tennis . Grand slam and gold medal in same year. And 3 out of 4 of the slams in 3 other years.
Steffi not Stevie
She never won an important doubles title.
@@jahy7373 nobody vauled doubles otherwise McEnroe would have been in a GOAT debate in men's tennis. BTW if we valued only singles then Graf is the GOAT, if we valued singles, doubles & mixed then Navratilova is the undisputed GOAT. Of course Court had 64 slams but she played in different era.
I don't mind seeing different winners.Who wants to see the same dominant winner or winners (2 or 3 people) win all the time. I got enough of that with the big three.
RIGHT ON !!!
I have to disagree. Women used to play 5 sets, and as a fan, I would love to see that at slams. In the olden days, men revised the women’s format from 3 sets to 5 despite the fact that the female champions of the day insisted that best-of-five endurance was part of the sport. The female player (not McHale, the other one) who contributed to this piece…is she familiar with the sport’s history?
The other one is a tennis nobody. The reason why we can't recall her name
You are completely correct and it is completely not fair that women do not play 5 sets in the majors. They are playing the same sets as the junior champs so their matches are a farce.
Smart move getting wta players to state anything about physical endurance compared to atp. 😂
Do you really not know why women are far more incosistent than men in sport? This isn't a tennis thing. Unless there's someone miles ahead of the pack, it's always a lottery. People like Swiatek or Serena are exceptions.
One reason is 3 set instead of 5 sets
for sure. I feel grass season always sees new faces as no one out of swiatek, sabalenka and Gauff are pure grass specialists.
can you make more videos please!!!!!
What is a WTA?
Because of periode
Variety is healthy. For the flip side, look at F1
It just depends on who's playing at the time. Navratilova dominated singles and doubles( and later even mixed winning in her mind 40s!!;) . Then more recently the Williams sisters.
When they retire, it's potluck.
The mens game is experiencing the beginning of this now, with the passing of the Big 3.
I'd like to know who she asked about the difference between 3- and 5-set playing and received the answer that players tend to give a set away if they get broken at 3-all. Sure, there more momentum swings and natural ups and downs but i think no player decides he can give the set away because "he's got 4 more anyway"
In my opinion she was saying a lot of nonsense. But hey, I could be wrong, she's the tennis player here.
Nah, I do think it's true. In 5 set context, many top players just relax when down a break and try to regroup for the next set, so there are many 4 and 5 setters per Slam. Medvedev or Zverev are like that, for instance. Djokovic has also been shown to do it (like in 2023's RG and USO, both of which he won btw). If you are efficient in your energy management and match momentun-reading skills, a 5 set context is a big advantage, that's the secret to the B3's success imo.
@@rodrigoodonsalcedocisneros9266 sure, i know there's no need to panic snd players can tske their time to get into a match. They also might use the first set to gather information about their opponent and try out a few things. But i don't think they throw away a set after being broken for 4-3
@@al1976-v7m It depends on context.
If your opponent is a strong and dangerous competitor, you might wanna break back (and if you can't and get broken a second time, then you really give away the set), but if you are confident on winning the next sets after using the present one as a gauge, then you can just let it go and focus on the next ones.
There are players that try never to lose a set like Nadal, Ferrer or De Miñaur, but most players are more strategically-minded on the big picture. Djokovic let go some sets to guys like Cerundolo on RG because he felt he could eventually come back, while he locked in since the first point against Alcaraz in the final because he wasn't gonna give Carlos the chance to take the lead. Like I said, knowing when and against who to use different playing approaches is key to the B3's succes (even Nadal does it in a slightly different way, he will always push, but he will clearly push harder the moment he senses blood in the water, like Alcaraz or Schwartzman, for example).
The womens field is so varied and talented with different personalities the mens game now is so limited in depth and some are just boring go womens tennis❤
it's just a dry spot without truly transcendent talent right now
Thanks for the video, appreciated the female approach. Totally prefer the winner being the best sportswise, than being the safest bet.
Glad you enjoyed it! I’m going to work on doing more of these videos.
Because there's no one that's significantly better than everyone else until one day there will be someone that's hit the genetic lottery and will be significantly better
Hey man, amazing video. Editing quality + interview quality is unmatched. Just one suggestion. For a lot of your clips you are including footage that doesn't match the script which is a bit distracting. For example, showing Ukrainian Svitolina while talking about Czech women's injuries, or showing Eva Lys while introducing your interviewee. Keep it up though, I love this :) Liked + notified.
Women in the comments realising Biology is a thing, so shocking indeed
Idk but it makes it more fun (dont bet on womens tennis tho)
Its not "overcoming the odds" its just inconsistency
Begu in her peak will beat Paolini 6 4 6 2 in one hour and 20 minutes
This is going to sound weird but their performance depends on how far they are from that time of the month. If they all have it on the same day, it will be more consistent.
This is a very fair point i never thought of when watching??! 😲 Fr if you have a match during the first couple days of your cycle youre cooked! Same for all physically demanding sports for women i suppose, it must be a burden
And now the same thing is happening to ATP tennis. It's a natural period of transition with newer players suddenly fighting for spots that have been left over after the last of the most recent legends leave the game.
One thing for sure that raducanu is a one slam wonder. The luckiest draw ever.
Let's not forget that Covid was a crazy time that made results more umpredictable also on the men's side. See Zverev vs. Thiem.
Hardly, she was a qualifier so she still had to win ten matches in a row!
Agree
She has never reached final too
People like you exist who call people one slam wonders while having 0, kind of a pathetic outlook.
This is what I think "Take advantage and make it happen"
You changed the thumbnail from Andrescu to Raducanu. Why.
Trying to get more clicks
69k subs nice 👍
Iga put 0 effort into preparing for Wimbledon, like Emma not playing warm up events. Always surprises me when players put no effort whilst others are grinding and then cry during press that they didnt do well.
professional tennis is a tour not like boxing - you expect every match to have boxing intensity ?
Iga had just won 3 big clay tournaments in a row and was mentally and physically exhausted. Plus she had one eye on the Olympics
@@0nFoot whilst that is valid for this year, for the past 4 years Iga has played only 1 tournament on grass pre Wimbledon, the year she didnt win FO she did the same whilst others played 2 grass tournaments. one year she won a played a 250 the week before W and pulled out with 'injury' when the draw release was around the corner
@@deusexmachina9776 Grass is basically a pain for most players. Very easy to pick up injuries and all for one tournament. There are no 1000s.
@@0nFoot ok and?
So much feminist cope in these comments 🤣
Barty retiring ended a possible monopoly
hmm Barty was 121 weeks no.1 and won 3x GS, Iga is 118 weeks at the top and already won 5x GS
@@milomilo3737Barty had 2-0 record against Iga. Barty has variety that Iga lacks.
@@JordanjamesX I would argue that you cannot make any conclusions after 2 games. Furthermore, what even variety mean? Iga can serve really fast, has incredible forehand and unbelievable flat backhand on the line, has the best return on the tour, and has the best court movement on the tour. Are you talking about archaic slice, outdated and risky volley game or panic dropshot style? Maybe she is not playing those because she simply doesn't need it in her game. Modern tennis is dominated by power and good angle game. Sabalenka's tennis is even more blunt than Iga's and i would say that she would have dominated Barty at this point in her career.
No one wants to watch eomen playing five sets? The level would be atrocious? Women are more emotional? She has alot of internalised misogny to work through. Maybe next time you should seek yhe view of an actual winner on the women's side.
Margaret court is undeniably the GOAT; most of her slams were outside of the open era, but 24 slam titles, a grand slam, a slew of doubles slam titles (mixed and normal) as a woman born in 1942, and still holds Open Era win % and singles titles records to this day noting that SHE CAME BACK ON 3 SEPARATE OCCASSIONS FROM HAVING A CHILD.
She has the 2nd worst argument in the top 5 Steffi, Serena, Martina all have a better arguments for being the goat. That being they actually played the baccomplishment. Consistently with just as impressive accomplishments.
15:27 - is pretty controversial but interesting to consider 😬😬😅
The biggest problem with the WTA players is consistency, they CANNOT win against lower-ranked players IF they're NOT close to their best level! Back in the day, you wouldn't see players like Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, Henin, the Williams sisters, or Sharapova lose to low-ranked players even if they weren't playing great cause they knew how to win on their B or C game!
The same goes for the top ATP players, they know how to win even if they're NOT playing great! Barty knew how to win on her B of C game, unfortunately she retired way too early!
Or maybe back then there is much more power disparity between a handful of top players than the rest. Now there are at least 10-20 players with power parity who can go toe-to-toe with one another on power.
Its definitely the Hormones/Periods rtc..
Betting on WTA is double the risk.
Even top seeded men also lose when they play 3 set games. In 5 set matches stronger players can comeback. Bt in shorter sets it's not possible much
The WTA now is all about baseline bots and ridiculous grunting
I always love your videos, but this one was a miss.. It seems this woman has some very antiquated ideas about women she's spreading around without any sort of backing in evidence whatsoever. "Women just take things harder, we're more emotional, it's how our brains are composed" what a ridiculous statement lol.
And the idea that women "can't physically handle" playing 5 sets is also ridiculous. Both men and women run marathons, there's no meaningful difference in endurance over long distances/times (ofc there is still a difference in speed, but whether women can sustain athletic activity over long periods of time is not in question).
Looking forward to your next video and hoping you'll stick to your own (excellent) analysis or invite some actual experts next time.
This!
17:25 bro- answer your texts
Wta players are not consistent, Paolini is at the same level with Begu at this moment
4:19 **kerber 2016** AO & USO
Sometimes, I feel some ladies are straight up fixing the games because some of the matches they lose is just outrageous
Потому что уровень упал ниже плинтуса, бабы играют отвратительно, такие персонажи как Крейчикова, Вондрушова, Кенин и т.д. к титулам большого шлема в нулевые и близко бы не подошли
Women can play 5 sets and should be required to do so. They are adult pros yet they are playing the same format as the juniors. How can that be. How can they get the same prize money as the men when the men sometimes play four and five hours. Many women's matches go ninety minutes, and the three sets allows no comebacks. This is what your segment should be about.
Barty and Osaka shouldn't be on the greats list.
third