[Vomephems]

Women's AO final? One sided.
RG women's final? One sided.
Wimby ladies final? Though it went three sets, the outcome was never in doubt.
Olympics women's final? One sided.

Outside of the Wimby final, the losing finalist at the other three events combined to win nine games.

The four men's final at these events all had either dramatic story lines or outcomes and were far superior in play.

[RuttyUttepe]

I don't get it, people criticize women for not having a plan B but criticize Aga for not having enough power. I think the women's game is fine. not as good as early 2000s but fine.

[effenseshoora]

Without compelling rivalries, women's tennis remains, well, not all that compelling.

These days, when Serena loses in Slams, it's because she beats herself. It's been a long time since she lost a big match because she was simply outplayed. Back when her biggest rival was Jennifer Capriati, that wasn't true. Now, her losses are baffling precisely because it's hard to wrap the mind around her ability to beat herself so thoroughly after all she's accomplished.

While Amelie Mauresmo was a headcase, no one, not even the diminutive one, had a game so complex and beautiful at the same time. I can't name a single player today who reminds me of her. She was able to beat Serena, Venus, Henin, Davenport, Hingis, and Capriati and Clijsters at the top of their games. When she finally got over herself, she was able to win two Slams.

I can't see Radwanska or Errani winning a Slam without a tremendous amount of luck.

I'm sure I'm going to have to duck for saying this, but in many ways Marion Bartoli is arguably the most compelling player in the game right now.

Bartoli is fantastic. I wish she reached the latter rounds of Slams more often and was a credible contender in Slams, though. I don't get to see her play very much because I can't watch many matches throughout the week, and she rarely gets a night session. Missed the Kvitova match.

To your point about Mauresmo, yes! One of my problems with today's crop is too many carbon copies. That perspective will vary from fan to fan. But most players haven't distinguished themselves in compelling ways, to me.

The opposite of the recency effect is happening here, too. The previous era or two had plenty of dull players. We remember only the epic matches. But Conchita Martinez? Natalie Thauziat? Natasha Zvereva? Other eras produced more stars and better big matches on average, but nobody remembers the bad matches because, well, they weren't memorable.

[effenseshoora]

Also, just imagine what we're going to be saying about the men's game in 5 years. Or sooner.

[zzquo0iR]

I started following tennis in the late 90s and barely followed the ATP at all unless Timmy was playing! We had Hingis, Davenport the Williams emerging, Seles and Aranxta still sniffing about, and my favourite Mary Pierce. The problem now is consistency. Those players just listed usually only played crappy if they were carrying injuries where any of today's top players are as likely to throw in inexplicable losses as they are to win a title. But even though I prefer the ATP nowadays, the women's tournaments are more unpredictable and the earlier rounds usually come up with more enjoyable matches

[Peabelilt]

So I say we're seeing the beginnings of a Golden Age, but that's hard to define. It means different things to different people. Here's what I propose:

A) This has been a very consistent, high quality year of tennis on the WTA.

B) The next four-ish years look extremely promising.

I am chaining myself to this tree until someone agrees with me.

I don't agree to the first point, seeing re: all the other posters in the thread commenting about the late stage beatdowns. But I'll agree to the second. I don't know if it'll become the new Golden Age, but it's certainly better than what it was like when Woz was on top. As long as the women's game can maintain this momentum and upward direction, we could be in for a Golden Age, but knowing women's tennis, we don't know when it's going to turn and eat a double bagel after being up 6-1 5-1 40-15.

[dodsCooggipsehome]

On the other hand, if this is not a Golden Era, when was it?
The 70's? BJK and M. Court fading away and Chrissie and Martina taking over? Evonne Goolagong was there, but was it golden?
The 80's? Still Martina and Chrissie, with Handlikova every so often?
The 90's? Steffi and Monica. Arantxa really set the clock back on terms of quality (not grit), and Sabatini never jelled, so was it then?
The 2000's? Ok, The WS came along, Martina II played some, Lindsay won all of THREE GS (one season for the likes of Martina I and Steffi).
So coming around, Charlie's assessment may be right. It may be golden. 14 Karat, but golden still.

BTW. Charlie: Great use of emoticons. I cracked at those.

[zzbust]

Just for Charlie:

This has been the year of the Big Three. No, I’m not talking about Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, and Rafael Nadal. No, for the first time in years, the ATP is seeing more parity than the oft-ridiculed, oft-maligned WTA. This year the WTA has been ruled by three women — Victoria Azarenka, Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams — who have made their mark on three different surfaces — hardcourts, clay, and grass, respectively — and each of whom find themselves in the semifinals in the last Slam of the year.

http://tennis.si.com/2012/09/06/us-o...ns-semifinals/

[ViagraFeller]

On the other hand, if this is not a Golden Era, when was it?
The 70's? BJK and M. Court fading away and Chrissie and Martina taking over? Evonne Goolagong was there, but was it golden?
The 80's? Still Martina and Chrissie, with Handlikova every so often?
The 90's? Steffi and Monica. Arantxa really set the clock back on terms of quality (not grit), and Sabatini never jelled, so was it then?
The 2000's? Ok, The WS came along, Martina II played some, Lindsay won all of THREE GS (one season for the likes of Martina I and Steffi).
So coming around, Charlie's assessment may be right. It may be golden. 14 Karat, but golden still.

BTW. Charlie: Great use of emoticons. I cracked at those.

Just for Charlie:

Women's AO final? One sided.
RG women's final? One sided.
Wimby ladies final? Though it went three sets, the outcome was never in doubt.
Olympics women's final? One sided.

Outside of the Wimby final, the losing finalist at the other three events combined to win nine games.

The four men's final at these events all had either dramatic story lines or outcomes and were far superior in play.

There were disappointing scorelines in three of the four big finals on the WTA, but I still think you're not being fair. Wimbledon doesn't count as a good final because the favorite won? Was anyone shocked Nadal won the French or Federer won (or Murray lost) Wimbledon? I thought Radwanska gave a stellar display.

Also, the men had dramatic story lines but the women didn't? The #1 ranking was in play at each of the three slams. Azarenka earned it at the AO, Sharapova at the French, and Radwanska was a set away at Wimbledon. The French has the amazing story of "The Cow On Ice" completing a career slam. I can't believe anyone would have predicted that before this year. Serena and Venus earned records for most Olympic medals in tennis this year. I think there have been great story lines at all the big events.

And again, despite some lousy finals, there have been some great semis. Both semis at the AO and French went three sets, which is fairly rare.
...

Speaking of consistency, Sharapova and Azarenka are currently in a third set. Sharapova is 12-0 in three setters this year, Azarenka is 11-0. Exciting stuff.

[trowUrillioth]

On the other hand, if this is not a Golden Era, when was it?
The 70's? BJK and M. Court fading away and Chrissie and Martina taking over? Evonne Goolagong was there, but was it golden?
The 80's? Still Martina and Chrissie, with Handlikova every so often?
The 90's? Steffi and Monica. Arantxa really set the clock back on terms of quality (not grit), and Sabatini never jelled, so was it then?
The 2000's? Ok, The WS came along, Martina II played some, Lindsay won all of THREE GS (one season for the likes of Martina I and Steffi).
So coming around, Charlie's assessment may be right. It may be golden. 14 Karat, but golden still.

BTW. Charlie: Great use of emoticons. I cracked at those.

The Belgians don't even get a mention for the 2000's??