[ViagraFeller]

Now that the USO semifinals are set and we have a good perspective on the year, I think it's time to bring up this question. Men's tennis has been in a golden age for several years now. Partly in comparison to the men's side, and partly on their own, women's tennis has been heavily criticized as mentally weak and unpredictable.

Counting the Olympics, only five players have played in the eight final spots this year. Four of them are now in the USO semifinals (Radwanska being the missing one).

Azarenka and Sharapova have been extremely consistent all year, almost tied in the race to year end #1. Serena has been her normal self, usually unbeatable with some baffling losses thrown in. Radwanska has shown increased power and grit this year, highlighted in her run to the Wimbledon final. Errani has been the surprise of the year, reaching her first slam quarterfinal at the Australian then immediately beating that at the French with a runner-up finish. Now that she's had a third surprise deep run out of four slams, maybe it's time to stop being surprised.

Are we entering a golden age? I think so. Azarenka and Sharapova seem prepared to contend for every slam, every time. Serena has at least a few more years as a frequent favorite. Kvitova, Kerber, and Wozniacki are completing the puzzle pieces to their impressive games. There's a promising crop of youngsters coming up, and it's now totally normal for a player older than 25 to have a career year. More players than ever walk into the biggest tournaments thinking they could go deep and wanting to fight for it. I think it makes for exciting tennis.

What do you think?

[zzbust]

I was just thinking the opposite the other day; and that keeping in mind that I'm an advocate of women´s tennis.

I was watching the serves and lack of variety and strategy. I mean, Plan A isn´t working, they have no Plan B; their plan B seems to be Plan A+.

Save for Serena and Azarenka/Sharapova the tour needs more thinkers/variety/etc.
Note that Even Serena and Sharapova generally lack much in the strategy department when things are going wrong.

[addyta.org]

Now that the USO semifinals are set and we have a good perspective on the year, I think it's time to bring up this question. Men's tennis has been in a golden age for several years now. Partly in comparison to the men's side, and partly on their own, women's tennis has been heavily criticized as mentally weak and unpredictable.

Counting the Olympics, only five players have played in the eight final spots this year. Four of them are now in the USO semifinals (Radwanska being the missing one).

Azarenka and Sharapova have been extremely consistent all year, almost tied in the race to year end #1. Serena has been her normal self, usually unbeatable with some baffling losses thrown in. Radwanska has shown increased power and grit this year, highlighted in her run to the Wimbledon final. Errani has been the surprise of the year, reaching her first slam quarterfinal at the Australian then immediately beating that at the French with a runner-up finish. Now that she's had a third surprise deep run out of four slams, maybe it's time to stop being surprised.

Are we entering a golden age? I think so. Azarenka and Sharapova seem prepared to contend for every slam, every time. Serena has at least a few more years as a frequent favorite. Kvitova, Kerber, and Wozniacki are completing the puzzle pieces to their impressive games. There's a promising crop of youngsters coming up, and it's now totally normal for a player older than 25 to have a career year. More players than ever walk into the biggest tournaments thinking they could go deep and wanting to fight for it. I think it makes for exciting tennis.

What do you think?

[kylsq0Ln]

The WTA has never been this weak as long as I've watched tennis. If a player like A. Radwanska is able to be #2 in the world, then what does that say about the Women's draw? Radwanska is nothing more then a "let's keep the ball in play" type of player.

Where are the great women's players that used to dominate the tour in the past?

[effenseshoora]

Now that the USO semifinals are set and we have a good perspective on the year, I think it's time to bring up this question. Men's tennis has been in a golden age for several years now. Partly in comparison to the men's side, and partly on their own, women's tennis has been heavily criticized as mentally weak and unpredictable.

Counting the Olympics, only five players have played in the eight final spots this year. Four of them are now in the USO semifinals (Radwanska being the missing one).

Azarenka and Sharapova have been extremely consistent all year, almost tied in the race to year end #1. Serena has been her normal self, usually unbeatable with some baffling losses thrown in. Radwanska has shown increased power and grit this year, highlighted in her run to the Wimbledon final. Errani has been the surprise of the year, reaching her first slam quarterfinal at the Australian then immediately beating that at the French with a runner-up finish. Now that she's had a third surprise deep run out of four slams, maybe it's time to stop being surprised.

Are we entering a golden age? I think so. Azarenka and Sharapova seem prepared to contend for every slam, every time. Serena has at least a few more years as a frequent favorite. Kvitova, Kerber, and Wozniacki are completing the puzzle pieces to their impressive games. There's a promising crop of youngsters coming up, and it's now totally normal for a player older than 25 to have a career year. More players than ever walk into the biggest tournaments thinking they could go deep and wanting to fight for it. I think it makes for exciting tennis.

What do you think?

Things might be stabilizing, maybe, but there aren't any great rivalries. I think that's one litmus test of a golden age. I'm not even sure we have any budding rivalries except maybe Azarenka and Sharapova (oh, brother) and Azarenka and A-Rad. It's a shame, because Azarenka, Sharapova and Serena are all great candidates for a rivalry. They have the right attitude and swagger. Serena, in particular, deserves an amazing rivalry, like Federer and Nadal have enjoyed. Every great career has a great rivalry. The closest Serena has had is Venus, and that doesn't really count because their relationship is different. Serena and Sharapova have the tension but not the competition. What was our last great rivalry - Henin-Clijsters, and Seles-Graf before that? Does Hingis and the Williams Sisters count?

[zzbust]

I think Serena and Henin had a good rivalry going for a while.

[noingenah]

Sorry Charlie (80's callback!) I need epic semis and finals. It's promising that some players are consistently getting deep at majors, but the blowout/collapses at the end are so frustrating. If Serena takes the USO in straights, that will be 8 non-competitive finals in a row (you might argue the '11 FO, I didn't watch it though). The only 3-setter was '12 Wimbledon and that's just because Serena fell apart in the middle. The reality is that Serena's only consistent rival is... Serena.

The last decade of men's tennis wasn't golden because the same guys won all the events, it was golden (for me at least) because I was cheering for two weeks for players I wasn't even a big fan of, just so I could see the epic battles at the end.

[ViagraFeller]

Four big tournaments means four winners and four runners up. Of those potentially eight players, there have only been five. My point is that there's been a lot of consistency at the top this year.

[ViagraFeller]

Sorry Charlie (80's callback!) I need epic semis and finals.

I'm not too bothered by that. Remember the first few Fed-Nadal French and Wimbledon finals? Besides, I think a number of semis have been pretty thrilling this year. The Sharapova-Kvitova semis were exciting if not the absolute highest of quality, and I think that's a great budding rivalry too.

[georgshult]

I have to go with those who feel that this is so VERY far from a golden era for women's tennis. Any-of-10-to-15-players-legitimately-feeling-like-they-can-win-a-Slam-when-Serena's-in-mess-mode does not constitute a golden era for me. No real leader(s) (except when Serena is able to play her best), the shrieking, the mental and/or physical breakdowns, the lack of variety in the game, and the lack of really compelling personalities for too many of the top players (I do love Petra's game when she's playing well and not in whoopsie-mode, but even I must acknowledge, she is one dull, dull girl), no real rivalries yet.....Perhaps it's all not really hopeless. And I've also in general always preferred the women's game. But, for me right now, this is a weak moment for women's tennis.

[jagxj12]

I think Serena and Henin had a good rivalry going for a while.

Yes, probably the greatest rivalry of Serena's career (not counting with Venus).

[jagxj12]

Azarenka has won only one slam, Sharapova has never won more than one in the year. That's pretty damn weak for anything approaching "golden era". There have been so many better periods for women's tennis... I'm particularly partial to the late 90-ties early 00's.

[dodsCooggipsehome]

Sorry Charlie. When you see a Angelica Kerber - Sara Errani match and you see moonballs again (and Kerber not taking them in mid air and blasting them for winners) and you see Sara Errani making semis and finals, and you see Ana Ivanovic (a 12th seed) being creamed by Serena at 3/4th of speed, I really wonder.
I can't even recall the last GS final that went three sets AND in which the third set was compelling.
I am missing Steffi and Monica, Chris VS Martina, Hingis VS a Young Venus.
It has been a long time since I saw any woman that comes to net and volleys forcefully.
It is an interesting age. But simply because, if Vika and Sharapova and Petra step it up, they could (big could) challenge Serena. Until then, it is a bronze age.

[Nurba]

Things might be stabilizing, maybe, but there aren't any great rivalries. I think that's one litmus test of a golden age. I'm not even sure we have any budding rivalries except maybe Azarenka and Sharapova (oh, brother) and Azarenka and A-Rad. It's a shame, because Azarenka, Sharapova and Serena are all great candidates for a rivalry. They have the right attitude and swagger. Serena, in particular, deserves an amazing rivalry, like Federer and Nadal have enjoyed. Every great career has a great rivalry. The closest Serena has had is Venus, and that doesn't really count because their relationship is different. Serena and Sharapova have the tension but not the competition. What was our last great rivalry - Henin-Clijsters, and Seles-Graf before that? Does Hingis and the Williams Sisters count?

I think Serena and Henin had a good rivalry going for a while.

Yes, probably the greatest rivalry of Serena's career (not counting with Venus).

I think there have been several interesting rivalries with the Williams sisters:
Serena/Venus vs. Martina Hingis
Williams sisters vs. Belgian "sisters" - For awhile, these four were contending for most of the majors.
And my personal favorite in the early 2000s: Serena vs. Jennifer Capriati - talk about contention!

TA

[tsamprasxx]

My personal favourite was Venus vs Davenport and Jennifer vs Serena!

I wouldn't call this a golden age either, but I find the women's game more interesting right now than the men's. I feel the men's has gotten boring, save for this USO.

[pXss8cyx]

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.

[Poreponko]

I don't really like this era of women's tennis. I get the sense that if Serena playing her best, she will barely lose games to any of the other top girls. When Justine was around, that was never the case. Their matches were always competitive on all surfaces. Their opposite personalities and games also made it for far more exciting shows.

[huedaanydrax]

As women , we have a tendency to be emotional. Professional sportswomen -not so much in the past. But now,there is the constant emotional outbursts, the loss of focus "walkabouts" in the middle of set, the headcases ( you know those) and an attitude of " we are confident but we just need to get rid of this lack of self confidence" when they see Her Serena Highness across the net. Get rid of all of that drama and you definitely got a Golden age, because these ladies know how to play.

[Riprincattiva]

I would say that this is not a Golden Age at this time - too early to say that. At least the women's game has levelled off this year with more consistency this year in the big tournaments and some better quality matches. In order for this to become a golden era you need to have at least a couple players who are all time greats (Serena and someone else) and several players who are great players pushing them. You also need a moment (match) that focuses the attention of the world (not just tennis people) at a grand slam event and then transcends the sport (Borg vs. McEnroe or Federer vs. Nadal) that puts the sport on a new level.

[ViagraFeller]

I feel like many of these opinions are carrying over from the last handful of years into THIS year, which I see as a big turning point. Here are my rebuttals to some of the points made in this thread.

*ANYONE can win!*
This year there have been five big tournaments (the slams and the Olympics). Since four players make the semifinals, a potential twenty different players could have reached that stage in 2012. On the ATP side, that number is eight, not coincidentally the top eight ranked players. So what's the number on the wacky, wonky, anything goes WTA!? NINETEEN!???? Ten. The number is ten. It's the top seven women, plus Errani, Clijsters, and Kirilenko. Not too shabby.

If you look at finals only, a potential ten different players could have reached a major final this year. On the ATP side that number will be 4-6 depending on the USO. On the WTA side the number will be five.

The fact is, the top players have been extremely consistent this year in reaching the last stages of the biggest tournaments.

*No Rivalries*
The three match ups between Sharapova, Azarenka, and Kvitova are all extremely promising. Sharapova-Kvitova and Sharapova-Azarenka have faced off five times in the last two years. Kvitova and Sharapova played three times last year. All of these were big matches.

Bartoli has had some pretty thrilling matches against all of those players. Radwanska-Azarenka is fun in a sassy, Hingis-Kournikova way.

Kerber has had a huge number of scalps this year. Of the other ten players in the top eleven, she's beaten seven of them this year, as well as Clijsters and Venus.

*It's embarrassing against Serena*
Check out some Wimbledon highlights again. Serena was at her absolute terrifying best. Both Kvitova and Azarenka showed off some guts and major skill in their matches against her. Both were inches away from getting to a third set with some momentum behind them. Radwanska showed increased power and grit in taking the second set in the final.

As Serena plays out her last handful of years where it's more difficult to be as fast or consistent, there are going to be some great matches between her and these players.

*No personalities*
Sure Kvitova and Stosur are entertaining as sticks, but Azarenka, Sharapova, Serena, Errani, and Ivanovic are always fired up. Bartoli is a cross between a mad scientist and a viking berserker. Petkovic lights up the court, Radwanska and Kerber give epic glares, and Zvonareva may start chewing on the furniture at any time.

*No variety*
Radwanska has her picture next to "variety" in the dictionary. Bartoli has her's by "unusual." Azarenka is powerful but excellent at the net. Kerber prefers defense but can bludgeon with the best. Stosur has her incredible kick serve, while Errani has her craft and fire. Goerges has her bizarre forehand, and Li's shots are flat as a board. I think in the variety category, the WTA is a clear leader.
...

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.