The point is this - A ranking system that gives the­ same number of points to a Grand Slam as it does to­ much smaller tennis events where the best players­ don't play is a false economy. Grand Slams should­ get the bulk of the points. Grand Slams are where the­ best players fight it out. How can we have a system on­ the WTA where the No. 1 in the world has never won a­ Grand Slam and also not given a chance by the pundits­ against the No. 2 in the world. For anyone with a­ modicum of sense this is clearly a farce.

the article is written from a small minded english,­ wimbledon point of view, everybody knows simon reed is­ not a good reed, so to speak.

cameron w it's you that sounds the racist, either­ that or you cant read properly, gallus made a point, a­ good point, read it again, and maybe you will­ understand it.

WOW! Some people are so bitter. Tough life when one has­ to live with so much hate in one's heart. Reality­ becomes an incessant source of disgust and torture.
It­ really sucks to be some of you!

#239 - true, until someone comes along with more­ technique and is able to use the opponent's power­ against her. Then the pendulum swings the other way.­
Tennis has always been like this. Evert, Martina,­ Stefi Graf, Monica Seles, go back a few years and you­ will see how the pendulum swings.
Also, there is­ nothing inherently wrong with power.

joeblogs.............Its rather unfortunate that some­ for some reasons cant always see facts right in front­ of them. I cant pretend to know where your somewhat­ jaundiced reasoning seems to come from.
Perhaps you­ should read some seasoned tennis writers and reporters­ comments in various media regarding the Williams maybe­ that would help educate your mind.

There is no central point to the article.
But,­ considering its author, that is no surprise.
Simon Reed­ never actually affirms anything. His writing technique­ seems to entail; throwing up a killer headline to get­ us clicking onwards, a brief and banally simplistic­ explanation to back up this initial remark and then on­ to talk about other things that never merit the time it­ takes to read them. Yesterday it was Federer dancing in­ his hotel room. Today it is the demise of women's­ tennis.
Mr Reed is also a master of self­ contradiction. Whereas most high school essayists only­ manage to contradict themselves from one paragraph to­ the next, Reedy has honed down the skill and is able to­ make opposing affirmations in the same sentence.­
"The two semi-finals were not a surprise at all,­ with only the superb performance of Elena Dementieva­ giving us an exciting match."
Women's tennis­ is alive and kicking. One man dominated the men's­ game until last year - he is considered a genius. Two­ sisters dominate the women's game and it is boring?­
From a spectator's point of view, the only thing­ that turns me off women's tennis are the grunts.
I­ would like to see 5 setters in the Slams as we do in­ the men's game. These ladies are professional­ athletes and I am sure they would be up to it.

Gallas #238, look past your own nose!
You see­ 'everyone else' whilst in fact looking at­ yourself. Although I am sure the discrepancy only­ applies to the parts you perceive as disagreeable. Do­ not confuse the two.
What you see is connected more to­ yourself than to those around you.
I may not like its­ shape, but my nose sits firmly on my own face and I am­ not afraid to look in the mirror.
You are way off the­ mark.

Not very clear what the point of this article is. Is it­ that women's tennis is boring because the Williams­ sisters are winning (they haven't won much­ recently!) and the other ladies are way behind; or is­ it because they are not at the other tournaments; or is­ it because no player is consistent enough to win on all­ surfaces and play regularly?
I don't think­ Dimentieva (or Serena) would agree that there is a big­ gap between the Williamses and the rest, while Azaranka­ and Safina and Kuznetsova have either beaten the pair­ of them or given them a good run for their money in the­ past year at major and minor tournaments. What the Ws­ have done is negative for the game - made sheer power­ and size and grunty screaming necessary for­ 'success' and ruined it as a spectacle for most­ of us - especially when they play each other, and­ especially in the final, when weird face and body­ languages come to the fore and Dad makes a mockery of­ himself and so on and the result seems either fixed in­ advance or surreally arrived at by a kind of barrage of­ unforced errors at either end, with no pattern or­ structure to the rallies, the points, the games or the­ sets let alone the match!
It would indeed be nice to­ have a resurgence of someone like Hingis but with­ greater height and power to be able to withstand the­ worst one-dimensionality of the Ws but at the same time­ return some grace, variety and refinement to the game,­ as Fed has done for the men's side.

222/ tom h, no your mum is a big cow

Gallas
Why do you insist on mentioning skin colour,­ nobody else has?
Are you a racist; i believe you might­ well be.

What I admire the most in Serena, is her mental­ strength... Wow! There are too many of these ladies who­ lack resilience. And I won't watch some matches to­ see some seemingly pretty women: it's a sport not a­ beauty contest.

A woman tennis player with more muscles and power is­ more likely to win almost every time . These days ­ women's tennis has little to do with skill or­ ability . It is all about POWER !!

Its the same argument every year when the Williams­ sisters win games.Why don't we read insults on this­ board when players with white skin win?

When Federer­ wins everything here no one says men's tennis is­ boring.

Is there no limit to this European obsession­ about skin colour?

Soon players will only be allowed­ to participate at Wimbledon if they've got­ "good" looks.

Shame.

i wans serena to win

StrephonKW,
Oh what i would give for a return to those­ halcyon days of Martina Hingis; a joy to behold on the­ tennis court, absolute poetry in motion!

Drivel. YOu start by saying Serena and Venus are the­ dominant duo, then say "Safina has clearly had­ better results than everyone else this year to achieve­ that ranking."

Serena hasn't won a WTA Tour­ tournament in about 15 months, and she's played­ plenty of them. Venus hasn't won a Slam away from­ Wimbledon for some time and also is nothing resembling­ dominant on the tour. Strange, strange article.

I agree whole-heartedly with comment 212. Most of these­ commentators pick their favourites and, either, through­ articles or commentaries, try their possible bests to­ convert these, oftentimes, mediocre players into great­ players. Unfortunately for them, you can't fake­ achievements. At least not when everyone is­ watching!
Once upon a time, there was a tennis player,­ Anna kournikova. Never won a button in her entire­ professional life but you would never know that if you­ just read or listened to the way they wrote and talked­ about her. She got to endorse a lot of products but it­ was all based on what they wanted her to be than what­ she actually was, professionally speaking. I can see­ Maria Sharapova in that vein, too; her wins no­ withstanding. It gives the impression these pseudo­ commentators and writers desire to see her for reasons­ other than tennis, necessarily. Anyway, I­ digress.
Tennis and women's tennis, for that­ matter, is just fine. When the Williams go, there will­ be other players who will step up. Who would have­ thought women's tennis would survive the exit of­ the likes of Steffi, Arantxa Sanchez, Navratilova,­ etc?
Having said that, I thank my stars that I will one­ day tell my kids that I witnessed those two sisters­ bestride the narrow tennis world like two colossi and­ how the rest of the players walked under their huge­ legs to find themselves miserable graves. That's­ overstating it?..Well, it would be my story and I­ reserve the right to embellish a tad.

HELLO MR. DRIFTER SO YOU ARE AMONG THOSE LITTLE KIDS­ WHO CLAIM WEMBLEDON ARRANGED THE SISTERS TO MEET WELL­ THE ARRANGEMT IS DONE BY THE RANKING NUMBER ONE STARTS­ AT THE TOP NUMBER TWO STARTS FROM BELOW NUMBER THREE­ STARTS ALMOST FROM THE MIDDLE AND PLAYS UPWARD TO MEET­ THE NUMBER ONE AND THE NUMBER FOUR ALSO PLAYS DOWNWARD­ TO MEET THE NUMBER TWO, THAT IS HOW IT IS ARRANGED NO­ ONE ARRANGED THE WILLIAMS TO MEET IT IS DUE TO THE FACT­ THAT VENUS SUDDENLY JUMPED TO NUMBER THREE. LOOK AT THE­ MENS DRAW NADAL WAS SUPPOSE TO BE AT THE TOP AS THE­ NUMBER ONE WHILE FEDERER STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM AS THE­ NUMBER TWO, MURRAY STARTED AT A PLACE CLODER TO THE­ MIDDLE AND PLAYS TO MEET WITH NUMBER ONE WHILE NOVAK­ THE NUMBER FOUR ALSO PLAYS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE BUT­ PLAYS TO MEET NUMBER TWO WHO HAPPENS TO BE FEDERER, IF­ THERE IS A FIX IT WILL DEPEND ON WHICH PLAYERS THEY­ WHERE GIVEN TO MEET, IF NOT ALL TOP TEN PLAYERS ARE­ WELL PLACED IN EVERY DRAW. AND THEY FOLLOW THE SAME­ PARTERN WITH THE MEN, SO TAKE NOTE.