I'm loving the ATP. The guys are really giving us great tennis. There are any number of guys that I would like to see play each other -- both in skill and looks! The WTA, on the other hand, is floundering at best. I struggle to watch their matches. For me, the US OPEN will be all about the men this year!

No question.
Just a few years ago, the WTA was more popular, bragging about having more depth and personalities. But now, a bunch of nobodies are in the Top 10 and no consistent winner. And really no intriguing personalities. Not to mention that all the women play the same two handed backhand, bang it out from the baseline game. It was interesting at first. But now, just boring.
The guys have all kinds of great rivalries that keep things interesting and a bit more variety in styles of play.
But, these things are very cyclical. If Fed and Nadal keep winning everything, everyone may start complaining if anyone else can win.

The women's game is a mess, but still more "colorful" to me than the men. Always drama going on with the girls. I wouldn't say the top 10 is full of a bunch of nobodies, but its very inconsistent. Dinara Safina has had a very productive couple of years, winning several titles, but no majors. Serena seems to only care about winning majors. Venus' only shining light is Wimbledon, and she lost that to lil sis this year. Jankovic had been playing poorly most of the year, but seems to be finding her form in time for the US Open. Dementieva is also finding her form in time for the open. The rest of the top 10 is crazy. Flavia Pennetta is now a top 10 player. Victoria Azarenka is one of the up and comers, but still too wet behind the ears. Svetlana Kuznetsova finally won her second major, but just got beat by a returning Kim Clijsters. I think that once Sharapova and Clijsters return to the top 10, things will be better. The men though are giving it right now. There is loads of talent with Federer and Nadal being the elite players, and Murray and Djokovic being a sliver under them. I know Murray has a better head to head record over Federer, but Murray has no majors. Djokovic hasn't been able to defend his big 2008 and stands with only 1 major. Roddick has been making good strides this year, but I just don't see him being a consistent factor with the main 4 no matter how much weight he's lost and how he's improved. Still not enough.

The men's product at the moment is certainly far more consistent...on any given day, any of the women can be a train wreck. That said, I thought the Dementieva/Sharapova match was more entertaining than Federer/Djokovic, despite the double faults.

The women's game is much more unpredictable at the moment. I think I can confidently name five or six of the men's quarterfinal spots whereas I'm not that confident of anybody on the women's side. But while all the top women are inconsistent, at leas they're all playing and reasonably healthy for the first time since 2002. The tennis is probably going to be spotty, but I'm guessing there will be some drama on that side.

lol...thanks Terp and JC for reminding me of one of the great things about the women. Drama, drama, drama. Who needs fake "reality" shows...just turn on one of the Eastern European women sashying the latest case of RHT down the catwalk. Or the queen of mean Serena, when it's the final rather than preliminary round. But when it's a preliminary....baby watch out. Or sister Venus, who still hasn't figured out how to harness her talent outside the frothing fortnight. And with Sharpy returning to bring the intensity...and Kim the athleticism married with toomuchnicenesstopunishheropponent........yeah, it does keep it interesting.

yeah, but i miss the drama of yore. What the women's game needs is another Irina Spirlea

The WTA lacks today what it used to own: the paradigm of the very top-ranked players who were far and away better than the rest. For a generation or two, you could pencil in names like Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Williams and Williams into the last rounds of just about every tournament there was. They offered up dominance that was complete. You had the occasional opportunists like Mandlikova, Sukova, Sabatini, Sanchez-Vicario, Mauresmo, Pierce, Capriati and Clijsters who would flare up like they would become heirs to the dominant trend, but they'd end up mysteriously fizzling more often than firing - flattering only to deceive. Once Venus & Serena fell from their dominance at around the end of 2003, it was left to Justine Henin to remind us what WTA dominance used to look like. And that's the last we've seen of it.

So today we have a host of opportunists - and not even as accomplished a group as the opportunists before them. Sharapova looked like the goods - and defintely had it mentally far more than any of her contemporaries. But her poor technique hitting her Reverse Forehand is leading to multiple shoulder issues. Safina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Azarenka, Chakvetadze, Bartoli, et.al, are all as inconsistent and mentally fragile as their dominant predecessors were, well, dominant. Today's WTA looks more like the plumb entry-level job for those top "tennis academy" graduates who are ecstatic to arrive on the tour and find out how much money they can make without having to work all that hard. It's understandable: many of these young women come from impoverished collectivist countries and their recruiters lure them into signing with sponsors and reps who shower more cash on them than they ever dreamed existed. One decent Balkan Ball Basher finds out in short order that hitting her way past a mediocre collection of other gals on her way to a Tier 2 title nets a cash prize that would feed her whole family for 2 years. Jankovic used to talk incessantly about her number of houses, her Gucci hand bags and all the other trappings of her newfound wealth. And she wasn't alone.

What's misisng from the WTA today is that one young player who understands that to be a dominant force at these events you need the Match Playing Intellect of those that dominated before; "The Inner Game of Tennis", as the book was named. Today, the WTA is just an extension of the Juniors with better pay, excepting anyone named Williams. Small wonder then that Davenport and Clijsters were able to return after years away and be so successful. That they could tells you all you need to know about how far removed the WTA is now compared to what it used to be. To paraphrase Mary Jo Fernandez on the state of the Women's game today: she wished that these Women's matches were being decided more often with Winners, not Errors. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a more accurate statement to characterize todays WTA from the WTA of yesteryear.

On the ATP side, I'm on the verge of being turned off and kind of bored by Federer's dominance again. And I think the men on tour get way too much credit while the women are labeled mental weaklings. Up against Federer and in recent years against Nadal, these guys can be also be relied to cave in at the first sign of pressure or true opportunity. They just do it in a masculine way.

Djokovic's game has not progressed. Until Murray learns how to avoid walkabouts in 3-of-5 matches, he's a wannabe. It's already taken him too long to cross that bridge. In Cinci, Federer signed autographs for so long after beating Ferrer that Murray's match was delayed. The pre-match TV interview with Murray was drowned out by people asking for Federer's autograph. To me, it seemed a bit 'in your face', and a few days later Murray didn't rise to the challenge.

My hope for at least a new champion is Del Potro. Soon please! His game isn't dynamic, but its force can be pretty amazing. Lord knows somebody needs to step up to mix things up. Aside from the above players, Nadal's generation is fizzling, and the slightly younger next crop is underwhelming thus far. Not even a hint of a five-years-from-now potential breakout star yet. (Not yet sold on Dimitrov.)

The women are in theory a lot less predictable, which should be exciting. But the quality of play in the WTA right now, oh brother. At least the ATP has some variety. There are way too few rallies in the WTA. No momentum in matches. Just big shot-error-winner. Big babe tennis has become big bore tennis.

Serena thrills in the majors but not elsewhere, and annoys more often than not when she opens her mouth. Again, the younger generation of players aren't learning and growing. Azarenka showed signs of breaking through, but seems physically limited and too emotionally volatile. There's no Hingis with power, just a lot of sub-Pierces out there. Players with one or two weapons but incomplete games. Tonight on Tennis Channel they showed a 1984 Evert-Navratilova final. The clash of styles was so refreshing, and there was actual THINKING and finesse going on out there on the court. Virginia Wade called the match. I believe a recent Wade quote at this year's Wimbledon was "There's an awful lot of mindless tennis being played these days."

There are thinking players today, like Aggie Radwanska. But she lacks the power needed to be a champion. I wish someone had both. Serena is the closest thing to it, I suppose. I could honestly see the WTA getting even worse when Venus and Serena retire. Who cares about money? Doesn't anyone on the tour have a mad passion for competition and for excellence in the sport? That's what Henin had, even if she took it too far...

VM, Two....nice posts. Over all the years of watching tennis, I have enjoyed the women more than the men. Not that I didn't enjoy watching the men, but I admired the quality and consistency of the best, beginning with Evert...through Serena and Justine. But the decline at the top is so noticable, it's hard to really enjoy. No one with the desire to be there...and win.....like Martina, Steffi, Monica....and, even though they had less success than the greatest they still were there fighting and offering real, intense, unapologetic competition...Aranxta, Lindsay, Martina H., Jennifer.

What is it about the academy players, if that's it, that they don't get hungry to win the title? Too much too early, so they don't find the motivation within? Is it cultural....so many of these talented players are from EEurope, but they so often seem to be afraid or negative. Djoko has such talent, but he has regressed in his play, imo, instead of getting better and hungrier. That's why I think Murray has more ups than Djoko, because Murray still seems to be progressing...seems hungry to win.

I have always refrained from comparing today's tennis from the tennis of the Evert/Navratilova era. Today's tennis is a lot more physical than it was back then. I mean have you seen some of those matches on The Tennis Channel classics??? I call it country club tennis. The girls are bashing the hell out of the ball nowadays, the serves are harder....the movement is faster. The toll it takes on the body is a lot more. While one talks about Henin being the last dominant player, even she retired young. She burned out!!!!

GH- I think the Cultural thing has a lot of weight to it. Navratilova had always said she never would have become the player she was if she hadn't moved to the US. America is still about The Individual; most of the rest of the world is about The Collective. It's extra mental baggage to shrug aside if you grew up under Collectivism to succeed in an individual sport like Tennis.

I think Two-Hander's quote of Wade sums up the WTA as well as anything about mindless tennis. The Academies of Bollitieri, Pilic, Sanchez, Macci, et.al, in order to stay relevant, need results of their graduates to be quick: whether it's a College Scholarship earned or NCAA Championship won; or a tournament flash that makes headlines. Academies need big names or big results ASAP. It makes people want to send their kids there. A Tennis Academy is a business, and any business needs new customers to survive. In effect, these academies become factories. Kids there get matches in at academies, but because of the group sizes they get little in the way of a tennis education. They learn how to hit hard, but they don't learn how to play smart. Most academies are having their clients play on a hard court, schooled at some length by a Ball Machine feeding them balls at a pace, depth and bounce that rarely changes. To say that simulates a match is, well, misguided.

Andre Agassi's ascent is the one that amped up Tennis Academies as such, moving Bollitieri's place into the stratosphere. Other academies, knowing Bollitieri's couldn't take everyone, sprang up to compete and cash in on the new hype of the perceived genius of dumping off your kids for a few years to a bunch of "coaches" who are mostly just good college players turned into supposed "gurus". But real "guru's are rare. If you look at Sampras, Graf, Federer, Nadal, Evert, Navratilova, Connors, Venus, Serena, Henin, Hingis, Capriati, Davenport - they all had at least one common denominator: all of them had their tennis education shaped by one prominent voice who knew enough that tennis was about more than hitting hard. These players were taught how to deal with how to "think" out on the court (I'd put Seles here too on second thought; even though she spent time at Bollitieri's she basically said her real education on how to play came from her father). You don't see a lot of the Tennis Academy Kids grow up into anything like these players. It's rare. And it's been to their great benefit that they were taught the essentials first, and more importantly, how to improvise for the things you can't account for during a match.

Terp....no doubt today's game is incomparably more physical. However, no matter in what era, someone's gotta win. Steffi was hungry at 16. Monica was unafraid, eager, and chomping at the bit when she was that age. Venus and Serena both wanted it....badly...when they were early in their careers. Even though she doesn't have that kind of talent, Maria S.'s strongest characteristic, imo, is her desire to win. So not even comparing to a bygone era in terms of how the game is played, but with the consistent opportunity to win titles..........where is the hunger for titles that helps them overcome fear and RHT?

That's more of the question...the deterioration that I see. And not back to Evert/Navratilova...but even just back to Williams/Williams/Henin (with Hingis, Capriati, Davenport as supporting cast). Where are the young women who say "careers are shorter now...peak is shorter now...but with the older players breaking down sooner openings come quicker....gotta get mine now....? Voicemale...good point about the training and focus being centered on winning versus on hitting the ball back mechanically while working for that big strike (not seeing how often that opens up the big strike-out).

Just wanted to make one correction. Venus's shining light wasn't just Wimbledon, she also had an incredible run at the Year End Championships. She beat five top ten players in a row, including EVERY single player in the Top Five other than Ivanovic (whom she had beaten three weeks prior). Quite frankly, I'm not sure if anyone has ever beaten four Top Five players in consecutive matches at the same tournament. In some ways it was more impressive than her Wimbledon win, because it was the first big hardcourt title she bagged in a while and she had never won this title before. Venus's play at this tournament is what made me think maybe she was back to her 2000-2002 dominating form. Alas, after this year's clay court season, the older, error-prone Venus, appears to be back.

True. About country club tennis, I'd argue that by 1984, Martina was not playing country club tennis by a long shot. In fact she was disliked by crowds for her power and attack. People applauded her double faults. It may seem l-i-t-e in comparison to today, but with the racquet technology of the time, she and Mandlikova were hitting very hard and fast, and Evert was having to hit the gym to even compete. Back then, Martina was an AMAZING volleyer. No woman on tour today, even the doubles specialists, is as good at the net. And when Martina served lefty aces out wide in that USO match, some of them still wouldn't have been returned today.

Also, Evert's country club game was the core model for some of the first power hitters: Seles, Capriati. Those players didn't have Chris's tactical brilliance but they had more strength and (unlike 99% of today's players) they had a decent share of Chris's consistency. Hingis did have Chris's tactical brilliance, but not the power. Venus and especially Serena took the game to a place that it now seems to be devolving from. None of the women of today can play big babe tennis as well.

Something has been lost in the women's game with the switch to mechanical factory-made power. Much as Richard Williams takes guff here, I think he is one of the reasons why Venus and Serena aren't your average power players. Likewise on a minor scale, Aga Radwanska's game has character, or Bartoli's game has character, because their parents have had a major role in the development of their game and, even more important, their outlook on its relation to life.

I'm not making a case for the tennis parent as savior, because they can be terrible more often than not. But a tennis parent tends to be better than a ball machine at producing an interesting player who competes. Look at Toni Nadal and all of his idiosyncrasies; in most ways, he seems much better than an academy. Federer is a true rarity when it comes to tennis intellect and talent. He seems to teach himself. I wish there were more of that going on in both tours right now. People (including tour players) love to worship Roger, but how many want to learn from him?

The game may be brasher and faster that it was. But that's much more a function of the equipment used today. You're right that it's more physical now, but the fact that it is so doesn't mean the players themselves today are better than King, Goolagong, Evert, or Navratilova.

Look at this from the other side: what kind of tennis do you think these women today would be capable of if they had to use wooden racquets with nothing but natural gut strings? You wouldn't see anything like the tennis you see today. It's ultimately the player. If Navartilova, Seles, Graf, Evert were in their prime playing today they would have adjusted to what was in use and been as competitive as they were then. Same thing for the men. If Federer, Nadal, et.al, had to play with wood racquets and gut strings you'd see nothing like the tennis they produce today - but they'd be winning, just with a different approach. Very little of the tennis of any era is about any given stroke or shot (case in point: probably no one has had as effective a First Serve as Karlovic - and how many Majors has that won him??). Ultimately tennis at it's root is a combination of two things: it's a lower body game physically (movement, foot speed & footwork); and it's a test of mental strength at the top of the game - which is what separates #1 from #5, let alone anyone lower ranked than that. Footwork and Mental Focus are the hallmarks of any champions past or present. You have to have them in order to get to the top and stay there no matter what the equipment, court conditions or any other such thing.

And a post-script on Henin. Whether she was burned out, I don't know or doubt. But asked recently, after watching all the comeback kids, whether she'd consider returning her answer wasn't about mental fatigue. "I'm broken", she said. "Every day I wake up and if it's not my knee, it's my shoulder". She got every ounce of everything she had out of her 5'5" body. In the end, that's what reached its limit.

Good points voicemale...and poor Justine. I loathed her for "the hand" but its when she retired that I had JUST started warming up to her. She seemed to find peace after reconciling with her family and I thought she was going to really go on to play the best tennis of her life and probably surpass Serena in the majors. But then she up and retires. Ashame that it took a toll on her body. As much as I had issues with Justine the person, her game was pure beauty. A mix of power and variety that is really missing from today's game.

Unsurprisingly, I'm in complete agreement with 2H. I love the game too much to actually stop keeping up with it entirely, but it's no coincidence I don't think I've posted here since the second week of Roland Garros. The 'decline' of Fed, as I'd already pointed out, was all bundled up in one player: once that player was out of the picture, it was business as usual and all the pretenders obediently stayed out of the way. It's not actually Fed's leaving records in his wake - that was always inevitable and laudable - but the way it finally occurred that left a bad taste in my mouth. After the bizarre but not unprecedented meltdown to Tsonga, I also thought he might go into Serena mode career-wise, given his flame-outs at most of the non-Slam events of late, but Cincy suggests he'll still be competing everywhere else as well; he's actually reversed just about every head-to-head losing streak he was on, minus the insignificant one against Simon. I'm kind of bored waiting for Murray and Djoko to arrive - after reaching their first Slam finals (and/or winning like Djoko) they've done a whole lot of nothing at the Slams this year in terms of showing up on the final Sunday, and without Fed doing the honours either. Going into their strongest Slam, it may well change but eh. (It's interesting that Delpo has lost to the eventual finalist the last two USOs running - he can wreak havoc on the draw this time out I think but will come up short at crunch time.) Meanwhile Rafa is probably on an accelerated typical career arc and will have to settle for snatching a Slam here or there for the next couple of years like an Agassi or Sampras past his prime, which is unfortunate but also has been predicted for some time as far as his longevity (or lack thereof) goes.

The WTA is something of a refuge but not much of one. I love an open field, but not the way we've got one--a stable of women whose form is so unpredictable as to be schizophrenic. Serena and Venus can be upset by just about anybody outside of Slams (sadly it still applies to Venus at 2 of the 4 - she gets credit for only Wimby but it's worth recalling she lost to the eventual champion at her last three USOs from QFs onward in '05, '07 and '08), Ivanovic is still out to pasture, Jankovic can only aspire to be less than pathetic which almost seemed to be happening until the Kleybanova hiccup (has any other player lost holding match points like she has? she's done it in four of her last five or six events alone, two Slams among them), and the Russians seem to take turns amongst themselves as to who will be good on any given week. TTC replayed the barn-burner of a Henin v Capriati semi from the USO 2003 and goodness did those two women COMPETE. There were no complete meltdowns, just legitimate shifts of momentum and hellacious tennis being played, although Capriati was found wanting in the end (but then she could always be counted upon to come out on the losing end of Slam semis in her last couple of years on the tour - that Henin match, Myskina at RG, Dementieva at USO, the list was considerable). I kind of miss seeing competence, consistency, and above all belief like that. The Serena v Dementieva semi at Wimbledon was thrilling, but stood out for more reasons than one; there haven't been very many top-tier matches being slugged out that way (Serena and Sveta also delivered in their RG QF). In fact we have to go back to Wimby '06 to find a three-set women's final.

Anyhow we'll see how it goes. Despite all my moaning and groaning, I found the summer hardcourt season to be pretty enjoyable regardless. I think I'll be in New Haven this Thursday or Friday to see it up close finally, in fact, not to mention the USO itself.

Uhhh..evidently once "broken"....Justine now appears to be "repaired". Check this out from a recent Belgian Newspaper item:

Belgian newspaper Vers L'Avenir reports that a comeback from Justine Henin may be in the works.

Her entourage confirms the former No. 1 has begun training ahead of exhibitions in Belgium and Dubai at the end of this year, and the paper adds that she is pondering a decision about whether to resume her career next season.

Fellow Belgian Kim Clijsters returned to the circuit earlier this summer after a two-year break, with preparations for an exhibition at Wimbledon eventually leading to her making a full-fledged comeback

Umm...okay if the WTA in the '80s was so wonderful, how on earth did Pam Shriver stay number 4 in the world for so long. Footwork and mental strength wins championships, you say? I'll certainly take Dementieva (current WTA #4) over Shriver on footwork, probably on mental strength, too. Sure, with modern racquet technology Shriver would have a huge serve and she was a good volleyer, but do you think her movement and groundstrokes would be adequate to keep her in the top 5 for so long in the modern game?

And as far as mental strength, Shriver lost 28 consecutive matches to Martina Navratilova, winning only 5 sets in 28 matches. Yes, Martina was great, but do you really think Dementieva couldn't do better than that? And Dementieva wouldn't even be #4 if the Belgians hadn't retired and Sharapova hadn't gotten injured. You think it was just being owned by a great player? She also lost 18 straight matches to Evert, not winning her first match until Evert was 33 and she was 25. She was 2-8 against Mandlikova as well. And yet, year after year, Shriver was a top 10, usually top 5 player. She even got into the hall of fame, courtesy of having the best doubles partner ever.
I look at that record and I have to think that the run of the mill players were just not very good. Personally, I'm not convinced Carling Bassett (the most accomplished player in Canadian history who reached as high as #8 in the world) was really any more accomplished than Alexandra Wozniak.

As we discussed before, there is more depth in the WTA now compared with 20/30 years ago. However, there has been a real difference at the top. Back in the day, from Court and King through Goolagong, Evert, Austin, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Hingis, Davenport, Williams V, Capriati, Williams S, Henin, the top players played like the top, at the majors and during the year. They either won, or the winner went through them to win.

Perhaps it really wouldn't seem any different if Henin hadn't retired so abruptly, Cljisters hadn't retired still so young, Venus and Serena hadn't lost their sister and had significant physical problems themselves. They might have maintained the top rankings.....and carried on the tradition of the top 4-5 women (sometimes only top 1-2) really being the ones with the chances to win the majors. It is what it is, of course. But a lot different from the past, both distant and recent.

Uh..Shriver won 21 WTA Singles Titles in her career as compared to Dementieva's 14, so she's already a more accomplished as a comparative #4 than the Russian. And if you're talking about Dementieva back then playing Martina at her best, what on earth makes you think she would do any better? The point any of us made in this comparison to begin with was that the best of those in the 80's were a more accomplished group that those playing now. Not whether the also-rans were better than yesteryears also-rans. Who cares about Shriver vs. Dementieva anyway? And taken at your comparison, if Dementieva is better than Shriver, Dementieva is just as empty handed in terms of majors Singles Titles. So what your point is seems to be a mystery. The point was comparing the best to the best. You wanna believe today's group of followers is better - fine. Knock yourself out.

Aside from the fact that there's still time for Dementieva to catch up, take a look at Shriver's 21 singles and who she beat to get them. Only one was over a grand slam champion--and said grand slam champion was 33 and well past her prime. Not all tournaments are created equal. Dementieva has scored final victories over Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Serena Williams, Svetlana Kuznetsova and Maria Sharapova. Yes, it makes it easier when the slam titles are spread around a bit, but there were other women around than Chris & Martina she could have been playing--but if she met Hana or Tracy Austin in a final, I guess she lost to them too.

As to why I think she would do better? I've seen Shriver play. She was slow, as slow as Davenport, and unlike Davenport, she had issues with her forehand that I don't think racquet technology would fix. Dementieva's been in two grand slam finals to Shriver's one--and Shriver made her one appearance at 16 when there were no expectations on her. She also won an Olympic gold medal, beating Serena along the way. Once she was established as a top player, she lost all eight grand slam semifinal appearances. She was not a big match player. Even against Hana Mandlikova--who with her mad skills and maddening inconsistency would fit right in with the top group today--she managed just two wins in ten tries, neither in majors, of course. Dementieva's record against Serena is better. I don't believe Hana was better than Serena and she wasn't any more consistent, either.

And how strong the followers are matters. It's easier to be consistent when the players in the early rounds are so far beneath you they don't pose a threat, even if you have an off day. And as far as the game today being like the juniors you've got it totally backwards--the difference in level of level of play between the WTA and the juniors is greater than ever before. Today the top juniors struggle to make the top 50, it takes them years to an adapt to the competition. Back then, any 14-15 year old who was going to be a major factor was competitive with the top 10 right away (Austin, Sabatini, Graf, Seles, Capriati--hell, even Pam Shriver). I can't think of anyone under the age of 16 since Hingis who has had an impact that early. Despite the far greater number of countries where tennis is played seriously, and the greater money in the game that inspires parents to push their kids harder, youth tennis has apparently deteriorated so much that prospects superior to the Williams sisters (who, like most of today's top players didn't start to win against serious competition until they were 16-17) were apparently produced every year or two. Really? Isn't it more probable that the level of competition has increased to the level that just being natively talented isn't enough to get to the top 10?

Sure--right now, we probably do not have any players as good as Martina (though I bet 2002-2003 Serena and possibly 2007 Justine) would give her a run for her money, and only in the majors do we have one as good as Chris. But it's a peculiar time--the unexpected retirements of the Belgians and the injury to Maria, deprived us of three of our top 5 players. It's kind of like the early 90's post-stabbing, except that Serena isn't up to being Graf. Or sort of similar to end of the century on the ATP tour:

The Williams Sisters = Agassi and Sampras (last holdouts from a great generation, still capable of winning majors but not very consistent)
Sharapova = Gustavo Kuerten (talented young player, struggling with injuries)
Safina = Marcelo Rios (can win everywhere but the majors)
Kuznetsova = Kafelnikov (won two majors despite frequent bouts of scratchy play)
Our crop of disasters (Ivanovic, Vaidisova, and the other flameouts) recall the failures of the young Magnus Norman, Nicholas Kiefer, Tomas Enqvist etc. to cement themselves at the top)
Sharapova = Gustavo Kuerten (most successful of the generation, but crushed by injury)
Safina = Marcelo Rios (wins everywhere but the majors and reaches #1)
Mauresmo = Patrick Rafter (relatively late in his career captured two grand slams then started to fade)

And like that period on the men's tour, the top players would often get upset, partly because they were inconsistent, partly because there were a lot of pretty good players floating around.

Yes, we may have some lousy matches on the WTA side, maybe we'll get another godawful final like the French. But I'll take that over 126 predictable lousy matches all the way through the semifinals. A great final doesn't make up for that, IMHO.