Squilookle said:
The difference in physical attributes isn't sexist, it's just there. Watch an average Tennis match for men's and then women and you'll generally see a difference over time in shot speed, movement around the court, etc etc.
Women do have their own teams and leagues etc, the reason you don't see them though, may very well be sexist. Women's sports aren't given as much priority airtime as men's, because it's believed that few people will watch it. This does indeed seem to be the case, however whether that's because their threory is true, or it's a self fulfilling prophecy because of the airtimes allowed on TV, is another matter.
Play styles are routiely different, however. I mean the primary indicator of serve speed is height as it gives the greatest clearance over the net, while allowing the greatest depth at velocity. But someone like Michael Chang was fun to watch as a kid because of play style alone. Pete Samphras was interesting to analyze as he probably represented best an idea of the strategy of the game and its endurance and play economy.
Technology alone is ending the serve and volley mainstay in men's tennis as both serve speed, and return, does not permit it most of the time.
Which is why women's tennis is often more interesting to watch in the technicalities of the sport and what 'made it fun'. Tennis will always be an interesting sport, either men's or women's, given it's the only sport I know where you can lose more games and still win the match through thoughtful, strategic play.
And a lot of that is disappearing in the men's side of things that will likely be personified best in women's tennis. Particularly if they ever extend grand slam sets for them. The one thing I really don't like about the game now is the whiny-ness. Tennis is supposed to be an endurance sport, but with the combination of better racquet design as well as focus on power and depth of play, and how they're tailoring even grand slam matches to be shorter and less difficult to close, threatens to turn it merely into a 'jock's game' ...
And tennis shouldn't be treated like that. I'd be fine with limiting racquet design or creating a 'regulation racquet type' if it means bringing back technicality, endurance play and
actual finesse rather than the age of the double-handed backhand and simply practicing ground strokes and serves all fucking day long.
Modern tennis racquets just
give players topspin now. Doesn't matter their skill level. You used to practice hard as a kid getting that 3000+ rpm on the old 10'' composites as a basic ground stroke ... now you throw some bleeding edge racquet design in their face and they get given it largely for free. Modern 11'' tennis racquets basically give noobs the means to check general topspin on basic groundstrokes to maintain control of the ball with reduced loss of power applied to swing while still keeping it in play.
Technology alone is making strokes thoughtless. It will get to the ridiculous point where racquet design alone will require a ball change every 7 games rather than the 7-9-9 model, simply because every shot will shear them to fucking hell when they bounce off cement.
Tennis is supposed to be the 'holistic sport' ... high fitness, maintaining bursts of controlled power, finesse and ultra-precise muscle memory and control, quick reflexes, and honing the mind to interpret all aspects of the opponent and to maintain your concentration and endurance for hours on end. But the whinyness and technology is supplanting natural capability.
