The Crossover Culture

Howdy, folks. A special thanks to Rosangel, for her comprehensive coverage of the BlackRock Masters. I have a feeling she is in the middle of a 36-hour sleep around now. I know how hard she worked to write posts and post those photo galleries that so many of you enjoyed. I think she did TennisWorld proud.

In one of my posts for ESPN last week, I reviewed the men's season. I did the same today, but on the WTA side. You can read my thoughts here. I thought there were five prominent story-lines in the women's game last year, yet I don't think that the public (or is it just the media?) fully appreciated them. In contrast to the men's tour, which could be described as a dull re-run of 2006, the women produced surprising results and a satisfying level of depth at the top.

The ATP lads were predictable, right down to David Nalbandian's late-season run (Nothing like making a big, bold statement when everyone who would benefit from hearing it, or is capable of challenging it, has left the room). The women's game has never been less predictable, nor has it featured as diverse and bankable a line-up of stars. Tick them off: Justine Henin, the Williams sisters, Maria Sharapova, Amelie Mauresmo, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Hingis (she was around for most of this year), the Serbian Vitches. . .The only women in that group who haven't won Grand Slam titles are Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic, and that's partly because they're still kids,

So how come I'm writing about why I'm not writing about the golden era of women's tennis?

Consider this: The era when two or three players (Steffi/Monica/Aranxta; Chris/Martina/Tracy) dominated a generation may be over. The days when a top player can reach the final losing an average of just three games per match are past. If the WTA tour still doesn't have the same degree of depth as the men's tour, it has consistently had more depth where it counts most - at the top. But even that old argument begs to be qualified - the women probably have as much "depth", if you define depth as parity of talent and skill, as the men. However, the women still have fewer upsets, which comes down to the issue of power. Women with a hot hand simply can't blow superior players off the court the way most male players can.

So why aren't people doing cartwheels and handstands, celebrating the maturation of the women's game? Why am I not extolling the glories and wonders of the WTA game? For there's no doubt in my mind that the Williamses and Henin, and to a lesser extent Sharapova and Mauresmo, could hold their own against any former icons of the game.

Maybe I'm just a sexist pig. the idea has been floated before. I don't know, I am what I am, and I trust my own brain and heart more than that of someone bent on telling me how or what to think.  Besides, I respect the tennis these women play - enormously. I've been accused of a lot, but  never of criticizing the level of tennis today's women produce, or denying them the respect they've earned as ball strikers.

What it comes down to, I think, is that the WTA has suffered enormously from trying - successfully -  to create a crossover culture. The WTA has been so hellbent on selling the game by every means but the game. It has reached deep into the bag to pull out or pander to all kinds of female stereotypes, but it has neglected to build sufficient loyalty among fans (as well as media) for the. . . game.

Take the case of Venus and Serena Williams. For some years now, they've been so eager to demonstrate that they're "more" than just tennis players, that people are quite content to see them that way, and assign less importance to the fact that they're. . . tennis players. In other words, it isn't really all that interesting to people that Serena beat Justine in Miami, but then Justine came back to school her in Paris. That's just. . . tennis. When this kind of thing happens in the men's game, it generates headlines. When it happens in the women's game, people ask, "Yeah, but what was Serena wearing?" When was the last time you read a story about women's tennis that was about. . . tennis.

The WTA will tell you that it has done a great of growing the game and reaching out to an ever-wider audience. But what's the point of having that broader audience if it cares far more about Sharapova's shoots for Vogue than her shootouts with Mauresmo? This must bring tears of rage to the eyes of certain gender warriors. Who could have anticipated that tennis, once thought to be at the forefront of advancing equality for women (a dodgy premise to begin with, but we can leave it for another time), could be used, instead, to advance certain stereotypes, and to create a culture revolving around the sun of celebrity?

In my ESPN post, I fleetingly compared the WTA to professional wrestling. This is a less frivolous analogy than it may seem. For just as in pro wrestling, the WTA seems to revel in having contrasting and conflicting personalities who play out over-the-top, simplistic roles.

There's Justine, the Sister of No Mercy, living her chastity vows of fidelity to the game.  There's Serena, the part-time champion and full-time celebrity who parachutes in to kick a little booty and rehabilitate her reputation - except when it backfires. There's Amelie, the courageous, openly gay oneophile and  sophisticate who, with her two Grand Slam titles, seems to feel she has nothing left to prove and doesn't particularly care about overcoming the psychic hurdles that would enable her to win her native, French Grand Slam. There's Maria, the steely, calculating blonde who always finds a way to win, although the idea of winning in this context has little to do with scores and tournament results. Why do we actually define these women in these terms? Is it me? Is it them?  Who the hail knows. . .

But the main similarity to wrestling is in the area of credibility. In professional wrestling, the main credibility issue is the integrity of the results. This is not true of the women's game; these players definitely fight their hearts out, giving and asking no quarter. The credibility issue for the WTA centers on the game in this specific way: Do these women really care enough for us to trust the results and rankings as a reliable indicator of an accurate, just hierarchy. That is, do these women all care enough to make us care about the game? This seems to me a problem unique to the women pros. Or am I the only one who struggles with this?

I don't know how women's tennis arrived at this point; I believe it began in the Anna Kournikova era, although I don't believe she was powerful or substantial enough of a figure to actually drive the trend. What I realized in thinking about the last year in tennis is that there was very little that was new in the men's game, yet we were riveted by it. The women's game had far more compelling and volatile  themes and developments, and we couldn't care less. There has to be a reason for that.

Maybe today's WTA game is everything Billie Jean had said it would be, and less.