Is Women’s Tennis On the Verge of Another Golden Era?

The differing styles and personalities of stars like Coco Gauff and Ons Jabeur have the sport in a promising place—but there are some key ingredients missing.

Summer fades into fall. The U.S. Open sharpens its focus. We have a mailbag...

Seeing Muchová, Cîrstea, and Gauff (among MANY others) all showing both power and ludicrous finesse depending on the moment, I'm tempted to believe we're in another golden era in women's tennis. It is getting harder and harder to single out the best current players to never win a slam among worthy contenders, while the high scores of many players' tennis IQs and completeness of shot-making arsenals are a sight to behold. Arguably the women's game is more watchable than the men's and, for what it's worth, the retirement of ultra dominant, once-in-a-generation players such as Serena Williams has ushered in a worthy sequel of styles, personalities and depth on tour. Why are we seeing what prospective sponsors can't? The product is off the charts these days (and has been for several years running!).

Thanks for considering,
Andrew Miller
Silver Spring, Maryland

I think that’s awfully generous. But I’m in general agreement. The level of tennis and athleticism is at an extraordinary level. And—though I know some players from previous generations would push back—I’d say an unprecedented level. Beyond that, there’s real diversity in the women’s game. “Big Babe Tennis” does not apply to a tour with Ons Jabeur and Daria Kasatkina and Pegula and Iga and even Coco doing so much more than simply pummeling the ball. And there’s a real variety of personalities as well. Ostapenko is a very different character from Swiatek, who is very different from Coco, who is very different from Jabeur….

Most of us are in agreement that individual sports truly soar when there are rivalries. Contemporary women’s tennis could benefit from more of those. And would it be preferable to go to market with Naomi Osaka, a relevant Raducanu, Ash Barty, a healthy Andreescu, Muguruza, an exonerated Halep, etc.? Yes, it would. (Which is to say there’s a lot of talent on the shelf or out of the sport.)

But your overall your point is a good one. And one the WTA would do well to consider when they sit with the men in late September to discuss the terms and conditions of a merger.

Gauff is through to her second career major semifinal after defeating Jełena Ostapenko (6–0, 6–2) in Tuesday’s quarterfinal matchup :: Robert Deutsch/USA TODAY Sports

---

Hi, Jon - What have you been hearing about the improving accuracy of the automatic line-calling system? I seem to remember that even a few years ago there was admittedly a margin for error of a few millimeters. Is it evolving into a near-perfect system? I haven’t seen any calls overturned when players request a second look, and I wonder why players even ask for a replay.

On another note, wow, that Peyton Stearns sure hits a clean ball. Is she a “buy” on the Wertheim Futures Index?

Thanks
Clint Swett, Jackson, WY

In reverse order … yes, BUY on Peyton Stearns. (Aside: she may lack a clothing sponsor but is surely the only player endorsed by commercial realtor S.L. Green.) Stearns has made such a smooth transition to the pros after her dazzling college career at Texas. Apart from the clean ball and a sizzling forehand, she sure competes well. I saw her beat Ostapenko at Roland Garros and recall thinking, “She has zero doubts that she belongs here.”

And while it pains me to say it, can anyone argue that the electronic line-calling is not improving accuracy? The shedding of jobs is unfortunate. But if the ultimate aim is fairness, can’t we agree that machine beat the fallible human eye?

Dear Mr. Wertheim,

I always appreciate your commentary and interviews both on 60 Minutes and The Tennis Channel. So I am amazed that you have had nothing to say or report on the current insane blackout of tennis on ESPN in New York and elsewhere for people who have Spectrum/Charter Communications. It’s a major story that you all should be covering. I for one am so angry that I cannot access the matches as of last Friday.

Anita Saewitz/DocumentaryProducer

Thanks. I don’t have much to report here. It’s basically a standoff between a cable provider saying, “Enough is enough; people are cutting the cord at record rates and you want more money?” and a network saying, “Enough is enough, people are cutting the cord at record rates; and you’re not going to compensate fairly one of the few channels people actually watch?”

For tennis fans, it’s obviously regrettable that this is occurring during the U.S. Open. (And will distort the event’s ratings data). It’s not a good look for the sport when so many fans are boxed out. It’s not a good look when even tennis players have to resort to illegal streams. But the tennis is really incidental, collateral damage in a war.

Big picture it will be really interesting to see which side blinks. And what that says about leverage of the providers or the networks in this new media battlefield.

Jon, I have been following the news of the WTA and the question of whether or not to hold their Finals in Saudi Arabia. I agree with Martina that women’s tennis shouldn’t be in a country with that kind of a human rights record. But why can the men get the Saudi money and not the women? Shouldn’t they be questioned too? Why does this fall entirely on women athletes?

E.J., New York

I don’t disagree. This is adjacent to “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That is, a society that represses women should offend all athletes; not just female athletes. A society that criminalizes homosexuality should offend all athletes; not just gay athletes. A country that executes citizens for retweets should offend everyone.

Through the prism of tennis, yes, the ATP ought to be held to account here.

But I also think the WTA presents an extraordinary set of circumstances. Two years ago, the WTA set a precedent, leaving China on the grounds that its values were inconsistent with those of the Tour. Here’s the full statement. It’s hard to put this out and then turn around and go to a country that is subject of a human rights report that reads like this.

Tied to that, a current of social justice and equality and “bigger than sports” causism has always run through the WTA. Read, for instance, this press release from Hologic when it became a sponsor last year. Leaning into social impact like this is great and imbues your tour with a higher purpose. But it also means your fans (and commercial partners) will hold you to a different standard than Cristiano Ronaldo, Phil Mickelson or the ATP.

Finally, this isn’t simply “an” event the WTA is considering selling to the Saudis. It’s the flagship event, the greatest source of Tour revenues. If this were simply some 250 tournament in April, it would not likely arouse this level of debate and hand-wringing.

I've noticed that after the U.S. Open ends, Novak Djokovic will ascend to #1 for Men's Singles, Aryna Sabalenka to #1 for Women's Singles, Austin Krajicek to Men's Doubles #1 and Katerina Siniakova will relinquish her #1 status atop the Women's Doubles to another player. Meaning in 7 days, we will have 4 different #1 players ascending to the top of the mountain all on the same dated rankings. Has that ever happened before?

James D.

Boom. We’re looking into it, but it’s believed to be a first.

Hey Jon, 

In light of John Isner's last match at the U.S. Open (in a fifth set tiebreaker, of course), who do you think had the better tennis career, John or Nicolas Mahut? I get there's probably a bias toward the singles player but Mahut's stats: 5 Grand Slams (and the career slam) out of 8 finals, 2 Tour Finals, 7 Masters Titles.

Duane W.

It’s funny, I was having a similar chat the other day. It’s hard to argue that Isner didn’t ultimately have the better career. But here’s Mahut, age 41, still playing at a high level. (As I write this he is in the quarters for men’s doubles.) Tennis karma got this right. Two players engaged in this marathon match. The sport gained plenty from it—for a week this was a big story in sports. The principles only got blisters and exhaustion and no more prize money than anyone else. How awesome and just that both men went on to achieve so much more. Playing in the 70–68 match may well be a defining moment for both. But it’s “a” not “the.”

Caroline Wozniacki (left) and Jennifer Brady hadn’t competed at the U.S. Open since 2019 and 2020, respectively, before meeting in the third round on Friday :: Robert Deutsch/USA TODAY Sports

At the outset of the U.S. Open, I was hoping for two inspirational comeback stories on the women's side, Jennifer Brady and Caroline Wozniacki. What a shame that they have to meet in round 3 so that only one can progress.

Regards,
Joe in Branford CT

This question is at some level obsolete. Wozniacki won that match in three sets. But let’s pause and note the significance, yes, for the players, but also for peers suited similarly. Brady proved that if you’re committed and prepared to deal with the setbacks, you can come back from a multiyear injury. Wozniacki proved if you’re committed and prepared to deal with the setbacks, you can come back from a multiyear maternity leave. Kudos to both.

I was watching U.S. Open the other night and a non-American commentator asked American commentator Jimmy Arias what Americans do on Labor Day. Jimmy paused and muttered, well some people go to The Hamptons.

James, Portland

Sounds about right.

Remember all those years back, when some woman wrote and asked who she could focus her attention on now that Marat Safin had retired? One of your suggestions in response was Tomas Berdych, and I remember thinking, Oh jeez, he has no clue what women see in Marat Safin! Well the answer to that question, all these years later is ... Borna Gojo.

Anonymous in DC

Fair enough. No accounting for taste.

Enjoy the conclusion of the 2023 U.S. Open, everyone.