Disparity at the top: what's wrong with women's tennis?

If you were in any way surprised by the names of the semifinalists in the men's bracket of this year's Australian Open, you shouldn't have been. In the four major tennis tournaments played last year, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Andy Murray, currently the four top-ranked players in the world, each reached the penultimate match in at least three of them. Murray and Djokovic did it every time. That left room for a mere two spots to fill for the rest of the 1,941 players currently ranked on the ATP World Tour website, and neither advanced to the final. If you're curious, coming in at 1,941st is the legendary Alexei Filenkov, winner of one match in sixteen tournaments last year!

These three men have combined to win just under
91% of majors over the last eight years.

Of these four, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have combined to win 29 of the past 32 majors, and are guaranteed to add to that streak come Sunday. That is eight years (and change) of near-total annihilation of the rest of the field. Andy Murray, who has yet to be crowned a champion as the other three continue to snub his efforts, maintains a clear superiority over anyone outside of this elite foursome. The ATP Tour is undeniably experiencing a period of utter dominance.

Now, let's compare with the girls, shall we? In 2010, no less than thirteen women progressed to a Grand Slam semifinal. Li Na, Maria Sharapova and Caroline Wozniacki accomplished that feat twice out of the four possible majors. None made three. Likewise, majors over the last eight years have boasted thirteen female champions, including six in the last two years (and a seventh after Sunday's final). In other words, the women's tour is as wide-open as it gets.

These statistics are very telling. But what exactly do they, or should they, imply? Do they in themselves signify a fundamental difference between men and women, and how these disparities manifest themselves on the tennis court? A look into the annals of history tell us that this is not the case. Looking back through the decades, it becomes clear that the XX chromosome has laid claim to a comparable number of dominant stars to the men's side, and if anything, more. Margaret Court won 24 major tournaments, the most ever by either gender, eight greater than Federer. The long-time rivalry of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, both winners of 18 Grand Slams, arguably equals that of Federer and Nadal. Steffi Graf conquered 22 majors, as her eventual husband Andre Agassi battled the great Pete Sampras. Each facet of the sport has churned out its fair share of legends. Similarly, each has experienced periods when no truly dominant players have emerged, leaving each tournament without a legitimate favorite.

Serena Williams's eventual retirement
will leave the women's tour without a
historically successful player.

So, do these stats really have no significance for the future? Yes and no. Yes because it is true that this lapse in monopolized competition is a phase, just like in years' past. But also no, because this time, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. When the final vestige of relative consistency goes with the retirements of Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters (though even they were prone to early exits and winless droughts) within the next few years, the gap will only further widen. At this point, no one has yet emerged to pose a threat on a regular basis. The last few years have not suggested a changing of the guard; in fact, there really is no guard to be changed in the first place.  In order to retain popularity and relevance, the women's game must establish a predominant athlete, or exclusive group of athletes, who can consistently be counted on to persevere to the final rounds of major tournaments.  Television ratings have shown that finals involving high-profile players have sparked much higher interest among the public than, say, Franceska Schiavone or Samantha Stosur.  When Williams, one of the premier faces of the game for the past decade, finally calls it quits, someone must take over.

Two improvements can be made in women's tennis that can catalyze this.  First, the system for ranking the top players in the world must be reformed.  The world number one for over a year, before today's final, was Caroline Wozniacki, who has never held the trophy to a grand slam and has made a final just once in her career.  Compare this to Novak Djokovic, who won three of the four last year and will stake his claim to his next one tomorrow morning.  Wozniacki ascended to the "top" by faring well in lower tournaments last year.  But how can she be the best player on the tour if she consistently fails to shine on tennis' grandest stages?  It just doesn't compute.  Over the last eight years, the men's highest ranking has shifted just four times, compared to 25 times for women.  The ladies' game needs stability at the top.  The world rankings should depend more on success in grand slams than on lesser-known contests, because those players have proven to thrive in the environment that truly counts, or at least should truly count.

Secondly, ladies' grand slam match-ups should be decided by the best of five sets, not three.  This change would allow for fewer upsets in earlier rounds.  A superior player would have more opportunities to display her superiority, and dropping a set due to mistakes or a temporary lapse in focus would not be as difficult to overcome.  In other words, there would be a larger sample size, through which the better and more deserving player would emerge victorious at a greater rate than they are currently.  The old belief that girls' bodies are not capable of bearing the grueling nature of a more prolonged game is laughable, yet it remains widespread, and continues to hold the women's game back.
What the women's game needs, more than anything, is a rivalry.  The awe-inspiring Federer-Nadal clashes have sparked worldwide interest, because people know that they are witnessing history in the making, two of the greatest players of all time battling it out in their prime.  Such a rivalry has been absent on the other side of the spectrum for too long, and public interest has waned as a result.

If the game is not amended to ensure that the game's best players are more successful at major tournaments, and that their efforts there are rewarded with higher rankings, I fear for the future of the women's game in the eyes of a casual tennis fan.  It is exciting when a no-name makes it all the way to the 2nd week of a grand slam, but frustrating when they follow that performance with a first or second-round defeat in the following major.  The past tells us that at some point in the foreseeable future, a new force will emerge and take over the game for a decade or so and the cycle will continue.  Right now, however, the future appears murky, and I see no visible signs of history preparing to repeat itself.