Sex appeal outselling skill

Published on Saturday 27 June 2009 19:40

PAT CASH has claimed, more than once, that their sexiness is all they have to offer the world of tennis. Richard Krajicek infamously said they failed to contribute even that much. The merits of women's tennis continues to make headlines, but it's still not always for purely sporting reasons.

Seventeen years have passed since the Dutchman courted controversy by claiming that "80 per cent of the top 100 women are fat pigs" and although he later amended that, tongue in cheek, to 75 per cent, the message was clear. In his opinion, the women were not as fit as they should have been as elite sportspeople and they weren't hot enough for that fact to be overlooked.

It's something they have tried to rectify. The success of their venture is open for debate.

Prior to this year's Championships former men's winner Michael Stich was asked about the grunting and screeching that peppers the rallies in the women's matches and he said that it distracted from their sex appeal. "That's what they sell. They want to look good, they pay attention to their looks and everything but that sounds disgusting, ugly, very unsexy."

It's unlikely the same would be said of their male counterparts, some of whom groan and moan as they power through a forehand. But then again the men have not tried to parade their looks as part of the, well, attraction. The ladies, under the auspices of the Women's Tennis Association, have.

"I actually feel that one of the great strengths of the tour, is the personalities off the court twinned with these great athletes on the court," said Larry Scott, the out-going chief executive of the WTA Tour defending the emphasis placed on the better-looking ladies on the circuit. "And in terms of trying to draw that out and trying to amplify that, that's really the purpose of the 'Looking For A Hero' campaign that we created last year. That was meant to draw out that duality, that these are amazing athletes on the court and amazing, feminine and glamorous women off the court. Our players are very comfortable with that positioning, and I think they are great role models for women showing that, you know, you can be gritty and determined on the court and go out to win, and still be a feminine celebrity off the court and enjoy events and parties like we had last week with Richard Branson (at the pre-Wimbledon function]."

But what about the tennis? It is presented almost as an afterthought. Whether down to the women's self-promotion strategy or as a result of market demand the stunners receive better coverage than the winners (and only a small group combine both). Coming into Wimbledon the world No.56 was the subject of more features than the world No.1. Surprising maybe, but only until names (and photos) are put alongside the numbers. One was Maria Sharapova, one of the main pin-ups of the tour, with a name, body and looks almost as universally known and drooled over as Anna Kournikova, the other was Dinara Safina – a woman who has failed to mesmerise male fans in the same way her brother Marat Safin has appealed to female followers. In this case, at least the beauty has also been the best, enjoying victories in two grand slams, while Safina has still to translate her consistency in tour events into titles at the majors. Interestingly, the focus quickly switched to Gisela Dulko, the woman who vanquished Sharapova, but only because the newspapers managed to get some photos of her in a sexy pose.

But there have always been lookers on the women's tour. From Chris Evert to Gabriella Sabatini, Steffi Graf, Martina Hingis through to Sharapova, they have been seen as sex symbols and, happily, their figures added up on the court as well as off. None have gained the notoriety of the most famous poster girl – Kournikova – though. And only one set of her vital statistics added up.

She may have had the model looks but her highest ranking was No.8 and she only ever won two titles, neither of which was on the main WTA Tour and certainly not at any of the four majors. But while she remained in tournaments, she ensured the women's matches were not overlooked. She wasn't going to win a grand slam but her provocative pose in a sports bra advert catapulted the women's game into another stratosphere when it came to securing publicity. It is a tactic her successors have been happy to adhere to (well, those blessed with the necessary assets). Elena Baltacha admits that tennis players are no different to other women – they like to look good. But it shouldn't trump talent.

"Sex sells," was Serena Williams' assessment of the situation. A player who has the prerequisite talent, she is also prone to eye-catching and figure-hugging outfits on court as well as off. So is it now part and parcel of the women's game? "Sex sells. I don't know. I just know that. That's what everyone says, so..."

But shouldn't they instead concentrate on improving the standard of performance to put bums on seats? "It's across the board," she responded matter of factly.

But fancy window dressing does not hide all the faults within the ladies' game and the women's tour continues to struggle for credibility.

It is now two years since equal prize money was introduced at Wimbledon. Resisted for years due to the fact the men put in more effort for their rewards – namely playing five-set matches rather than the ladies' three – the caving in to accusations of sexism coincided with the retirement, semi-retirement, injury or dip in form of many of the top stars.

Missing are the big performers such as Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, while Sharapova has spent a long spell out injured and hasn't yet recaptured her best form and Amelie Mauresmo's performance levels have waned, which all combines to allow the Williams sisters to sit out chunks of the season, waltz back in for the majors and still dominate the slams. Far from a healthy situation. But does it matter when there are a clutch of photogenic, almost generic, Europeans sprinkled through the draw?

While the men's game may have big stars, it also has some strength in depth. The women's game remains predictable and pedestrian until the latter stages, when the favourites may still win but are less likely to do so 6-1, 6-2.

Then there remains the complaint that the women's tour is simply not as mainstream as the men's (evidenced by the smaller crowds, sponsorship funding and prize money at women's tour events) and that the three-set format offers less scope for memorable dramas to unfold.

If last year's men's final had been played over three sets, Rafael Nadal would still have been champion but it would all have been over in two sets –6-4, 6-4 – depriving the world of the captivatingly close and competitive three sets which followed and which rocketed it into the realms of a classic.

But Lleyton Hewitt insists the women on the circuit could not cope with five sets and his countryman and another former men's winner, Pat Cash, said: "It would not do much for the image of the sport. There are not many opening-round matches in the women's draw of grand slam tournaments that I would cross the road to watch. Predictability has always put me off and things aren't too different from ten or 15 years ago."

Scott says the women could cope and would change if required but claimed it would cause too many scheduling issues for tournament organisers and television. A cop out or a handy excuse? While the women may be keen on promoting their beauty, the questions and criticisms are going to keep rearing their ugly heads.