Well I have to agree with you the three women you picked for break out stars I have nothing against at all.
Stephens gives the impression of having a terrible attitude. Not that it takes away from her on court performance, but it's the kind of thing that really alters how you're treated by the media and general public (and by extension, sponsors)
Going off on a small tangent here but I think the most important thing for someone who wants to elevate their game is a sound head. I was a huge Raonic fan for example and I feel for all the hype surrounding Raonic however I've recently come to terms that he just isn't great mentally. He hired lbujicic as his new head coach changed all his gear, and tried modifying his strokes and ultimately he gets a second round defeat in a tournament that he should do well in. His response was "I'm pathetic" you're absolutely right in saying in tennis a star is made off the court as well as on the court.
Oh, absolutely. Once you're approaching the top level of the game, the difference between ok, good and great is almost entirely mental. There's no better proof of that than Sara Errani. She doesn't have a serve (well, she does. It's just got a lot of accuracy and no power), she doesn't have any ways to reliably end a point. But what she does have is a willingness to chase down every ball that she can get to and fight for every point no matter the scoreline. With that mindset she's gotten as high as number 5 in the world.
Just to go back to Robson for a moment, she provided a stellar example of why mental strength is so important. She lost the first set 1-6. She went a break down in the second. However, she didn't give up and remained in the game until she broke twise, taking the set 7-5. She broke twise in the third set and although she got broken once, she still comfortably served it out. Her opponent choked and Robson capitalised. In her presser after the match Robson admitted that she knew that her only option was to keep playing her game and put the pressure on until her opponent folded. She played badly (or at least, well below her best) but succeeded because she was mentally stronger than her opponent.
If you look at someone like Federer he's been on top for so long and I can honesty say the worst PR Ive ever heard about him is the fact that he may be too "traditional." He's a star also for his tennis but having nothin negative said about you in his long career is also something quite interesting.
Well there are also slightly more rabid fans (mostly of Nadal) who call him worse things, but nobody really listens to them. They're the smarks of the tennis world.
To your other point about the ATP and how hard it is to breakthrough, I think part of this is because the newer players just can't play as much as some of the established starts. Sure there are plenty of challenger level events but when you're askin someone who makes about 60,000 a year (being generous) to go to tournament to tournament Paris to India to New York it's not feasible.
It's not playing that's the problem. It's how much you need to pay in order to just break even. Someone on another forum I browse worked out that in order to break even at the bottom rung of the ATP - the 10K future events - requires $1,100 a month (and that's cutting every possible cost that you can, living in a van and driving it between tournaments). Playing 4 of such tournaments a month (that might not always be possible) you'd need to consistently reach the quarter finals of each in order to break even. And even then I think he's underestimating how much it'll cost and how hard it'll be. Breaking through is doable, of course it is. It just takes a lot of time, debt and a supportive family. Oh, and talent. But no amount of talent in the world can help you if you can't afford to stay in the game.
To breakthrough I think it's necessary to get yourself somehow enough sponsors and team to play the tournaments and then up your ranking. I think it's ironic that the countries that publicly support their tennis players (France, Spain, Serbia) I shall not even consider adding U.S.A to that list have the most consistent players in the Top 100.
There are over 2,000 men who play tennis professionally, and just over 1,000 women. Unless there are exceptional circumstances at play (like an especially good juniors career) you're not going to sniff sponsorship money until you're one of the elite players (top 10-20%). That's just the reality of being a professional sportsman. Ironically, it's when you start winning enough to support yourself on winnings that your home federation will start to support you and sponsors will start paying you to use their racquets and wear their clothes.
It's all about how you market yourself and then if you can back it up with good play and in tennis that seems kind of hard to do.
Well, there's a lot of competition and in a lot of places not a lot of interest outside of the major tournaments and/or big name players. However, there is one thing to be said for tennis. If you're a woman, it's the one place where you can make as much money as a man, and you can make a lot of money. With the season only half over, 7 women have already made a million dollars in prize money (and that's ignoring any income from sponsorship deals, which they all have). There's enormous disparity, but for those that beat the odds, it's a great sport to be a part of.
