Another tennis year is coming to an end. This week, eight men will be playing the last tournament of the year in Shanghai, dividing between them a huge pot of $3m. Roger Federer can afford to lose every match in the tournament and will still finish first in the world for 2006.

The Swiss star is without doubt a tennis genius and has opened an unassailable lead between himself and the rest of the players on the men's circuit.. For him, the week in Shanghai is a matter of pride and money.

I think the men's year has been good. We have the rivalry between Federer and Rafael Nadal – not a classic rivalry a la Agassi-Sampras but still an interesting one. We also had players making their mark on the circuit like James Blake, Nikolay Davidenko and Ivan Lubicic. But overall, the men's scene is not as interesting as it could be. Consider, for example, the seniors’ circuit. A bunch of 35-pluses with no shortage of excess weight playing for very good money, having the time of their lives and drawing in huge crowds all over the world.

True, all the players invited to the seniors’ circuit are already famous, rich and playing with no pressure, which automatically makes them more fun to watch. But the reality is that the seniors events are sometimes more interesting for fans despite the fact that the circuit is not as competitive as the regular men’s. This is probably due to the characters taking part - Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Henry Laconte, Mats Wilander and Yannik Noah are huge draws, even if their their service and looks are not what they used to be.

Tennis today lacks players with such charisma who can keep the crowds interested, especially when a match is boring. And we all know the game can sometimes be as boring as hell.

Don't get me wrong. Watching good tennis from Federer, Nadal, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, Marcos Baghdatis and others is fun. The level is certainly much higher then it was even 10 years ago, but you still get the feeling that something is missing. Is it the big money that is ruining the show? Are players too serious on the court and do they forget they are out there first - and most important - to perform?

I tend to think that it's all pure luck. Once every few years you get a generation of intriguing players from different backgrounds and upbringings, and sometimes just a bunch of tennis machines with money and ranking points on their minds. I think the year 2006 brought us a mixture of both.

And what about the women? Their circuit is more exposed to the media the men's tour, so fans get more background and stories behind the scenes about the stars. It's not all 'business'. Interestingly enough, women didn't have the need until now to start a seniors' tour of their own. One reason for that might be that statistically they start their professional careers much earlier and make it to the top at a younger age than the men. Because of this, they tend to retire earlier and younger and probably have in mind family and kids, rather than more tennis.

It might have been fun to watch the likes of Martina Navratilova, Monica Seles, Steffi Graff, Hana Mandlikova and many others play more tennis for the fans – but it is probably not going to happen.

All we have left are two options; superb tennis that we will keep watching even if the players are not charismatic, or good tennis with loads of characters. A bit of both would be nice!