IT FELT like I travelled back to the future last week while watching Wimbledon.

Fourteen years have passed since I was last at the hallowed tournament, but was that really Serena Williams surging to yet another women's grand slam victory and Martina Hingis adding a new brace of titles to her CV?

It seems like another time, another place - and it was another century - since I first visited SW19, but you have to believe that it isn't nostalgia to declare that women's tennis used to be far more competitive and demanding than it is at the moment.

On my maiden sojourn in 1994, the great Steffi Graf was knocked out in the first round by Lori McNeill and the peerless Martina Navratilova was beaten 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, by Conchita Martinez in an absorbing denouement that ebbed in 50 different directions. The following day, by comparison, we were served up pallid fare as Pete Sampras thrashed Goran Ivanisevic in the men's final: a clinical exhibition of powerful serve-and-volleying from the American Zen master which was about as entertaining as a party political broadcast. Oh, and just to emphasise the myriad thrills embodied in that tournament, the girls' singles was won by a certain Miss Hingis, which brings us bang up to date.

Let's not skate around the issue here. The women's game is mired in mediocrity and that isn't to disparage the serried accomplishments of Serena Williams, who can't be held responsible for the deficiencies of the generation following - and failing - in her slipstream. Instead, the sport has to ask itself some tough questions, and not just in terms of how Wimbledon in 2015 served up eight different quarter-finalists from those who appeared at the same stage 12 months earlier.

If there were any signs of a new order emerging, of even two or three players who could establish the sort of rivalry that developed between Graf, Monica Seles, Navratilova and other stars, you could forgive the current stagnation and dearth of excitement in the women's ranks. But honestly, you could stick any number of names into a hat, pick a few out with a blindfold and that would be as scientific an approach as any in determining the future after Serena bows out.

Consider, for instance, some of those who appeared in those tussles a year ago. In the final, Eugenie Bouchard was pummelled into submission 6-3, 6-0 in just 55 minutes by Petra Kvitova and we have barely seen Bouchard take a positive step ever since. As for some of the others - Angelique Kerber or Barbora Strycova - there is nothing to suggest they were anything other than flashes in the pan. At least Garbine Muguruza, who succumbed to Williams last Saturday, displayed some resilience and bravura flourishes and has time on her side to learn from the experience. But will she? It isn't as if we haven't been here many times before.

I'm fully aware of how easy it is for people to complain about sexism whenever these issues are raised, but the WTA must realise the glaring gulf between their leading luminaries and the embarrassment of riches on the men's tour. If they don't, they should recall the feast of entertainment produced by Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray as the prelude to the women's final in Roland Garros. There never used to be such a chasm, but the gender divide is increasing in tennis, even as it contracts in football and cricket.

So what can be done to redress the balance? For starters, the authorities could implement a long-delayed change to the format and have the women playing the best-of-five sets at grand slam events. Isn't it faintly ludicrous that this hasn't happened already?

After all, I haven't heard anybody arguing that women's football matches should only last 75 minutes or that their athletics marathon should be restricted to 20 miles. There is no physiological reason to brand women as second-class citizens, so let's have true equality and the same rules for all.

It would also help if somebody such as the aforementioned Navratilova was handed a blank sheet of paper and asked to prepare a template for the next decade of women's action in the pursuit she graced. It isn't that long since she retired and Martina has demonstrated she is as articulate off the court as she was assertive on it, which is exactly what is required.

Because, if there isn't a radical transformation, the women will carry on being treated as if they were cast members of a soap opera. That wasn't the case in the 1980s and 1990s but ever since Anna Kournikova seemed more interested in modelling than practising her backhand, the focus has switched away from athleticism to showbusiness trivia.

Did you care, for instance, that Muguruza likes making desserts and puddings when she's not on court? Me neither, but the Times headlined their final preview: "Amateur chef aiming to serve up a shock". Could we perhaps leave this stuff to the Great British Bake Off? Either these youngsters are true competitors, which means they should be taken seriously, or they're dabbling dilettantes and would be better occupied seeking alternative employment in reality TV.

It's not rocket science. Heather Watson proved during her titanic struggle with Serena Williams that size isn't everything if you have heart and tenacity and unstinting levels of commitment. Yet, as usual, too much of the coverage revolved around irrelevancies or the decibel level of Maria Sharapova's shrieks.

JK Rowling was right. Williams is a phenomenal tennis player and a remarkable athlete. Why should she have to be anything else?