Well it's not really macro at all. I don't abide by a strict, arbitrary definition of 1:1 magnification like many people do, but even still, this is so far from that as to pretty clearly not be macro. It's just mediocrely close up shots of stuff.
Anyway, that said:
1) I really like your watermark usage!
2) The first image is pretty boring, especially with no people on the courts. And I feel like it is trying to communicate some deep message to me, but it isn't. Why chain link? Why not just a shot of the tennis courts? And if it were, why a shot of the tennis courts?
3) The second image is better. Certainly less arbitrary, has good composition and lighting, nice photo, technically fine (a little bit of distraction at the top and upper right, but meh). A little "stock"-ish, though. Great if I want a generic spiderweb to put advertising copy on, but not very emotionally stirring or thought provoking, you know? Plus, I see enough spiderwebs that I'm nto very fascinated by the wonderous detail, either. Usually the macro I think is really cool is instead when the photo shows me some crazy details of the microscopic world that I never would have stopped and noticed normally. To a large extent, though, I think this is something that will come a little bit more naturally when you actually do real macro / get a lot more magnified. So I wouldn't worry too much.