PDA

View Full Version : men, women, and grand slams


Serve 'em hard
05-30-2007, 09:49 AM
How come the great women players typically have many more grand slam singles titles than the great men? Sampras has 14, and other greats like McEnroe only have 7, while the great women like King, Graf, Evert, Navratilova, Court, Graf each have around 50 grand slam titles.

Why the discrepancy?

Moose Malloy
05-30-2007, 10:03 AM
Simple, there has always been more depth in mens tennis. Just looking at the draws from the 70s to today, the majority of top women win their matches very easily, while the men have quite a few upsets, 5 setters, etc. Seeds rarely hold to form, while they usually hold to form in the womens events.
Guys like Mac, Borg, Sampras had to worry about making it through the first week of a slam, while Court, Evert, Graf could usually just treat the first week as practice.

Plus the best of 5 format is pretty tough & takes a lot out of you. I remember Edberg spending 25 hours on court in winning the US Open one year, while the womens champ Seles spent 8 hours on court.

Serve 'em hard
05-30-2007, 10:52 AM
Is it really about depth, or maybe something else? Also, I continue to be baffled by this idea that there is more depth in the ATP than the WTA these days. I think it's the exact OPPOSITE. To wit:

ATP: You have Federer the king, and Nadal good on clay and not horrible on other surfaces. Then you have everybody else. Sure, there are young up comers and maybe a joker dude or whoever wins some second tier tourney, but they haven't really arrived yet, and may never. For the last couple of years, Federer wins every GS save for the two that Nadal has won. Federer is generally the favorite except on clay -- and save for a couple of upsets in lesser tournaments, he usually wins. Men's tennis is basically all about Federer, and then the lesser mortals who make up his victims.

Now let's look at the women. Could anyone say with any certainty in the last couple of years and now who was going to win a particular Grand Slam? Who the clear favorite is? MAYBE Henin, MAYBE sometimes, but basically it seems that any of the following could win a GS at any time: Sharapova, Henin, Mauresmso, Serena, Venus, Kutsenvoa, Clisters, Demtienieva, Vaidosova, Hingis, and maybe a few others. It would not be a shock -- and wasn't a shock in the past -- if/when these girls win a GS.

Then look back at the men. If anyone besides Fed or Nadal wins a slam, it's a big surprise. Men's tennis = 2 geat players, more predictable outcomes. Women's tennis: a dozen top players, and unpredictable outcomes.

So what is this lack of depth nonsense? Maybe depth means something different to some people??

Moose Malloy
05-30-2007, 11:09 AM
To me, when I think of depth, I think of it to apply to the entire top 100, not just one or 2 players. You are right there is more depth in womens tennis as far as the top 10 goes. But beyond that it isn't even close. Outside of Federer & Nadal, pretty much everyone in the top 50/100 can beat anyone. And it happens quite regularly. With the WTA, the odds are astronomical that a player outside the top 20/30 can even push a top 10 player. From 30-100 womens tennis has no depth.

And that has always been the case, whether we are talking about Court or Evert or Graf. But men's tennis, in mac or lendl or sampras' time, the top 50/100 did push & beat the top guys, which is why they won less slams.

Plus I do think the best of 5 format is a factor. If Graf, Evert, Court, etc had to play in that format, they may have won less slams, physically it is tougher to play that format as you get older, & those players won slams late in their 30s. While Lendl, Sampras, Borg, Mac were pretty much done at 30(or sooner)

CEvertFan
05-30-2007, 02:26 PM
To me, when I think of depth, I think of it to apply to the entire top 100, not just one or 2 players. You are right there is more depth in womens tennis as far as the top 10 goes. But beyond that it isn't even close. Outside of Federer & Nadal, pretty much everyone in the top 50/100 can beat anyone. And it happens quite regularly. With the WTA, the odds are astronomical that a player outside the top 20/30 can even push a top 10 player. From 30-100 womens tennis has no depth.

And that has always been the case, whether we are talking about Court or Evert or Graf. But men's tennis, in mac or lendl or sampras' time, the top 50/100 did push & beat the top guys, which is why they won less slams.

Plus I do think the best of 5 format is a factor. If Graf, Evert, Court, etc had to play in that format, they may have won less slams, physically it is tougher to play that format as you get older, & those players won slams late in their 30s. While Lendl, Sampras, Borg, Mac were pretty much done at 30(or sooner)

Graf was done at 30 as well, although you are correct about the other ladies playing past 30. ;)

krosero
05-30-2007, 02:56 PM
Plus I do think the best of 5 format is a factor. If Graf, Evert, Court, etc had to play in that format, they may have won less slams, physically it is tougher to play that format as you get older, & those players won slams late in their 30s. While Lendl, Sampras, Borg, Mac were pretty much done at 30(or sooner)Another way in which 5 sets makes a difference is that it's harder to put your opponents away. It's harder to maintain a certain level of play over 3 sets than over 2.

bluetrain4
06-01-2007, 06:28 AM
Women's tennis has gotten MUCH deeper in recent years. Not in the sense that there are a huge variety of different women winning Slams, but in the sense that there are dangerous floaters and women ranked 20-40 (and a few below) who can upset higher ranked players and make a run in a tourney.)

Top women hardly ever used to struggle in early rounds. While I still think it's easier for them than for the men (in terms of quality of opponent), it's much more difficult than it was before.