PDA

View Full Version : Which side of the tour is deeper? Mens or Womens?


Lleytian3
07-12-2007, 03:17 PM
When I mean deeper, i mean that any player in the top 50 of each side of the tour, could possibly knock out a player in the top 10.

Is the men not as deep anymore, because only federer and nadal win slams. Or is the women's side deeper, because they have different champions competeing for the title.

I think the men's side is still deeper than the womens. as we can players like canas and volandri able to beat federer. i just think the men has a lot more players that are up-and-coming.

What do you all think?

anointedone
07-12-2007, 03:40 PM
The women are not deep just evenly matched. They all currently play at a similar crappy level, thus the parity. The mens by a long shot. As for the women I would watch any era of women over the current one.

Noveson
07-12-2007, 03:44 PM
The women are not deep just evenly matched. They all currently play at a similar crappy level, thus the parity. The mens by a long shot. As for the women I would watch any era of women over the current one.

I don't understand how you say they are playing at a crap level? I find it hard to believe you can compare the levels from different eras from watching on TV.

Noveson
07-12-2007, 03:45 PM
The women have probably 5-6 people that have a very good chance to win a grandslam right now. The guys have 2.....Easily the women.

JW10S
07-12-2007, 03:49 PM
While the women's tour has more depth than it did in the past you still see many more blow-out, one sided matches in the early rounds of the bigger events on the women's tour than the mens. The men's tour is still deeper even though Federer has the record for consecutive weeks at #1 and Nadal has the record for consecutive weeks at #2.

Noveson
07-12-2007, 03:52 PM
While the women's tour has more depth than it did in the past you still see many more blow-out, one sided matches in the early rounds of the bigger events on the women's tour than the mens. The men's tour is still deeper even though Federer has the record for consecutive weeks at #1 and Nadal has the record for consecutive weeks at #2.

Yeah I guess I could see that. Good argument. I guess it depends on how far down you are looking at the ranks.

krz
07-12-2007, 03:59 PM
In the womens game its more rare to see seeds getting knocked out early. The top players 10 or so players are soo much above the rest of the field thats why there are such a little amount of upsets.

The mens game has much more evenly matched talent and there are many upsets at every tournament early on.

But then again you have Fed and Nadal dominating while the women have a good 5 players that can be in contention for the title. But I vote for men because after the top 10 or so the depth of the mens game doesn't diminish.

anointedone
07-12-2007, 04:00 PM
The women have probably 5-6 people that have a very good chance to win a grandslam right now. The guys have 2.....Easily the women.

Of course they have alot of women with the chance. Look at the field of womens "contenders":

Henin-very talented, but being dramaticaly undersized will always make her vurnerable and keep her from ever being dominant. Mentally fragile too.

Venus Williams-tennis is only a part time hobby for her, still manages to win some slams still though (again speaks to the state of womens tennis)

Serena Williams-copy what I said for Venus, to an even more extreme degree perhaps.

Sharapova-one dimensional power game, without a semblance of variation, net game, brains, and still gets overwhelmed at the power game-the only thing she is truly good at, by the Williams when they feel like playing.

Jankovic-has never impressed in a big match in the late rounds of a major vs a big name. Ugly choke vs badly off form Henin in U.S Open semis, lame performance vs Serena in 2nd week of Australia, easy loss to Henin in French Open semis.

Ivanovic-no big wins over a Justine, Serena, Venus type in a slam yet. Biggest wins were Mauresmo at French Open, where Mauresmo always chokes and has a personal quarterfinal barrier, and Sharapova at French Open, Sharapova hopeless on clay to begin with so no big deal there.

Vaidisova-choked in both of her slam semis. Maria wannabee with her game style.

Kuznetsova-since surprise slam win, has returned to being the epitome of just the "pretty good but nothing special" perennial quarterfinal/4th round player.

Mauresmo-big time choker, who took to 27 to win her first slam due to her poor mental toughness. Now looks unmotivated and ready to cruise to retirement after getting those 2 slams under her belt, now in the Cljsters mod in other words.

Petrova-no slam semis yet, and took until halfway through her career to even win a tournament. Became the first of the chokers chain on the way to Serena's win in Australia.

Hingis-interesting and clever player, but physical and athletic lightweight, a much less powerful and less athletic version of Henin. Exposed as player who won 5 slams in an even weaker field then the current, the beginning of the state of pitifulness in womens tennis that began with the declines and eventual retirements of Graf, Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, Seles, and company.

When the top women are all undersized, renowned choke artists, unproven youngsters, one dimensional/no Plan B types, or half hearted commited, then of course alot can win. They are all easily beatable and vurnerable for various reasons, so it is a free for all. Whoever emerges from the huge pile of turd becames the champion of each slam.

Vision84
07-12-2007, 04:00 PM
The Women's tour is mostly different because they have longer points due mainly to weaker serves than the men's tour. That is one of the reasons why the top women in early rounds tend to lose fewer games than the men. As to which is deeper it is hard to pick a favorite and I can think of arguments on both sides. I may come back to this one.

superstition
07-12-2007, 04:12 PM
Hingis-interesting and clever player, but physical and athletic lightweight, a much less powerful and less athletic version of Henin. Exposed as player who won 5 slams in an even weaker field then the current, the beginning of the state of pitifulness in womens tennis that began with the declines and eventual retirements of Graf, Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, Seles, and company.
Hingis was a different player prior to her loss to Graf in the 1999 French Open final. She used her youth and her feelings of superiority and invincibility to win, in addition to he well-recognized precision and court craft. She never won another slam after than French Open loss, which was a huge mental implosion. She did manage to reclaim the number 1 status and get to more finals. But, not only did big hitters give her trouble, she lost the extra speed and flexibility of youth. That edge won her the slams.

Hingis today is slower and less flexible than early career Hingis. It is not accidental that she had to many records for "youngest player to" but isn't making huge strides today. Hingis used to hit balls on the lines, at the baseline and on the sides. When she was going to retire, her balls got shorter, and they're shorter today. She doesn't move with the fleetness she had as a teen.

The field wasn't weak when Hingis won slams, or when she was No. 1. When she reclaimed her No. 1 she still didn't win any slam finals, for instance.

Lleytian3
07-12-2007, 04:19 PM
In the womens game its more rare to see seeds getting knocked out early. The top players 10 or so players are soo much above the rest of the field thats why there are such a little amount of upsets.

The mens game has much more evenly matched talent and there are many upsets at every tournament early on.

But then again you have Fed and Nadal dominating while the women have a good 5 players that can be in contention for the title. But I vote for men because after the top 10 or so the depth of the mens game doesn't diminish.

That is a very good point. You rarely would hear a women top 10 player losing so early in a slam. but when you just saw WO this past year, i think 1 or 2 players in the top 10 lost in the early rounds.

also i think the womens top 10 rarely changes, while the mens top 10 is always changing, with players dropping in and out.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-12-2007, 04:30 PM
Definitely the men IMO, the women has some depth in that out of no where you can see someone step up and win unexpectedly, but I think that is so, for the most part, because the women seems to be mentally weaker too often about closing out matches. So many seem quite fragile at pressure points.

TheKingOfClay
07-12-2007, 04:41 PM
I would say the women... well I could be mistaken...:-o

luke_1983uk
07-13-2007, 07:01 AM
with the wta anyone out of the top 10 could win a grand slam, where else the atp your looking at just the top 2, so if you look at it that way i would say the womens overall

Eviscerator
07-13-2007, 07:30 AM
Just because you have a few dominate players on the mens side, it does not mean the men are not deeper. Anyone who knows tennis understands that the men are deeper and here is the simple way to prove it. Over the last 10 years look at the two different tours and see how many seeds make it to the quarters. You will find that the women's draws closely mirror the seeds, as opposed to the men where there are more upsets. Rarely do you see the top 8 men make it where as it is much more common among the women's tour.

Rpp
07-13-2007, 09:49 AM
The Women's tour is mostly different because they have longer points due mainly to weaker serves than the men's tour. That is one of the reasons why the top women in early rounds tend to lose fewer games than the men. As to which is deeper it is hard to pick a favorite and I can think of arguments on both sides. I may come back to this one.

Is there a real statistics that points are longer on womens tour?? I am not sure about that...as women are hit a lot slower it may only seem that rallies are longer.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-13-2007, 09:52 AM
Is there a real statistics that points are longer on womens tour?? I am not sure about that...as women are hit a lot slower it may only seem that rallies are longer.

Slower? A lot of them can really crank it, especially the top 10s and 20s.

theace21
07-13-2007, 10:01 AM
Go look at the early round scores at any major and that will tell you.

dukemunson
07-13-2007, 10:25 AM
top 10 is closer or "deeper" in womens in the sense that anyone can win...from there it's not even a comparison as the men side has tremendous depth from 10 through 600 or 700...

Rpp
07-13-2007, 10:45 AM
Slower? A lot of them can really crank it, especially the top 10s and 20s.

Yes, a lot slower than men. It does not mean that women cannot hit the ball. It is just totally different pace. This should not be an argument, it is so clear fact.

anointedone
07-13-2007, 12:32 PM
top 10 is closer or "deeper" in womens in the sense that anyone can win...from there it's not even a comparison as the men side has tremendous depth from 10 through 600 or 700...

The top 10 of the womens is also not more competitive because the top 10 is such quality throughout, but because they are all at a similar mediocre level now. The top 10 of mens is not less competitive because the top 10 lacks in quality, but because Federer and Nadal are what presently does not exist in the womens game. Two players so outstanding they almost shut out the rest and their title hopes; what Graf and Seles used to be, what the Williams in their "full time" stint used to be, what McEnroe and Borg used to be.

Granted the top 10 was lacking in quality a bit last year with Davydenko, Robredo, Ljubicic, Blake, types up there. However before that you had alot of very strong individuals in that top 10 when Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, were all playing their best a couple years back; and it is building up again with the rise of guys like Djokovic, Gasquet, and Murray.

More competitive among a larger group of people does not always mean better. It can just mean more evenly matched. That is how I feel about womens tennis today. It is not particularly deep or strong, just evenly matched among a flawed and shaky top grouping of women.

iambt21
07-14-2007, 12:00 AM
federer and nadal are best 2 players to win any surface basically... ok ....


If you notice the scoes in mens tennis they are much closer..... if you look at womens... the semifinals and finals are sometimes like 6-1 6-0 and shizzle like that.... you very rarely see that later in tournaments in mens tennis.

fgzhu88
07-14-2007, 10:05 AM
the women's side is definitely deeper. that's why I always fail at WTA bracket predictions. since we've got players like bartoli who knock out 4 top seeds in a row!!

men's on the other side, we almost saw a 1, 2, 3, 4 seed semifinal (if roddick hadn't lost to gasquet) and it seems like grass and clay will always be fed vs nad final.

gdsballer
07-14-2007, 08:19 PM
mahut beat nadal when ranked 106 in the world...

Noveson
07-14-2007, 09:43 PM
Just because you have a few dominate players on the mens side, it does not mean the men are not deeper. Anyone who knows tennis understands that the men are deeper and here is the simple way to prove it. Over the last 10 years look at the two different tours and see how many seeds make it to the quarters. You will find that the women's draws closely mirror the seeds, as opposed to the men where there are more upsets. Rarely do you see the top 8 men make it where as it is much more common among the women's tour.

So I guess I must not know tennis:rolleyes: For the last two years I could put down two names, and they would've won every single one of the grandslams. You call that deep?

superman1
07-14-2007, 10:05 PM
If you say the women, you lose all credibility on this website.

Noveson
07-14-2007, 10:15 PM
If you say the women, you lose all credibility on this website.

Says......you? Oh I'm shivering:rolleyes: I could definitely but up an argument for both sides, but because somebody doesn't agree with you on something that doesn't have a definitive answer they lose all credibility? I don't think so.

superman1
07-14-2007, 10:20 PM
I don't have the time to argue, but you are wrong, and maybe someone else will be able to explain it to you. Maybe they'll be able to pull up statistics of lower ranked players beating higher ranked players in both fields.

Noveson
07-14-2007, 10:25 PM
I don't have the time to argue, but you are wrong, and maybe someone else will be able to explain it to you. Maybe they'll be able to pull up statistics of lower ranked players beating higher ranked players in both fields.

If you say the women, you lose all credibility on this website.

You may be right, but there is still the argument that focuses on people actually winning slams. In that way the women are far deeper. Last year 4 different women won the slams. Anyway you still don't come into a discussion with something like that.

Eviscerator
07-15-2007, 12:56 PM
So I guess I must not know tennis:rolleyes: For the last two years I could put down two names, and they would've won every single one of the grandslams. You call that deep?

I guess you not only do not know tennis, but do not know how to read either. :razz:

I clearly said "Just because you have a few dominate players on the men's side".
Depth of the tour is not based on the domination of one or two players. Outside of Federer or Nadal (i.e. exceptions) you will not see the top 8-10 players always making the quarters.

No personal offense is intended by my response, but either read posts you respond to better, or don't go out on a weak limb next time.

AM28143
07-15-2007, 01:38 PM
The women's field is more competitive because they all suck . How the hell did Sharapova win 2 grand slams? She does not know how to hit a slice backhand, she is slow and commits unforced errors like its going out of style. Basically, if the William sisters are healthy and somewhat interested they win, if not some unworthy, lucky, boring ball hacker steals one. Therefore, one of two things have to happen to make women's tennis watchable. Either Serena and Venus quit or Sharapova plays in a bathing suit.

quest01
07-15-2007, 05:32 PM
I think the womens side is more unpredicable. I like watching mens tennis a lot more but you dont see two players winning every tournament like you do on the mens side with Federer and Nadal.

anointedone
07-15-2007, 05:40 PM
The women's field is more competitive because they all suck . How the hell did Sharapova win 2 grand slams? She does not know how to hit a slice backhand, she is slow and commits unforced errors like its going out of style. Basically, if the William sisters are healthy and somewhat interested they win, if not some unworthy, lucky, boring ball hacker steals one. Therefore, one of two things have to happen to make women's tennis watchable. Either Serena and Venus quit or Sharapova plays in a bathing suit.

You are right, they all suck which is why it is so competitive. I mean look at them:


Henin- 5 foot 6. That already says enough in the modern game. To further it though loser of 3 of 4 slam finals last year even with easy final opponents (eg-no peak Williams as final opponent), and no slam title outside the French Open since January, and no wins over a Williams on non-clay surface ever except injured Serena at Wimbledon. Great clay court player who sort of sucks on other surfaces, but gets to finals due to weak field, and loses in them since she sucks on any non clay surface.

Sharapova-everything you said. Cant even hit a slice backhand, slow and crummy defensive play, no court brains or understanding how to construct points. Just a ball basher with sloppy technique. Has already been embarassed by the Williams all 3 times she has played them this year, looking like a little girl playing a women.

Venus-when she feels like playing she is great, only feels like playing 20% of the time though.

Serena-same as Venus.

the rest-god even worse then the ones I already talked about

dukemunson
07-15-2007, 10:23 PM
You may be right, but there is still the argument that focuses on people actually winning slams. In that way the women are far deeper. Last year 4 different women won the slams. Anyway you still don't come into a discussion with something like that.

The problem is that if you say women your kind of tipping your hat that you don't have a very good handle on the current game of tennis...the mens field is exponentionally stronger...you don't lose all credibility by saying women...just most of it...

Noveson
07-15-2007, 10:39 PM
The problem is that if you say women your kind of tipping your hat that you don't have a very good handle on the current game of tennis...the mens field is exponentionally stronger...you don't lose all credibility by saying women...just most of it...

Haha and then you come in with absolutely no facts just trying to make yourself look better. So maybe I was wrong, it happens, I could still argue my side, maybe saying the womens top 10 is deeper, but whatever. Being wrong isn't too bad, but having to listen to an *** like that isn't fun at all.

superman1
07-15-2007, 11:00 PM
The women's side is more unpredictable because you can be out of shape and out of match play and still win 7 matches in a row to win a major. On the other hand, on the men's side you can be incredibly fit and strong and well prepared, and you can still be knocked out by your first round opponent in a 5 set marathon.

The fact that Federer and Nadal keep making the finals just speaks to their greatness. Those two are going to go down in history. They have no counterparts on the women's side. You call Roddick one dimensional, but he's an artist compared to Sharapova.

Don't take offense by me saying your credibility is shot, that's a ridiculous thing to say. I sometimes like to stir the pot on this message board to get things going.

anointedone
07-15-2007, 11:14 PM
Well Venus and Serena will go down in history I think, Justine as a clay courter will go down in history. However none of them are as reliable as Federer and Nadal.

Mr Topspin
07-16-2007, 07:59 AM
I am in agreement in part of what you are saying. That Federer and Nadal are dominant is true! And that outside the the top 2 you get different guys getting to QF's, SF's etc is all very true.

But on the fact of choking is not particular to the women's tour. Many commentators say that this era is the weakest in terms of the mental fragility of todays top ATP players. I would agree. If you just take the Halle tournament, last year, Federer was in trouble in about four of his matches in which his opponent had numerous opportunities to close him out including players like Gasquet, Rochus and Soderling. That was a complete chokefest. This years's OZ open, Gonzalez choked whilst serving for the first set and checked out of the match vs Federer. And there are so many examples at RG with Davydenko not to mention Baghdatis at Wimby vs Djokovic. They just don't make them like they used to so the 'choking' aspects is common to both tours!

dukemunson
07-16-2007, 10:13 AM
Haha and then you come in with absolutely no facts just trying to make yourself look better. So maybe I was wrong, it happens, I could still argue my side, maybe saying the womens top 10 is deeper, but whatever. Being wrong isn't too bad, but having to listen to an *** like that isn't fun at all.

How am I trying to make myself look better...having actually traveled around and seen the level of tennis in both college and the futures (on both the mens and womens side) it's spectacularly obvious that mens tennis is exponentially deeper then womens tennis. Then again this is true in just about every sport for the simple reason that more men play sports. You are simply confusing words. Depth would tend to signify strength over a large number...the women certainly do not have depth. The last few years have been unpredictable but that is much more an issue of the talent level being close rather then deep. Make a coherant argument and you wont be ripped...

Lleytian3
07-16-2007, 12:43 PM
So I guess I must not know tennis:rolleyes: For the last two years I could put down two names, and they would've won every single one of the grandslams. You call that deep?

you prove a good point

except that isnt really the question here, the question is going to the depth of the tour of each side. meaning can a player that is rank 48 or 104 or 124 in the world be able to test a player in the top 5 or top 10.

we have seen that on the mens side, nadal had to go through i think 2 five setters to get to the WO final. and then he pushed the #1 player in the world to 5 sets.

would somebody on the womens tour be able to do the same thing. that is the question here. and i do not think they would be able to

krz
07-16-2007, 01:10 PM
If it was depth in the top 10 then ok I'll give it to the women but depth of their respective tours is clearly men.