PDA

View Full Version : WTA vs. ATP


Andy G
08-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Does anyone think any women, past or present, could beat any of the current top 10 men's players in a 5 set match? If not beat, at least push a match to the 5th set? The way current tennis is played, it certainly wouldn't be a replay of Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I think Graf and Navritalova would have best chance. They are much better than any of today's women.

Carsomyr
08-12-2009, 12:04 AM
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 12:11 AM
That's simply not happening.
The footwork alone is so much better on the mens side, and there's the serve and the heaviness of the ball.

Grass_for_cows
08-12-2009, 12:22 AM
Here's another one. How many WTA players have as many or more Y chromosomes in any given cell as compared to Andy Murray?

lawrence
08-12-2009, 12:27 AM
i find it hard to imagine the WTA players holding service games, considering the top 10 ATP players are dealing with MUCH heavier, faster, and better placed serves (most of the time anyway lol)

Commando Tennis Shorts
08-12-2009, 01:10 AM
No woman could beat a TOP 100 player, let alone a top 10. Captain Obvious here, but women and men were created differently.

Drago
08-12-2009, 04:45 AM
As long as I have information the level of men juniors tennis is equal to the level of WTA top rankings. This means that the champion of Wimbledon can beat the Williams sisters.

mikro112
08-12-2009, 05:33 AM
Does anyone think any women, past or present, could beat any of the current top 10 men's players in a 5 set match? If not beat, at least push a match to the 5th set? The way current tennis is played, it certainly wouldn't be a replay of Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I think Graf and Navritalova would have best chance. They are much better than any of today's women.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i255/mikro112/the-pink-panther-2_1.jpg

There is no chance that a woman can beat a Top 300 guy (or even lower ranked guy).

Wolland
08-12-2009, 05:37 AM
Maybe years and years ago, when they were still playing with the wooden rackets. These days it would be something like a science fiction.

Danstevens
08-12-2009, 06:27 AM
I think it would be interesting how low you could go in the men's rankings before a top female pro could give them a competitive game.

Not trying to hi-jack the thread but how do you guys think a really good amateur (6.0+) would do against a top 10 WTA pro?

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 06:32 AM
I think it would be interesting how low you could go in the men's rankings before a top female pro could give them a competitive game.

Not trying to hi-jack the thread but how do you guys think a really good amateur (6.0+) would do against a top 10 WTA pro?
I think he would make it competitive but lose.

Fedfan1234
08-12-2009, 07:06 AM
No woman could beat a TOP 100 player, let alone a top 10. Captain Obvious here, but women and men were created differently.
Make that top 1000 or even 3000, you are being far to generous. It will never happen with the same rackets.
Would be interesting though if we would give men wooden rackets and women the current rackets. I would still think the top 10 would beat the women, but maybe I am just being cruel.

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 07:08 AM
Make that top 1000 or even 3000, you are being far to generous. It will never happen with the same rackets.
Would be interesting though if we would give men wooden rackets and women the current rackets. I would still think the top 10 would beat the women, but maybe I am just being cruel.
Some top1000 players are comparatively bad, they couldn't beat Serena.

Fedfan1234
08-12-2009, 07:28 AM
Some top1000 players are comparatively bad, they couldn't beat Serena.
The power alone will prove to much for women, they are bad against male players, not against women. And besides some of these players in the top 1000 will become future champions, do you think a 15 or 16 year old Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Davydenko etc would lose to Serena? I say no. Serena Power strokes will have little or no effect against male players because they are used to this. You are forgetting that a lot of players also have been in the top 100 for some time, and dropped out of the top 100.
read the article above Braasch defeated both Serena and venus in one set with 6-1 and 6-2. He was like a number 200 to 350 in the world at the time. If he had it this easy, the top 1000 should also be able to win(at least).

<3tennis!!!
08-12-2009, 07:32 AM
hahaha sorry but men own women in tennis. plain and simple

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 07:35 AM
The power alone will prove to much for women, they are bad against male players, not against women. And besides some of these players in the top 1000 will become future champions, do you think a 15 or 16 year old Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Davydenko etc would lose to Serena? I say no. Serena Power strokes will have little or no effect against male players because they are used to this. You are forgetting that a lot of players also have been in the top 100 for some time, and dropped out of the top 100.
read the article above Braasch defeated both Serena and venus in one set with 6-1 and 6-2. He was like a number 200 to 350 in the world at the time. If he had it this easy, the top 1000 should also be able to win(at least).
There's a difference between a number 1000 and number 200 player.

I don't think that the average player around #1000 has enough consistency in his game to beat Serena consistenly.
Serena was 17 when Braasch beat her, of course she'd still lose against top200 players, but it wouldn't be a total blowout outside of clay.

Nadalfan89
08-12-2009, 07:35 AM
Oh wow.

Most 5.5 men would beat a top10 women player.

Terr
08-12-2009, 07:37 AM
Thanks to OP for diverting WTA bashing to this thread. They were crashing my party over on Clijsters' comeback thread.

Grass_for_cows
08-12-2009, 07:37 AM
I think many top 1000 ATP players secretly create these threads because they are sick of being beaten by top 900 players all the time and beating the wife as release gets old very quick.

Terr
08-12-2009, 07:38 AM
Oh wow.

Most 5.5 men would beat a top10 women player.

I really don't think that's true.

If it were, he's not 5.5. What you're saying is that all women in the Top 10 are rated around 5.5

GasquetGOAT
08-12-2009, 07:40 AM
Nadal could beat any women, in a wheel chair with a K90.

asafi2
08-12-2009, 07:40 AM
There's a difference between a number 1000 and number 200 player.

I don't think that the average player around #1000 has enough consistency in his game to beat Serena consistenly.
Serena was 17 when Braasch beat her, of course she'd still lose against top200 players, but it wouldn't be a total blowout outside of clay.

A couple of years ago Brad Gilbert talked about how Sharapova would play these juniors at the Bollettieri to prepare against the WTA and she would lose easily.

Terr
08-12-2009, 07:45 AM
Nadal could beat any women, in a wheel chair with a K90.

-.-

Someone's mother beat him as a child.

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 07:52 AM
A couple of years ago Brad Gilbert talked about how Sharapova would play these juniors at the Bollettieri to prepare against the WTA and she would lose easily.
I think it depends on the player.

Dimitrov for example was outside the top1000 not long ago. He was able to take a set from Nadal this year and is already ranked around #250, and could soon be top100. He could've beaten top10 WTA players even when he was top1000.

But some players that have played multiple full seasons but still hang around the #1000 have less chances to do so.

Gemini
08-12-2009, 07:53 AM
Here's another one. How many WTA players have as many or more Y chromosomes in any given cell as compared to Andy Murray?

Currently, none. In the past, just one that I know of. Renee Richards.

Terr
08-12-2009, 07:55 AM
This whole thing reminds me of a match I played against a 3.5 guy when I was also 3.5. He laid himself on the ground after he lost, crying because he lost to a girl. :(

Then he called me 'an injury' :) Best match of my life.

JRstriker12
08-12-2009, 07:56 AM
Does anyone think any women, past or present, could beat any of the current top 10 men's players in a 5 set match? If not beat, at least push a match to the 5th set? The way current tennis is played, it certainly wouldn't be a replay of Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I think Graf and Navritalova would have best chance. They are much better than any of today's women.

Ha!

I'd like to see Graf play a current top ten ATP player with that slice backahnd.

Navritalova would get passed almost anytime she came to net.

asafi2
08-12-2009, 07:57 AM
I think it depends on the player.

Dimitrov for example was outside the top1000 not long ago. He was able to take a set from Nadal this year and is already ranked around #250, and could soon be top100. He could've beaten top10 WTA players even when he was top1000.

But some players that have played multiple full seasons but still hang around the #1000 have less chances to do so.

Those junior couldn't have been ranked 1000. Also, there was a huge thread on this a long time ago (it was about the williams sisters and Karsten Braasch) and someone in the thread mentioned Sharapova losing to the number 1 junior in Southern California (not the world...).

GasquetGOAT
08-12-2009, 08:01 AM
-.-

Someone's mother beat him as a child.

Why not? No women would be able to handle Nadal's return of serve. Their first serves are the speed of mens second serve. Nadal could sit in a wheel chair and hit return of serve winners all day long.

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 08:01 AM
Those junior couldn't have been ranked 1000. Also, there was a huge thread on this a long time ago (it was about the williams sisters and Karsten Braasch) and someone in the thread mentioned Sharapova losing to the number 1 junior in Southern California (not the world...).
You may be right.

It's just that I've seen some #1000ish players that could barely keep two big backhands in a row in the court.
I'd give Serena chances to win against those kind of players, but maybe she would make even more errors.

mental midget
08-12-2009, 08:12 AM
Those junior couldn't have been ranked 1000. Also, there was a huge thread on this a long time ago (it was about the williams sisters and Karsten Braasch) and someone in the thread mentioned Sharapova losing to the number 1 junior in Southern California (not the world...).

i was at hopman years ago when capriati was there, she was amazing, but would lose routinely to the good full-time junior boys there.

Terr
08-12-2009, 08:21 AM
No woman could beat a TOP 100 player, let alone a top 10. Captain Obvious here, but women and men were created differently.

Men have willies. :P

i was at hopman years ago when capriati was there, she was amazing, but would lose routinely to the good full-time junior boys there.

Seriously? Well that doesn't give women much hope. :(

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 08:28 AM
Ok history lesson people who think WTA players can beat any ATP player at all.



Davenport's husband was an absolute failure of a pro, I don't even think he broke the top 1000. And he still schooled her in practice even during her peak periods.



End of lesson.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 08:30 AM
Nadal could beat any women, in a wheel chair with a K90.
Are you serious?? Do u have some sort of complex?? Thats the dumbest comparison ive ever heard.
"Michael Jordan could jump A LOT higher than Nadal"...:shock:

Rabbit
08-12-2009, 08:43 AM
Maybe years and years ago, when they were still playing with the wooden rackets. These days it would be something like a science fiction.

Sorry, but even back then with wooden frames, men were men and women were women and the differences were pretty much the same.

Everyone references the King/Riggs match where BJK beat Riggs in 3 straight sets. They fail to mention the Mother's Day Massacre where earlier that year Riggs beat #1 Margaret Court 6-1, 6-2. Riggs, in both matches, was untrained and clearly more the promoter than the player.

There was a "Match of the Sexes" subsequent to the King/Riggs match. It involved one set between Ilie Nastase and Evonne Goolagong. The match was played on rubico/har tru. The rules were that Nastase had to cover not only the singles, but the doubles alleys as well and only got one serve. Goolagong had the regular singles court and two serves. Goolagong won in a not-so-contested set 7-5. Nastase was more interested in showmanship than winning and pretty much didn't try.

Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova next took up the challenge with the same rules. Connors prevailed 7-5, 6-2.

John McEnroe has steadfastly declined to play a Challenge of the Sexes or a repeat of the King/Riggs match ala McEnroe/Williams. I've heard McEnroe opine, and wholeheartedly agree, why is tennis always the only sport in which this is a repeated topic? They don't ask if the best of the WNBA can beat a player in the NBA in one on one. McEnroe maintains that the difference between the sports is the same regardless. Men are faster, stronger, and more proficient.

Martina Navratilova at her height said she could beat the #100 man in the world. Vitas Gerulaitis called her bluff and said he'd bet his house, then worth $1M, that she couldn't. Navratilova countered by saying that if she picked the surface she could win. Gerulaitis renewed his bet. It never came off. What did come off was a doubles match between Navratilova/Shriver and Gerulaitis/Riggs in 1985. Navratilova/Shriver won, but it should be noted that Riggs was then 67 years old.

Clydey2times
08-12-2009, 08:51 AM
Sorry, but even back then with wooden frames, men were men and women were women and the differences were pretty much the same.

Everyone references the King/Riggs match where BJK beat Riggs in 3 straight sets. They fail to mention the Mother's Day Massacre where earlier that year Riggs beat #1 Margaret Court 6-1, 6-2. Riggs, in both matches, was untrained and clearly more the promoter than the player.

There was a "Match of the Sexes" subsequent to the King/Riggs match. It involved one set between Ilie Nastase and Evonne Goolagong. The match was played on rubico/har tru. The rules were that Nastase had to cover not only the singles, but the doubles alleys as well and only got one serve. Goolagong had the regular singles court and two serves. Goolagong won in a not-so-contested set 7-5. Nastase was more interested in showmanship than winning and pretty much didn't try.

Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova next took up the challenge with the same rules. Connors prevailed 7-5, 6-2.

John McEnroe has steadfastly declined to play a Challenge of the Sexes or a repeat of the King/Riggs match ala McEnroe/Williams. I've heard McEnroe opine, and wholeheartedly agree, why is tennis always the only sport in which this is a repeated topic? They don't ask if the best of the WNBA can beat a player in the NBA in one on one. McEnroe maintains that the difference between the sports is the same regardless. Men are faster, stronger, and more proficient.

Martina Navratilova at her height said she could beat the #100 man in the world. Vitas Gerulaitis called her bluff and said he'd bet his house, then worth $1M, that she couldn't. Navratilova countered by saying that if she picked the surface she could win. Gerulaitis renewed his bet. It never came off. What did come off was a doubles match between Navratilova/Shriver and Gerulaitis/Riggs in 1985. Navratilova/Shriver won, but it should be noted that Riggs was then 67 years old.

:lol:

Navratilova is a real hero, beating up on old age pensioners.

CCNM
08-12-2009, 09:28 AM
I think if they stayed consistent (didn't choke) Mauresmo & Safina could probably win a set off one of the ATP guys. Also (and I know I'm going to upset a lot of my fellow females) ever since Bobby Riggs passed away I've been questioning that 1973 match. He was in his 50's and Billie Jean was 20-30something years old...advantage King.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 09:29 AM
I think if they stayed consistent (didn't choke) Mauresmo & Safina could probably win a set off one of the ATP guys. Also (and I know I'm going to upset a lot of my fellow females) ever since Bobby Riggs passed away I've been questioning that 1973 match. He was in his 50's and Billie Jean was 20-30something years old...advantage King.


A. Billie Jean King had the advantage of knowing what she was facing.
B. Bobby Riggs went in overconfident.
C. Riggs was like in his 50's, out of shape, etc.



Hardly a fair match IMO.



Oh, and Maruesmo and Safina don't win a set off any ATP player. In fact, most top level 18 junior players can wipe the floor with every WTA player right now.

TheFifthSet
08-12-2009, 09:31 AM
A. Billie Jean King had the advantage of knowing what she was facing.
B. Bobby Riggs went in overconfident.
C. Riggs was like in his 50's, out of shape, etc.



Hardly a fair match IMO.



Oh, and Maruesmo and Safina don't win a set off any ATP player. In fact, most top level 18 junior players can wipe the floor with every WTA player right now.

Didn't Sharapova lose handily to some U-16's a few months ago?

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 09:32 AM
Didn't Sharapova lose handily to some U-16's a few months ago?



Yup. People tend to over inflate the WTA players. Yes they would wipe the floor with the majority of us, but the sad part is the best players on this forum could probably take games, sets, sometimes even win a match or two.

JRstriker12
08-12-2009, 09:35 AM
I think if they stayed consistent (didn't choke) Mauresmo & Safina could probably win a set off one of the ATP guys. Also (and I know I'm going to upset a lot of my fellow females) ever since Bobby Riggs passed away I've been questioning that 1973 match. He was in his 50's and Billie Jean was 20-30something years old...advantage King.

If pigs could fly......

If I had a dime for every time those two choked.....

Mauresmo had trouble winning against WTA competition.

Safina doesn't move well enought to hang with any ATP guy in the top ten.

Lionheart392
08-12-2009, 09:44 AM
I don't think some people realise just how big of a difference there is between men and women in tennis. It is huge.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 09:46 AM
I don't think some people realise just how big of a difference there is between men and women in tennis. It is huge.



Essentially they play two totally different games.

sureshs
08-12-2009, 09:54 AM
Please use the correct term, SEWTA, to give publicity to the sponsor.

Fedfan1234
08-12-2009, 11:14 AM
I don't think some people realise just how big of a difference there is between men and women in tennis. It is huge.
I agree some people just don't get that the power is just so much greater for every stroke, not just the serve. Adding the huge amound of top spin or slice that players give to the ball, no way WTA players could come close to this. I think any ATP top 1000 player would beat any WTA players for sure. To take it even further I think former ATP players would beat the likes of Serena or Venus Williams today.
The 90's stars like Sampras, Agassi, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich, Rafter would beat the current WTA players for sure. Even Henman would win. I am not so sure about the 80's generation though, but they would at least win against most of the current WTA players.

Grass_for_cows
08-12-2009, 11:23 AM
The 90's stars like Sampras, Agassi, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich, Rafter would beat the current WTA players for sure. Even Henman would win. I am not so sure about the 80's generation though, but they would at least win against most of the current WTA players.

My favorite part is bolded.

Mkie7
08-12-2009, 11:24 AM
I think it would be interesting how low you could go in the men's rankings before a top female pro could give them a competitive game.

Not trying to hi-jack the thread but how do you guys think a really good amateur (6.0+) would do against a top 10 WTA pro?

Now that... I am curious to know. Maybe more realistic as well.