PDA

View Full Version : Why is the WTA bashed for a "weak era" but ATP never is?


Bruguera
09-14-2009, 10:53 AM
Honestly... Lets talk about this in a civil manner.. No namecalling etc:).


Now Im not denying the WTA is a complete waste to watch these days consisting of headcases, greenhorns or passed their prime players like the William Sisters hanging on when another player can go out get married, have a kid, come back and win a slam in her 3rd tourney back..



But at the same time, why will people cite how weak the WTA is for this reason, yet not the ATP. Not really any proven commoditties or proven slam winners there outside of two players is there? In fact, people believe this is the highest form and level the ATP has been in IN HISTORY. Yet when you look at the numbers you see the top two guys for years, and the rest of the field way far behind. The fact that these top two players over the last 4 years or so are the only players consistent enough, good enough, and mentally tough to CONSISTENTLY win slams.

I know there is a fine line in question whether:

A: Nadal and Fed have been just too dominant other players cannot overtake them. (I look at it as more as other players NOT stepping up and losing to players they should beat) Look no further than Murray or Djoker most of the time over the past year at the slams.. The two guys who have been right below Nadal and Fed and now possibly Del Potro but with only Masters titles and still young and unproven

B: Or how about the fact other players who have been toted as the next big things are NOT stepping up and dethrowing Rafa and Fed and creating their OWN LEGACIES? My question is AT WHAT POINT does some blame go on the tour instead of saying, "ehhh Nadal and Fed are just too dominant?




So even though we have two proven tennis champions in the ATP who have sculped great legacies for themselves, all time great careers, the field is the HOTTEST its ever been as well? Yet the WTA is a joke of a organization these days when two passed their prime players Venus and Serena dominate the slams?


Im not quit sure I understand

BigServer1
09-14-2009, 11:00 AM
I think that 1-100 this is the best ATP field ever, but it's not a top heavy field in terms of Slam winners...

I do think that it's mostly Federer and Nadal being that much better than everyone else, and most importantly, Federer just absolutely not letting up at any point over the last 6 years, especially in terms of slams. This is something that Sampras never did, and that combined with Agassi's ups and downs allowed some random guys to win slams and "strengthen" the top of the field when you look at results.

I still think that the variety and competition from the early-mid 90s is better than it is now, but I would hardly call this the weakest era ever in the ATP.

Enigma_87
09-14-2009, 11:02 AM
Hello, GameSampras.

Breaker
09-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Jaime Yzaga would have won a few slams playing in this era of clowns.

joeri888
09-14-2009, 11:03 AM
The ATP is bashed for being a weak era EVERY DAY, especially by you Mr GameSampras.

edberg505
09-14-2009, 11:05 AM
Jaime Yzaga would have won a few slams playing in this era of clowns.

Not only Yzaga, but Kucera and Schaller as well.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:06 AM
I think that 1-100 this is the best ATP field ever, but it's not a top heavy field in terms of Slam winners...

I do think that it's mostly Federer and Nadal being that much better than everyone else, and most importantly, Federer just absolutely not letting up at any point over the last 6 years, especially in terms of slams. This is something that Sampras never did, and that combined with Agassi's ups and downs allowed some random guys to win slams and "strengthen" the top of the field when you look at results.

I still think that the variety and competition from the early-mid 90s is better than it is now, but I would hardly call this the weakest era ever in the ATP.

This. +100. Federer is the most relentless slam warrior in history, bar none.

deltox
09-14-2009, 11:09 AM
i dunno maybe because the current ATP field is super strong, most anyone in the top 10 could destroy any player from the 90s except agassi and sampras.

JankovicFan
09-14-2009, 11:10 AM
"gamesampras" should be a verb.

Definition - to hijack a tennis forum and frame every discussion in terms of how crappy contemporary players are, how stupid their fans are, and how great retired players are. Provide just enough merit, avoiding ad hominem, to allow moderators to give it a pass.

Enigma_87
09-14-2009, 11:11 AM
i dunno maybe because the current ATP field is super strong, most anyone in the top 10 could destroy any player from the 90s except agassi and sampras.

No way, there were powerhouse baseliners as Chang - multiple slam finalist, Mr. consistency Krajicek, greatest backhand of the decade Moya, moving like a cat on court Martin, and of course never use doping Korda making finals and winning slams in the 90's.

:oops:

Breaker
09-14-2009, 11:14 AM
Not only Yzaga, but Kucera and Schaller as well.

Mark Keil beat grass GOAT Sampras so he probably would have won 10 Wimbledons in this era.

dh003i
09-14-2009, 11:42 AM
Really, to seriously consider these questions, you can't just look at match summaries and statistics, or title wins, or Major wins.

You really have to watch a lot of matches. A LOT. And you have to do a really detailed analysis of how well players are moving, hitting the ball, etc. And then compare them with players from say the 90s.

I don't think this era is worse.

TMF
09-14-2009, 11:43 AM
The reason why the WTA is weak was b/c of Henin, the best player on the tour retired. Kim Clisjsters was also one of the best player and retired to settle down. However she came back after having a baby and won the USO as a proof that the woman’s playing field was pretty weak. Also, slamless players Jankovic and Safina reached #1(remember slamless Rios in the late 90’s reached #1???). In today’s era, you have to be a multi-slam winners to in order to be #1. Much, much tougher than the WTA.

Had for TMF and Nadal retired back in 2006, of course the ATP would take a huge blow.

federerfanatic
09-14-2009, 11:48 AM
Since the ATP is in a very strong era while the WTA is in a very weak one. A weak era would be the one that allowed a pusher like Bruguera to win 2 French Opens. My goodness the guy was like a male Wozniacki.

Casey10s
09-14-2009, 11:57 AM
Just talking about this subject with friends last week. In the bigger tournaments, only the top 4 or 5 players have a legitimate chance to win it. A lower ranked guy may upset one of them and get to the semis or finals but will lose to the top guys. Not like in the past, where lower ranked players had a chance.

It seems like today there is a big gulf mentally between the top players and the rest of the field. Physically, differences between the players are not that great. The top players are all strong mentally and can routinely cause a meltdown of their lower ranked opponents. Just look at the Nadal/Monfils match at the U.S. Open. Monfils crossed a line at the end of the first set and Nadal punished him the rest of the match for his outburst. Monfils was totally out of energy by the last part of the second set.

Whether the ATP is weak or not, I can't say. I can say there is huge gap between the top and the rest like the WTA was for years. Lower rank players have no chance of winning the big tournaments and with the point system, they have no chance of moving up until they can win tournaments. The ranking system benefits the winners but not anyone else. I think this is contributing to this gap in that the players are beating themselves up to get into the tournaments and have nothing left when they face the top players.

The WTA is balanced now where noone can predict the results. It is just the WTA is a mess with most of the players not being able to play consistently good tennis, just a lot of sloppy play.

Virtuoso
09-14-2009, 12:00 PM
Ahahah, I love how GS tries to discuss something but ppl keep referencing the guys that defeated Pete.

Anyway, if the WTA is weak blame it on the Williams sisters that only care about slams basically (and not all of them), coked up Martina, Maria's injury, Justine's retirement and some mental midgets that refuse to take the big one come final time.
The field could be huge and really loaded up in the top20.

Cindysphinx
09-14-2009, 12:02 PM
Just to add a bit of balance here . . .

There are mentally weak, inconsistent men all over the place. Look at Gulbis, fer cryin' out loud. Verdasco can be counted on to fold like a napkin in big moments. Tsonga? You never know which Jo will show up. And Gonzo? Good lord. Most embarrassing of all is that a *pusher* is the No. 3 player in the world. Ugh.

These are players with games big enough to challenge the top guys, but we all know it will never happen. So please. Let's stop acting like the WTA matches are so horrible and the players are so weak.

There's enough frailty and bad play to go around in both the men's and women's game.

NamRanger
09-14-2009, 12:08 PM
Just to add a bit of balance here . . .

There are mentally weak, inconsistent men all over the place. Look at Gulbis, fer cryin' out loud. Verdasco can be counted on to fold like a napkin in big moments. Tsonga? You never know which Jo will show up. And Gonzo? Good lord. Most embarrassing of all is that a *pusher* is the No. 3 player in the world. Ugh.

These are players with games big enough to challenge the top guys, but we all know it will never happen. So please. Let's stop acting like the WTA matches are so horrible and the players are so weak.

There's enough frailty and bad play to go around in both the men's and women's game.




1. Safina
2. Sharapova
3. Petrova
4. Kutznetsova
5. Dementieva
6. Vaidisova

Etc.

And countless of other names.





More men's matches are determined based on quality of play rather than mental collapses. I could name about 10 matches recently off the top of my head that were determined by mental collapses by WTA players.

Cindysphinx
09-14-2009, 12:24 PM
^Sharapova?

I would never say Sharapova has mental collapses. Far from it. She has a bad shoulder and a jacked up service motion. She might or might not get past these things. It ain't mental, though.

You know, sometimes people lose or struggle for reasons having nothing to do with mental frailty. This goes for men and women.

As for Vaidasova, her problem is that she is just a MBB (mindless baseline basher). I never saw what the fuss was all about, and it didn't last long.

Dementieva deserves our utmost respect for re-tooling a major element of her game. I say she lost to Oudin mostly because she couldn't figure out a way to counter a player she hadn't played before. No shame in that.

Sometimes, people just get beat. Andy Murray can tell you all about it!