PDA

View Full Version : Is current womens field the worst ever?


lambielspins
09-14-2009, 10:06 PM
After seeing Kim Clijsters, a player who in her 6 year prime of her "first" career managed to win only 1 slam title, managing to win the U.S Open in only her 3rd tournament back in almost 3 years, how do you feel now as far as whether the current womens field is the worst field in womens tennis history?

PascalMariaFan
09-14-2009, 10:09 PM
There's no such thing as a good field in women's tennis.

slicefox
09-14-2009, 10:09 PM
It is. Rofl a mom came out of retirement and won a grand slam on the first try. No contest.

Back in Kim's day it took more to win slam.

slicefox
09-14-2009, 10:10 PM
There's no such thing as a good field in women's tennis.

well, when Henin was around.... but that is about it

grafselesfan
09-14-2009, 10:11 PM
I had thought the current womens field was the worst in history but drwood reminded me of the 82-86 field. More specifically than that whole time frame though I would say the 83-84 field was overall the worst ever, worse than even 2008-2009. If 2008-2009 remains at this level longer I would pick it since it was a longer time span than 1983-1984, but if it improves by next year, which I see the signs it will, then no since 83-84 is the worst womens field ever then.

This is what 83-84 had other than Martina at her peak:

-a slumping stagnant and seemingly past her prime Evert (until halfway through 84 when she began to become revatilized)

-a slumping Mandlikova

-Shriver, a solid player

-Jaeger on the verge of burnout in 83 (gone altogether in 84)

-An injured totally washed up Austin playing a bit of tennis in 83 before officialy retiring

-well others not even worth naming really- Durie, Bunge, Hanika, Kohde-Kilsch, Potter, Jordan, early 30s Turnbull, pre-prime 16 year old Garrison, nearly 40 year old Wade.

No wonder Navratilova lost only 3 matches those 2 years, ROTFL!!

It improved alot in 85 and 86 when Chris carried through her resurgence which began midway through 84, Mandlikova began playing better again, young pre-prime Graf and Sabatini emerged on the scene, Sukova carried out the new threat she became in the Dec 84/Jan 85 Australian Open, Garrison proved to be atleast a solid perennial top 10 player, and Shriver remained a solid player.

PascalMariaFan
09-14-2009, 10:17 PM
well, when Henin was around.... but that is about itThe field is still the same, with one player missing.

quest01
09-14-2009, 10:25 PM
I would say the womens field is a lot stronger now then ever before because of the up and comers.

lambielspins
09-14-2009, 10:37 PM
I would say the womens field is a lot stronger now then ever before because of the up and comers.

There are always up and comers. The question that begs is how good are these up and comers. Who are you thinking of per say.

flyer
09-15-2009, 12:52 AM
absolutly not, umm the williams sisters! sharapova when healthy (which probably wont ever happen again)

how would you guys treat an up and comer who only sliced her backhand...you would call her a one dimensional brainless ball basher

lambielspins
09-15-2009, 12:55 AM
absolutly not, umm the williams sisters! sharapova when healthy (which probably wont ever happen again)

how would you guys treat an up and comer who only sliced her backhand...you would call her a one dimensional brainless ball basher

I am talking about the "curent" field as in the right now field and the players in their current ability. Venus right now is just a grass court specialist, that is it. On other surfaces she is washed up, done, has probably been for awhile in fact. Sharapova right now is a double fault machine who is still a shadow of her old self, and not even close to the level needed to contend for slams even amongst the current weak WTA. So of those you mentioned that only leaves Serena who is nothing like she is in 99-2003 as far as fitness and level of play.

flyer
09-15-2009, 12:59 AM
I am talking about the "curent" field as in the right now field and the players in their current ability. Venus right now is just a grass court specialist, that is it. On other surfaces she is washed up, done, has probably been for awhile in fact. Sharapova right now is a double fault machine who is still a shadow of her old self, and not even close to the level needed to contend for slams even amongst the current weak WTA. So of those you mentioned that only leaves Serena who is nothing like she is in 99-2003 as far as fitness and level of play.

maybe other than serena theres no all time greats, but if hingis came up in this dacade as opposed to the last, she never would have won even one slam, so the overall level is still much higher...

lambielspins
09-15-2009, 01:04 AM
maybe other than serena theres no all time greats, but if hingis came up in this dacade as opposed to the last, she never would have won even one slam, so the overall level is still much higher...

I just dont get this. Hingis should have won 1 or 2 slams from 2000-2002 (that U.S Open in 2000 she probably wins if she doesnt blow that easy overhead vs Venus in the semis, and 2002 Australian Open final loss to Capriati was ridiculous) in a much stronger womens field than today so how can you be so sure she couldnt win one today in her absolute prime. In the early 2000s slightly past her prime and a bit injured she was still competitive at times with the Williams and Davenport at their very best so how can you know she would not win anything today with a far past her best Serena still winning slams.

Are you forgetting the "powerful" (ROTFL) Jankovic reached the year end #1 last year and was very close to winning the French Open, while also reaching the U.S Open final. Or Bartoli reaching the Wimbledon final 2 years ago. Wozniacki in the U.S Open final just recently.

flyer
09-15-2009, 01:11 AM
I just dont get this. Hingis should have won 1 or 2 slams from 2000-2002 (that U.S Open in 2000 she probably wins if she doesnt blow that easy overhead vs Venus in the semis, and 2002 Australian Open final loss to Capriati was ridiculous) in a much stronger womens field than today so how can you be so sure she couldnt win one today in her absolute prime. In the early 2000s slightly past her prime and a bit injured she was still competitive at times with the Williams and Davenport at their very best so how can you know she would not win anything today with a far past her best Serena still winning slams.

Are you forgetting the "powerful" (ROTFL) Jankovic reached the year end #1 last year and was very close to winning the French Open, while also reaching the U.S Open final. Or Bartoli reaching the Wimbledon final 2 years ago. Wozniacki in the U.S Open final just recently.

its possible but highly unlikly she would just get hit off the court...

you kinda prove my point for me though, jankovic didnt win a slam and neither did woz, yet both hit bigger (not big, bigger) than hingis do

lambielspins
09-15-2009, 01:13 AM
its possible but highly unlikly she would just get hit off the court...

you kinda prove my point for me though, jankovic didnt win a slam and neither did woz, yet both hit bigger (not big, bigger) than hingis do

Jankovic and Wozniacki do not hit harder than Hingis in her prime, and they certainly are much weaker all around players (Wozniacki has time to get alot better though).

flyer
09-15-2009, 01:21 AM
Jankovic and Wozniacki do not hit harder than Hingis in her prime, and they certainly are much weaker all around players (Wozniacki has time to get alot better though).

of all the girls that have won slams in the last 5 years:

who does hingis in her prime hit harder than?