PDA

View Full Version : Who is more talented?


dangalak
10-08-2012, 02:53 PM
I always wondered. :)

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 02:55 PM
Per gender Serena. If she were as commited to tennis as Federer she would have 30 slams or more now and been the slam dunk GOAT to a far greater extent than Federer or anyone in any sport outside Michael Phelps in swimming perhaps. At her best she is unbeatable, except maybe by a GOAT clay courter on clay. Federer even at his best can occasionaly lose, and will always lose to Nadal on clay. Meanwhile if Federer tanked about 5 years of his career like Serena did he would probably have only about 3 slams today. Serena might well end up with more slams than Federer and many are now calling her the female GOAT just as many call Federer the male GOAT, despite that she half assed her way though much of her career.

SoBad
10-08-2012, 02:57 PM
Serena, if we are breaking it down by gender. She had to endure tough personal losses while Federer was getting funds from an illegal pharmaceutical operation.

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 02:58 PM
Serena at her best probably has the strongest serve, return, forehand, backhand, movement, everything except volleys in the womens game today. Federer at his best has the strongest forehand in the mens game on grass and hard courts (obviously Nadal by a landslide has the best forehand on clay), and nothing else the best, although in his prime the best overall game but not the best in nearly every specific category like Serena at hers.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 03:00 PM
Per gender Serena. If she were as commited to tennis as Federer she would have 30 slams or more now and been the slam dunk GOAT to a far greater extent than Federer or anyone in any sport outside Michael Phelps in swimming perhaps. At her best she is unbeatable, except maybe by a GOAT clay courter on clay. Federer even at his best can occasionaly lose, and will always lose to Nadal on clay. Meanwhile if Federer tanked about 5 years of his career like Serena did he would probably have only about 3 slams today. Serena might well end up with more slams than Federer and many are now calling her the female GOAT just as many call Federer the male GOAT, despite that she half assed her way though much of her career.

maybe it's because of lack of talent overall in women's tennis?

I mean you also need to keep in mind that Serena is phycially superior to 91% of women's tennis. Federer isn't that physically gifted but he still makes his opponents look terrible.

I disagree that Federer at his best can lose. Most of his losses at the big stage had some inconsistencies I think.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 03:03 PM
Serena at her best probably has the strongest serve, return, forehand, backhand, movement, everything except volleys in the womens game today. Federer at his best has the strongest forehand in the mens game on grass and hard courts (obviously Nadal by a landslide has the best forehand on clay), and nothing else the best, although in his prime the best overall game but not the best in nearly every specific category like Serena at hers.

I only agree with serve. Seles and Davy have equal returns. Graf has a better FH. Venus, Seles etc have better BHs. Movement I feel you are really overrating her. Her speed is GOAT worthy, but movement I think Graf, Henin, Venus move better while Clijsters is equal. Federer might be GOAT in movement. BH slice might be only second to Rosewall.

fed_rulz
10-08-2012, 03:03 PM
Per gender Serena. If she were as commited to tennis as Federer she would have 30 slams or more now and been the slam dunk GOAT to a far greater extent than Federer or anyone in any sport outside Michael Phelps in swimming perhaps. At her best she is unbeatable, except maybe by a GOAT clay courter on clay. Federer even at his best can occasionaly lose, and will always lose to Nadal on clay. Meanwhile if Federer tanked about 5 years of his career like Serena did he would probably have only about 3 slams today. Serena might well end up with more slams than Federer and many are now calling her the female GOAT just as many call Federer the male GOAT, despite that she half assed her way though much of her career.

lol, what BS. as djoker would say, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

if she were committed to tennis, then it's quite likely that she gets burned out before the end of the year or loses motivation or picks up an injury, with less chances to show her "talent".

And no, it's no contest. Federer by a country mile. Serena's domination is not even top 10 in the women's game. Federer's is unprecedented. Federer beats her in peak level, consistency, domination, longevity, results.. you name it.

the only area where serena beats Federer is in bad hair-styles.

OHBH
10-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Roger for sure.

Serena can take advantage of the fact that half the WTA is out of shape and/or mentally weak. She only really needs to show up and use her skills once or twice in a tournament MAYBE three good matches in a slam. Roger has risen head and shoulders above a much more consistently strong field of players.

90's Clay
10-08-2012, 03:05 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. (I'm not sure there are too many in WTA history that could beat Serena peak for peak).

You can't say the same for Federer. Nadal as a young buck (not even in his prime) was beating a peak Federer. Sampras could take Fed peak for peak on fast surfaces. I think Andre could take Fed out peak for peak (since he was taking close to peak Fed to 4 and 5 sets at an OLD age).

dangalak
10-08-2012, 03:06 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. (I'm not sure there are two many that could beat Serena peak for peak).

You can't say the same for Federer.

Yes you can bro.

Nadal could beat him on clay even at his peak (Rome 2006) but Henin could beat Serena on her peak as well.

paulorenzo
10-08-2012, 03:09 PM
serena is pretty talented to at times play incredibly well even when she's out of shape and lacks match practice.

if federer showed that much lack of drive and disinterest in the game, he would have been done a long time ago.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 03:11 PM
serena is pretty talented to at times play incredibly well even when she's out of shape and lacks match practice.

if federer showed that much lack of drive and disinterest in the game, he would have been done a long time ago.

I think people give too much attention to the final of 07 AO. Yeah she crushed Sharpie but she is her b*tch anyway. On the way to the final, she struggled hard.

I don't know if this logic counts, but I think that women's tennis is less tough than mens tennis. A guy like Nadal was embarrassed in the WTF just because he missed a couple of months. I can't imagine the same in the women's tour.

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 03:17 PM
Yes you can bro.

Nadal could beat him on clay even at his peak (Rome 2006) but Henin could beat Serena on her peak as well.

Nadal beat Federer at his peak on hard courts too. Won 2 of their first 3 matches aged 17-19, and choked a huge lead which would have been a 3 straight sets win otherwise. Henin was only a threat to peak Serena on clay.

The Bawss
10-08-2012, 03:20 PM
I think people give too much attention to the final of 07 AO. Yeah she crushed Sharpie but she is her b*tch anyway. On the way to the final, she struggled hard.

I don't know if this logic counts, but I think that women's tennis is less tough than mens tennis. A guy like Nadal was embarrassed in the WTF just because he missed a couple of months. I can't imagine the same in the women's tour.

This. The WTA is a joke, fact. I can't believe this is even a question. Serena plays a talentless power game that she happens to excel at because she is huge compared to all other girls in the talentless field of fatties (too many to list).

Fed by a zillion miles. Fed can't even see Serena from the talent level he is on.

paulorenzo
10-08-2012, 03:21 PM
I think people give too much attention to the final of 07 AO. Yeah she crushed Sharpie but she is her b*tch anyway. On the way to the final, she struggled hard.

I don't know if this logic counts, but I think that women's tennis is less tough than mens tennis. A guy like Nadal was embarrassed in the WTF just because he missed a couple of months. I can't imagine the same in the women's tour.

you have a point. physicality and conditioning is a bigger part of the men's tour than the women's.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 03:24 PM
Nadal beat Federer at his peak on hard courts too. Won 2 of their first 3 matches aged 17-19, and choked a huge lead which would have been a 3 straight sets win otherwise. Henin was only a threat to peak Serena on clay.

Federer would've never lost to Nadal on HC in slams. Who cares about a loss in Miami, where Federer was never that good in the first place and where he was sick.

Dubai, I'll give you, but that was almost a choke of Miami F 2005 proportions. Federer was controlling everyting, just like Nadal was controlling everything in Miami.

President
10-08-2012, 03:28 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. (I'm not sure there are too many in WTA history that could beat Serena peak for peak).

You can't say the same for Federer. Nadal as a young buck (not even in his prime) was beating a peak Federer. Sampras could take Fed peak for peak on fast surfaces. I think Andre could take Fed out peak for peak (since he was taking close to peak Fed to 4 and 5 sets at an OLD age).

LOL at the bolded :confused:

Pathetic post. Just man up and realize that your idol Petros will never be in the running for GOAT again now that Federer has surpassed all of his achievements.

BauerAlmeida
10-08-2012, 03:32 PM
maybe it's because of lack of talent overall in women's tennis?

I mean you also need to keep in mind that Serena is phycially superior to 91% of women's tennis. Federer isn't that physically gifted but he still makes his opponents look terrible.

I disagree that Federer at his best can lose. Most of his losses at the big stage had some inconsistencies I think.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldxmlg5XKUg

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 03:36 PM
I disagree that Federer at his best can lose. Most of his losses at the big stage had some inconsistencies I think.

Federer did play his best at the 2005 Australian Open and still lost to Safin. Federer could have played the clay court match of his life vs Nadal at the 2008 French and he still would have gotten 10 games at absolute most. Federer at his best can definitely lose.

Serena at his best probably could not lose. Even to Henin on clay she would for sure win if she were playing her very best, although only rarely could she produce that.

90's Clay
10-08-2012, 03:39 PM
Federer did play his best at the 2005 Australian Open and still lost to Safin. Federer could have played the clay court match of his life vs Nadal at the 2008 French and he still would have gotten 10 games at absolute most. Federer at his best can definitely lose.

Serena at his best probably could not lose. Even to Henin on clay she would for sure win if she were playing her very best, although only rarely could she produce that.

Good points.. Fed fans looking back with those rosey tinted "RF shades" on again. Fed at his best DID lose on the big stage on a few different surfaces and also lost quite a bit to Nadal in general when he playing near his peak level. So I don't know what the issue is here

OHBH
10-08-2012, 03:42 PM
Not sure how the Nadal H2H makes the case against Fed. In fact it does the opposite because we it only highlights the depth of talent present in the men's tour while the women's tour is mostly a joke. Federer being able to win as many majors and being such a consistent winner despite all the ridiculously talented competition he has to face only serve to highlight his own amazing talent.

paulorenzo
10-08-2012, 03:46 PM
if one was to consider both tours as equals, disregarding the physicality gap between the atp and wta, who would be more talented among his or her respective peers?

MichaelNadal
10-08-2012, 03:53 PM
Apples and oranges I think.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 04:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldxmlg5XKUg

:he choked. :P

Didn't Serena play her best against Clijsters and still lost? In the YEC I mean. Didn't watch the match, just asking.

Federer did play his best at the 2005 Australian Open and still lost to Safin. Federer could have played the clay court match of his life vs Nadal at the 2008 French and he still would have gotten 10 games at absolute most. Federer at his best can definitely lose.

Serena at his best probably could not lose. Even to Henin on clay she would for sure win if she were playing her very best, although only rarely could she produce that.

It's true that she lost a tight match against Henin on clay in FO 2003. But Henin wasn't at her peak yet. I doubt that she would beat Henin in 2007 at her own best.

forzamilan90
10-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Fed is the most talented player, end of story. Serena is the strongest physical specimen in the women's game, but she's no Federer.

SoBad
10-08-2012, 06:09 PM
Fed is the most talented player, end of story. Serena is the strongest physical specimen in the women's game, but she's no Federer.

Yet we don't see Serena waltzing around center courts in Madrid whiffing groundstrokes in finals on TV...:lol:

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 06:16 PM
Yet we don't see Serena waltzing around center courts in Madrid whiffing groundstrokes in finals on TV...:lol:

http://imageshack.us/a/img834/5784/nadaln.gif

SoBad
10-08-2012, 06:19 PM
http://imageshack.us/a/img834/5784/nadaln.gif

Clay is slippery sometimes - great tennis players can lose balance in executing a stroke. News to you, huh?;)

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 06:20 PM
Clay is slippery sometimes - great tennis players can lose balance in executing a stroke. News to you, huh?;)

Really, great players can make mistakes? Who would have thought. ;)

SoBad
10-08-2012, 06:21 PM
Really, great players can make mistakes? Who would have thought. ;)

Yes, unlike mediocre nonplayers who whiff, wear pink purses and toss plastic at ballboys everywhere....:lol:

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 06:24 PM
Yes, unlike mediocre nonplayers who whiff, wear pink purses and toss plastic at ballboys everywhere....:lol:

Yep, much better than amateurs who choke on bananas, pick at their underwear, and slip on nearly every surface imaginable. :lol:

SoBad
10-08-2012, 06:26 PM
Yep, much better than amateurs who choke on bananas, pick at their underwear, and slip on nearly every surface imaginable. :lol:

Here we go again - Nadal's Armani underwear.

TMF
10-08-2012, 06:27 PM
Roger is more talented.

The numbers speak for themselves. Men tennis is way more competitive than women tennis, and it required more talent to win a slam.

cc0509
10-08-2012, 06:31 PM
They are both supremely talented, let's not get crazy on here.

cc0509
10-08-2012, 06:36 PM
Roger is more talented.

The numbers speak for themselves. Men tennis is way more competitive than women tennis, and it required more talent to win a slam.

That is false. Women's tennis and men's tennis is different but you can't say that a woman who has won 15 slams is not talented, that is just a stupid statement.
They are both very talented just different that is all.

TMF
10-08-2012, 06:42 PM
That is false. Women's tennis and men's tennis is different but you can't say that a woman who has won 15 slams is not talented, that is just a stupid statement.
They are both very talented just different that is all.

Never said Serena doesn't have any talent.:confused:

TMF
10-08-2012, 06:44 PM
They are both supremely talented, let's not get crazy on here.

The OP asked who's more talented.

cc0509
10-08-2012, 06:46 PM
The OP asked who's more talented.

I know and I think it is very hard to say who is more talented. It is pretty even given their respective results and careers.

TMF
10-08-2012, 06:50 PM
I know and I think it is very hard to say who is more talented. It is pretty even given their respective results and careers.

Results wise, no it's not!

cc0509
10-08-2012, 07:03 PM
Results wise, no it's not!

Slam-wise? Sure it is.

You have this thing about Serena Williams, you don't like her and that is fine, I am not a big fan myself, but her talent and what she has achieved can't be denied. I would say she is as talented as Federer but in different ways. It is hard to compare anything when you are comparing two different things, but, I would say it is pretty equal in terms of talent.

fed_rulz
10-08-2012, 07:30 PM
Slam-wise? Sure it is.

You have this thing about Serena Williams, you don't like her and that is fine, I am not a big fan myself, but her talent and what she has achieved can't be denied. I would say she is as talented as Federer but in different ways. It is hard to compare anything when you are comparing two different things, but, I would say it is pretty equal in terms of talent.


whoa, easy there tiger. you obfuscate a lot of issues. i don't think anyone here would deny that Serena was talented, supremely at that. But she ain't no Federer. Please...

Federer is the most accomplished male tennis player of all time. Serena barely makes the top 5. She has a 7-slam gulf (9 if you want to compare her to Court) with the all-time leader... that's Henin's career so to speak. Federer IS the all-time leader. I don't understand how anyone with a straight face can claim that Serena is anywhere near Federer in terms of talent.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 07:30 PM
Slam-wise? Sure it is.

You have this thing about Serena Williams, you don't like her and that is fine, I am not a big fan myself, but her talent and what she has achieved can't be denied. I would say she is as talented as Federer but in different ways. It is hard to compare anything when you are comparing two different things, but, I would say it is pretty equal in terms of talent.

I can't look at SW and say she's as talented as Federer when she has some of the most sloppy footwork I've ever seen. Federer couldn't get that sloppy even if he tried.

I guess you could consider physical superiority a talent, but Federer's brand of talent impresses me more.

RF20Lennon
10-08-2012, 07:34 PM
The question I think was who is more talented??? Federer's natural talent is just mind blowing!! No one can even compare in all honesty

No1e
10-08-2012, 08:01 PM
Serena. Simply because she completed a Serena slam, while Roger couldn't.

smoledman
10-08-2012, 08:43 PM
http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/mmorpg-general-discussion/219169d1349302928-wow-5-0-when-its-ready-not-1115581193_8de09_notsureifserious_answer_101_xlarg e.jpeg

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 09:11 PM
You have this thing about Serena Williams, you don't like her and that is fine, I am not a big fan myself, but her talent and what she has achieved can't be denied. I would say she is as talented as Federer but in different ways. It is hard to compare anything when you are comparing two different things, but, I would say it is pretty equal in terms of talent.

Serena is disrespected on this forum for 2 main reasons:

1. She is a women. This forum is extremely ATP heavy and anti WTA.

2. She is black. Sorry but it has to be said. Just look at the extreme hatred Donald Young gets on this forum as well. Yeah he isnt that good, but normally a player outside the top 100 would have nobody giving a damn about them, not creating numerous threads to bash upon them.

Sim
10-08-2012, 09:18 PM
Obviously Federer is more talented. If he played the WTA, he would be #1. Serena would never even break top 500 in ATP. No contest on who's more talented...

Prisoner of Birth
10-08-2012, 09:18 PM
Serena is disrespected on this forum for 2 main reasons:

1. She is a women. This forum is extremely ATP heavy and anti WTA.

2. She is black. Sorry but it has to be said. Just look at the extreme hatred Donald Young gets on this forum as well. Yeah he isnt that good, but normally a player outside the top 100 would have nobody giving a damn about them, not creating numerous threads to bash upon them.

Oh, the race card. Why is Monfils rather well-liked, then? And why is never anything said against Venus? Why just Serena?

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 09:20 PM
Oh, the race card. Why is Monfils rather well-liked, then? And why is never anything said against Venus? Why just Serena?

Monfils well liked, LOL! That is a laugh. Both Williams sisters are heavily disliked on this forum. Venus not so much anymore since she is irrelevant these days so nobody cares much anymore (well Young is too but he plays on the ATP and the forum can be bothered to either praise or diss even irrelevant ATP players).

Sim
10-08-2012, 09:26 PM
Monfils well liked, LOL! That is a laugh. Both Williams sisters are heavily disliked on this forum. Venus not so much anymore since she is irrelevant these days so nobody cares much anymore (well Young is too but he plays on the ATP and the forum can be bothered to either praise or diss even irrelevant ATP players).

I see more hate stemming from a player's personality, attitude, gamesmanship, playstyle, etc. than from a player's skin color...

Serena is heavily disliked because of her attitude just as Sharapova and Azarenka are just as "hated" because of their screams.

And no one hates Donald Young here. They just mock him because of loss streak, USTA affiliation, sticking with parents as coaches.

No1e
10-08-2012, 09:27 PM
Monfils well liked, LOL! That is a laugh. Both Williams sisters are heavily disliked on this forum. Venus not so much anymore since she is irrelevant these days so nobody cares much anymore (well Young is too but he plays on the ATP and the forum can be bothered to either praise or diss even irrelevant ATP players).

I agree that this forum has a fair share of racists like you, but you can't make the assumption that everyone else here is just like you.

Prisoner of Birth
10-08-2012, 09:44 PM
Monfils well liked, LOL! That is a laugh. Both Williams sisters are heavily disliked on this forum. Venus not so much anymore since she is irrelevant these days so nobody cares much anymore (well Young is too but he plays on the ATP and the forum can be bothered to either praise or diss even irrelevant ATP players).

I can't speak for the others but I really, really dislike Serena. And I like Venus and, surprise surprise, Donald Young. I might make fun of him but that doesn't mean I dislike him. I dislike Sharapova more than I dislike Serena, though.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 10:18 PM
Serena is disrespected on this forum for 2 main reasons:

1. She is a women. This forum is extremely ATP heavy and anti WTA.

2. She is black. Sorry but it has to be said. Just look at the extreme hatred Donald Young gets on this forum as well. Yeah he isnt that good, but normally a player outside the top 100 would have nobody giving a damn about them, not creating numerous threads to bash upon them.

:lol: No it doesn't. Nobody heaps abuse on Ebony Starr. :) There is zero evidence that she is hated because she's black, other than her being black. Oh wait, what am I saying, that is enough evidence. :oops:

tusharlovesrafa
10-09-2012, 12:14 AM
The question I think was who is more talented??? Federer's natural talent is just mind blowing!! No one can even compare in all honesty

I agree with you.Although I am a rafa fan,Roger's natural talent is something out of this world.Sarena is a pure bully,she can out-hit her opponents but she can never out class her opponents.

dangalak
10-09-2012, 01:10 AM
Per gender Serena. If she were as commited to tennis as Federer she would have 30 slams or more now and been the slam dunk GOAT to a far greater extent than Federer or anyone in any sport outside Michael Phelps in swimming perhaps. At her best she is unbeatable, except maybe by a GOAT clay courter on clay. Federer even at his best can occasionaly lose, and will always lose to Nadal on clay. Meanwhile if Federer tanked about 5 years of his career like Serena did he would probably have only about 3 slams today. Serena might well end up with more slams than Federer and many are now calling her the female GOAT just as many call Federer the male GOAT, despite that she half assed her way though much of her career.

Many people are also stupid. /Lopez :lol:

I also find it hilarious how you are overestimating her peak form. Certainly she has a better peak than most of the high tier legends, but there were plenty of players that, when peaking would be just as devastating.

Peak isn't that relevant. If we were going by peak form, Del Potro from the way he played the first set in the DC final against Nadal would be unbeatable. Mary would actually rival somebody like Serena on anything that isn't fast. (and dominate her on clay) Kvitova.

What's important is how good you are day in day out AND on your peak. You put too much emphasis on the latter.

syc23
10-09-2012, 02:48 AM
In terms of talent level:

Fed - Level 5,999,999,999,891
Serena - Level 20,000

A peak Serena playing in the ATP tour would get tripled bagelled by Ferrer. Straighted setted 60 60 61 by Gasguet.

She's beating all those girls on the WTA tour not by talent but intimidation. It's like back in the days, when Mike Tyson's was in his peak, opponents would lose the fight mentally before they even step onto the ring.

slowfox
10-09-2012, 08:46 AM
Landslide.

Gonzo_style
10-09-2012, 08:52 AM
Obviously Federer is more talented. If he played the WTA, he would be #1. Serena would never even break top 500 in ATP. No contest on who's more talented...

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

BauerAlmeida
10-09-2012, 09:19 AM
Obviously Federer is more talented. If he played the WTA, he would be #1. Serena would never even break top 500 in ATP. No contest on who's more talented...

Maybe that's because of the power, not because of the talent.

Anyway, I still think Fed is more talented.

ahuimanu
10-09-2012, 09:44 AM
I always wondered. :)

In terms of straight up "tennis" talent-Roger.

If you're speaking of athletic talent, gotta say-Serena. She is a genetically superior athlete...

cknobman
10-09-2012, 09:47 AM
I am in no way saying Serena is not talented, BUT she does not hold a candle to Federer in the talent department.

Serena biggest attributes are power, guile, and determination more-so than talent.

The-Champ
10-09-2012, 09:57 AM
Both are incredibly talented but my vote goes to Queen Serena.

- career golden slam in doubles and singles.
- Serena slam
- murdered sister, injury-ridden career. Despite that she has managed to win 15 majors.

okdude1992
10-09-2012, 09:59 AM
Serena is just superior to the rest of the WTA. Stronger, bigger, tougher mentally. Also the level of competition she's been competing against for big stretches of her career is the worst the WTA has been. Even still she's never been near as dominant as Federer.

Federer meanwhile is the definition of talent. In his prime he dominated everything off clay for 3-4 years (only losing to the cc GOAT, Nadal)
He is still capable of beating other all time greats even now, way past his prime

Dark Magician
10-09-2012, 10:58 AM
In my opinion, their talent level goes something like this :-
Serena - 7500
Federer - Its over 9000!!!!! What 9000???????

Dark Magician
10-09-2012, 11:03 AM
I feel Fed is little better, thanks to guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Safin, Hewitt,.........

zagor
10-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. (I'm not sure there are too many in WTA history that could beat Serena peak for peak).

You can't say the same for Federer. Nadal as a young buck (not even in his prime) was beating a peak Federer. Sampras could take Fed peak for peak on fast surfaces. I think Andre could take Fed out peak for peak (since he was taking close to peak Fed to 4 and 5 sets at an OLD age).

You have as much proof of that as me saying Steffi or Navratilova could take Serena peak for peak on fast surfaces, they played only once and Sampras lost (yes I know Sampras was not at his best but neither was Fed).

Anyway as Michael said, it's apples and oranges, Serena has to win 23 slams to get the open era slam record while Fed merely had to win 15 to achieve the same, Serena should be compared to other WTA players (especially in regards to slam count) not to Fed, the two tours are just too different.

smoledman
10-09-2012, 05:16 PM
One moves like water, the other is a bit lumbering but gets the job done.

smoledman
10-09-2012, 05:21 PM
Federer had to play peak Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro. Who has Serena played exactly?

SoBad
10-09-2012, 05:30 PM
Federer had to play peak Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro. Who has Serena played exactly?

Don't make me lmao - barely squeezed by the short Hewitt/Nalbandian, one-trick Roddick, injured Safin and one-legged Nadal, pre-prime Djokovic, talentless Murray and awkward-moving Delpo, while Serena had to face toughest competition of all time.

smoledman
10-09-2012, 05:35 PM
Don't make me lmao - barely squeezed by the short Hewitt/Nalbandian, one-trick Roddick, injured Safin and one-legged Nadal, pre-prime Djokovic, talentless Murray and awkward-moving Delpo, while Serena had to face toughest competition of all time.

ROFL!!!! :twisted:

dangalak
10-09-2012, 05:39 PM
Nalbandian is short? :confused:

I would point to his lack of fitness, rather than anything else. :lol:

SoBad
10-09-2012, 05:42 PM
ROFL!!!! :twisted:

Nalbandian is short? :confused:

I would point to his lack of fitness, rather than anything else. :lol:

We are talking about a short fat man who spends his offseason walking around Buenos Aires all night looking for a new steakhouse with fatty chunks of lamb.

jokinla
10-09-2012, 05:50 PM
Fed for sure, not even close, Serena has more physical ability than most WTAers, but she isn't more talented than Fed, get serious.

seattle_1hander
10-09-2012, 07:00 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. (I'm not sure there are too many in WTA history that could beat Serena peak for peak).

You can't say the same for Federer. Nadal as a young buck (not even in his prime) was beating a peak Federer. Sampras could take Fed peak for peak on fast surfaces. I think Andre could take Fed out peak for peak (since he was taking close to peak Fed to 4 and 5 sets at an OLD age).


The stupidity here is beyond anything I've ever seen on tenniswarehouse. Serena at her peak had nowhere near the streaks, records, or slams Federer was throwing up between 04 and 07. I mean...honestlY?

Talker
10-09-2012, 07:09 PM
Why bring Serena into this?
She doesn't even have weeks at #1 or enough slam totals.


I would say she has about Agassi's level for the woman.

NadalDramaQueen
10-09-2012, 07:15 PM
The stupidity here is beyond anything I've ever seen on tenniswarehouse. Serena at her peak had nowhere near the streaks, records, or slams Federer was throwing up between 04 and 07. I mean...honestlY?

That is a bold statement! :cool: I think 90's Clay is just having a laugh at everyone else's expense though, he really is a riot.

Since we are again talking about talent, I find it hard to compare Serena to Roger at his best. When you see something like that, you never forget it. The only player who comes close is Laver himself. He has a magical quality and that is why his supporters will vigorously defend him to this day. I get the feeling that Federer will be regarded in the same manner when he is done.

Tony48
10-09-2012, 07:33 PM
Fed is amazing and his game is aesthetically-pleasing (which I think people like to put in the "talent" category like they do with Gasquet) but I'm gonna have to go with Serena.

The stupidity here is beyond anything I've ever seen on tenniswarehouse. Serena at her peak had nowhere near the streaks, records, or slams Federer was throwing up between 04 and 07. I mean...honestlY?

Serena didn't participate in many tournaments by choice. Records are combination of many things, and not just sheer talent.

dangalak
10-09-2012, 08:16 PM
Fed is amazing and his game is aesthetically-pleasing (which I think people like to put in the "talent" category like they do with Gasquet) but I'm gonna have to go with Serena.

Based on what?

She is incapable of doing many things on the tennis court that Federer does easily. (dropshots, slices, SOUND FOOTWORK) Any superiority to Federer is mostly physical.

World Beater
10-09-2012, 08:36 PM
instead of looking at coulda, wouldas.

look at facts

serena hasnt done anything totally out of line with previous female dominance...

Federer however is a much bigger outlier in tennis history than serena williams.

BauerAlmeida
10-10-2012, 09:26 AM
instead of looking at coulda, wouldas.

look at facts

serena hasnt done anything totally out of line with previous female dominance...

Federer however is a much bigger outlier in tennis history than serena williams.

That's not the question.

tistrapukcipeht
10-10-2012, 09:28 AM
This must be a joke.

Sim
10-10-2012, 09:30 AM
Federer made full use of his talent while Serena did not, and just this factor makes it hard to tell who is "more" talented. I say they're both incredibly talented. Hard to imagine them being any more talented because then they'd be the perfect player.

mmk
10-10-2012, 09:50 AM
Roger has much greater variety in his game than Serena

TMF
10-10-2012, 09:56 AM
That's not the question.instead of looking at coulda, wouldas.

look at facts

serena hasnt done anything totally out of line with previous female dominance...

Federer however is a much bigger outlier in tennis history than serena williams.

The OP shouldn't ask the question in the first place since it's not even a debate.

dangalak
10-10-2012, 10:03 AM
The OP shouldn't ask the question in the first place since it's not even a debate.

NadalAgassi said that talent should be considered "natural ability, when maximised, will probably lead to success". As in Serena could theoretically be more talented than Federer, but in a jock way, not a virtuoso way.

I made this thread to know how many people agree with that.

underground
10-10-2012, 10:52 AM
Thank God most of the people in TW have common sense.

MTF07
10-10-2012, 07:16 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. (I'm not sure there are too many in WTA history that could beat Serena peak for peak).

You can't say the same for Federer. Nadal as a young buck (not even in his prime) was beating a peak Federer. Sampras could take Fed peak for peak on fast surfaces. I think Andre could take Fed out peak for peak (since he was taking close to peak Fed to 4 and 5 sets at an OLD age).

You are so ****ing dumb.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 08:15 PM
NadalAgassi said that talent should be considered "natural ability, when maximised, will probably lead to success". As in Serena could theoretically be more talented than Federer, but in a jock way, not a virtuoso way.

I made this thread to know how many people agree with that.

Yes like Serena is going to have any chance vs Federer on an ATP only/WTA hating forum, LOL! It is funny how the poll who would win more slams between Serena and Federer had Serena with about 90% of the votes at the WTA forum and only 15% here (lo and behold the WTA forum is more likely to end up being right on that). This poll would be exactly the same in reverse there most likely too. Only if there was a forum neutral between ATP and WTA fans could a poll be credible.

Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. is very true. The Serena of 2002/2003 at her peak of peaks would in fact beat any women in history peak to peak on hard courts or grass. Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles, they would all regularly lose to this Serena outside of clay. Pretty much everyone, these players themselves included, have conceded as much. Federer in no way is this clear. Sampras could well have the edge peak to peak on all faster courts, Gonzales as well, Laver could on pretty much any court, a dozen players would on clay, a young Nadal has shown he does on most courts. It is quite telling that at the same age Federer currently is, and with about 40% her old fitness level and mobility she is able to dominate the womens tour in a way the fully commited Federer cannot.

dangalak
10-10-2012, 09:22 PM
Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. is very true. The Serena of 2002/2003 at her peak of peaks would in fact beat any women in history peak to peak on hard courts or grass. Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles, they would all regularly lose to this Serena outside of clay. Pretty much everyone, these players themselves included, have conceded as much. Federer in no way is this clear. Sampras could well have the edge peak to peak on all faster courts, Gonzales as well, Laver could on pretty much any court, a dozen players would on clay, a young Nadal has shown he does on most courts. It is quite telling that at the same age Federer currently is, and with about 40% her old fitness level and mobility she is able to dominate the womens tour in a way the fully commited Federer cannot.

:lol: :lol:

Seriously, you are f*cking delusional.

Serena's domination of her tour has more to do with her pathetic competition.

Nadal hasn't proven that he can beat peak Federer "on most courts". He is better on clay and has a good chance on slow hardcourt. All of his major win over him happened after Federer's decline.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 09:26 PM
Yes like Serena is going to have any chance vs Federer on an ATP only/WTA hating forum, LOL! It is funny how the poll who would win more slams between Serena and Federer had Serena with about 90% of the votes at the WTA forum and only 15% here (lo and behold the WTA forum is more likely to end up being right on that). This poll would be exactly the same in reverse there most likely too. Only if there was a forum neutral between ATP and WTA fans could a poll be credible.

Serena at her best was pretty dang tough to beat. is very true. The Serena of 2002/2003 at her peak of peaks would in fact beat any women in history peak to peak on hard courts or grass. Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles, they would all regularly lose to this Serena outside of clay. Pretty much everyone, these players themselves included, have conceded as much. Federer in no way is this clear. Sampras could well have the edge peak to peak on all faster courts, Gonzales as well, Laver could on pretty much any court, a dozen players would on clay, a young Nadal has shown he does on most courts. It is quite telling that at the same age Federer currently is, and with about 40% her old fitness level and mobility she is able to dominate the womens tour in a way the fully commited Federer cannot.

Federer would straight-set Laver and Gonzales 9 times out of 10. Tennis these days is of a much higher standard than back then.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 10:35 PM
:lol: :lol:

Seriously, you are f*cking delusional.

Serena's domination of her tour has more to do with her pathetic competition.

Nadal hasn't proven that he can beat peak Federer "on most courts". He is better on clay and has a good chance on slow hardcourt. All of his major win over him happened after Federer's decline.

The 2002-2003 field when Serena was her most dominant ever was not pathetic, in fact the 1999-2003 field is considered by most the toughest and deepest womens tennis field in history, something nobody (other than a few deluded ****s) would ever say about the mens field during Federer's dominance.

PS- someone who has started so many asinine threads in such a short time on this forum is the last one in a position to call anyone deluded. Continue trying to pump into peoples brains how the great David Nalbandian is more talented than Federer, something even I the so called Fed hater according to ****s wouldnt even try.


Federer would straight-set Laver and Gonzales 9 times out of 10. Tennis these days is of a much higher standard than back then.

Yes, he doesnt even straight set his pigeons Hewitt and Roddick 9 times out of 10 yet he would Laver and Gonzales, two of the greatest, both argaubly the greatest, player(s) of all time. OK.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 10:44 PM
The 2002-2003 field when Serena was her most dominant ever was not pathetic, in fact the 1999-2003 field is considered by most the toughest and deepest womens tennis field in history, something nobody (other than a few deluded ****s) would ever say about the mens field during Federer's dominance.

PS- someone who has started so many asinine threads in such a short time on this forum is the last one in a position to call anyone deluded. Continue trying to pump into peoples brains how the great David Nalbandian is more talented than Federer, something even I the so called Fed hater according to ****s wouldnt even try.




Yes, he doesnt even straight set his pigeons Hewitt and Roddick 9 times out of 10 yet he would Laver and Gonzales, two of the greatest, both argaubly the greatest, player(s) of all time. OK.

But Hewitt and Roddick are better players than Laver and Gonzales. Relative to their fields and from historical perspective, Laver and Gonzales are the far Greater players. Greater, not better. Tennis these days is of a much higher standard.

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 10:48 PM
But Hewitt and Roddick are better players than Laver and Gonzales.

ROTFL!!!! Thanks so much, that makes a great sig.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 10:50 PM
ROTFL!!!! Thanks so much, that makes a great sig.

Why, thank you. Looking forward to seeing my quote as your signature. Of course, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you're taking it out of context.

Raging Buddha
10-11-2012, 12:37 AM
Why, thank you. Looking forward to seeing my quote as your signature. Of course, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you're taking it out of context.
NadalAgassi has quite a few nice gems of his own that he has so graciously donated to the wider community...though I love my current signature far too much to ensure that their true value is engraved into public memory. ;)

SoBad
10-11-2012, 01:13 AM
The Laver-Gonzalez team might have a fraction of a chance with the two-back formation v. Roddick/Hewitt.

MTF07
10-11-2012, 03:52 AM
The 2002-2003 field when Serena was her most dominant ever was not pathetic, in fact the 1999-2003 field is considered by most the toughest and deepest womens tennis field in history, something nobody (other than a few deluded ****s) would ever say about the mens field during Federer's dominance.

PS- someone who has started so many asinine threads in such a short time on this forum is the last one in a position to call anyone deluded. Continue trying to pump into peoples brains how the great David Nalbandian is more talented than Federer, something even I the so called Fed hater according to ****s wouldnt even try.




Yes, he doesnt even straight set his pigeons Hewitt and Roddick 9 times out of 10 yet he would Laver and Gonzales, two of the greatest, both argaubly the greatest, player(s) of all time. OK.
And Serena can't even straight set Azarenka in a slam final, but she'd dominate players that dominated the sport far more than she ever did.

Right. I like you say things so definitively without any proof.