Is the women's field deeper than the men's?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Razoredge, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    NadalAgassi says the women's field is deeper than the men's because their have been a ton of different GS champions over the last few years, what do you think?
     
    #1
  2. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    Probably is.. This isn't the golden age of the WTA but it still has more depth compared to the most shallow talent pool in the history of men's tennis now
     
    #2
  3. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    Stupid.....
     
    #3
  4. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    Think of who has been Number 1 in Women's Tennis over the last few years:

    Ivanovic, Safina, Jankovic, Wozniacki

    Three of them haven't wont slams, and Ivanovic only won her slam because Henin wasn't around to clown her in the final again.

    That's not depth or quality, that's gutter level.
     
    #4
  5. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    Think of who won the last 30 some slams in the men's field . Like 4 or 5 guys? ROFLMAO. Wheres everyone else in the world? You can only look at that and think how inept everyone else is in terms of winning

    Do you call that "depth?"
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #5
  6. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Nah, the women's field isn't that strong today.

    Not like in the early 2000s when you had Serena, Venus, Hingis, Clijsters, Henin, Capriati, Davenport, Mauresmo, young Sharapova etc...

    Those were exciting times in womens' tennis with different styles and personalities.

    Now it's just Eastern European grinders and old Serena beating up on everyone.
     
    #6
  7. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    Cream always rises to the top. That's depth and quality.

    When random people keep winning each slam the game is in a slump, just look at the men's game in the early 2000s, no one was praising the field for "depth" but rather mocking it for being inconsistent.
     
    #7
  8. Huanita99

    Huanita99 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    209
    lol at razor but he is right. like what depth? You have Serena and all others girls are just clueless screaming clowns. Does anybody even watch the WTA matches any more
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #8
  9. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    Exactly, Hewitt bombing out in the first round when defending champion is hardly the hallmark of a strong era.
     
    #9
  10. Sumo

    Sumo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Chapel Hill
    Slam winners is a pretty bad barometer, but if you want to use it, the number of favorites in slams has recently gone from 2 players to 4. That 100% more! Amazing depth.
     
    #10
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    In the 00's you had more claims to some of the thrones compared today (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Blake, Nadal, Kuerten, etc.)

    Today its owned by 3-4 guys. A far cry from just 7-8 years ago
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #11
  12. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    So 3-4 guys winning everything with no one else even REMOTE challengers is amazing "depth?" An era with depth provides 8-10 legit claims to the thrones.. Not 3 or 4 guys winning every tournament
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #12
  13. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,356
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    3-4 guys being much better than everyone else doesn't mean the talent pool is shallow. Those 4 are just way way better. Depth isn't necessarily a good thing if the quality isn't there...To have more grand slam contenders right now you'd probably need a Pete Sampras or Lendl etc...beating the of the likes of Djokovic/Federer/Murray/Nadal back to back is tough ask for anyone.
     
    #13
  14. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    The quality was still there in the 80s, 90s and 00's.. I fail to see where it was missing. However, the quality outside of the top 4 is below average at best. Its just during those times the 5-15 or 20 spots had more talent then it does now.

    Fed's old now, Djokovic isn't peaked out now and more proned to losing then he was a year ago, Murray is a head case many times, Nadal isn't even playing and is physically breaking down now. .. Thats not an unpassable fortress no one should be able to break through


    Its not like Fed, Murray, Djoker and Nadal are all at their peaks right now at the same time. LOL. Fed and Nadal's peak ended quite a while ago.. Djoker's peak was probably last year.. Murray is probably the only player at his peak and he is very much beatable
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #14
  15. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,104
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Its stronger than it was from 2008-2010. At least we have a top 4 that looks respectable right now. All of the majors were won by a member of the top 3 and except for the French Open the finals of all 6 of the biggest events were contested by some combo of 2 of the top 4. The top 3 took many of the biggest events (all the majors, YEC, Olympics, IW, Beijing..Aga won one biggie) the US Open series was an anomaly to that otherwise norm. The quality of the top 4 is there, and there are others outside that do look ok (Kerber, Errani, Kvitova had a passable year, Petrova came alive at the end as did Woz, Kirilenko had some small moments and Li did win Cincy)

    But as for depth due to various major winners...

    Li after winning the French won like 6 matches total for the entire year following it and even before winning the french lost 5 matches in a row after the Aussie or something like t

    Stosur's US Open was a total fluke. She did nothing in 2011 before or after it. She bombed
    on clay in comparison to 2010 and has only 3 overall titles.

    Schiavone is honestly a French anomaly. No one thought she would win the french in 2010. All the favorites were in the top half of the draw (Serena, Stosur and Henin were all in the same quarter). Schiavones road to the final was in all honesty a joke in comparison to Stosur. The biggest name Schiavone took out was an injured Dementieva. She had an amazing break handed to her and she took advantage, but a lucky break does not equal quality.

    Clijsters won 3 majors between 2009-2011 while largely ignoring the rest of the tour (understanbly so though, family is more important)

    Kvitova...well...I do not think she was a fluke. She had an ok 2012 and I think if she gets in better shape and improves her movement than she is there to stay.

    But really...how is it quality when a bunch of people become one slam wonders and bomb otherwise.

    NadalAgassi is just saying that so he/she can say Serena dominated a strong field from 2008-now....which apart from this year is not true...not really.
     
    #15
  16. Sumo

    Sumo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Chapel Hill
    You didn't address my math. I even used an exclamation point!

    I still think your looking at his narrowly, whether intentionally or not. The top 4 are getting challenged and beaten, but when you beat one you always have at least one more in your way. I think that's part of the reason there were 4 slam winners this year......because even the top 4 have trouble getting consecutive wins.
     
    #16
  17. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    Talking about peaks is absurd, 3 of the top 4 are in their mid-20s. Only Federer is nearing the end of his career but he's the GOAT and can still challenge those three.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #17
  18. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542

    Ayeee.. Nadal isn't even part of the equation right now.. What do you mean addressing your math? If the top 4 guys were all in their respective peaks RIGHT NOW, I could actually see that.. But bottom line is.. There should be guys who can make it through at least 2 of the top 3. Its not like you have to play all 3-4 en route to the finals or something. Fed wasn't playing unbeatable tennis right this year, and neither did Djoker and Murray really.

    Realistically you are going to play 2 of the top 3 guys right now en route to some titles. If the talent was any better (then it currently is which is PATHETIC all in all) they would make it through 2 of the top 3 guys
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #18
  19. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    Why is it absurd.. NONE of them are at their peaks right now aside from maybe Murray. These guys should be able to beat an aging Federer's who lost a lot of his steps since 2005-2006.. Is Djokovic playing unbeatable tennis? Last year sure.. This year he didn't. Murray looked great maybe half the season. (AO time and USO time) Certainly not all of it. Rafa isn't even playing.. Hes in his 20s but physically hes more in his 30s right now


    I swear people talk like these guys have to get through a 2005 Federer, 2011 Djoker, and 2010 Nadal all at the same time or something. NONE of these guys are playing their top tennis right now
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
    #19
  20. Sumo

    Sumo Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Chapel Hill
    So it's intentional. Got it.
     
    #20
  21. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The top 4 are much stronger in the mens (apart from Serena) than the womens, but the womens definitely has more depth. Everyone outside the top 4 men are useless now and wouldnt be good enough to win a slam other than by fluke in any era (yes I know DP of old could win a slam possibly, but he isnt as good a player now). How many years will we be seeing Jarko Tipsarevic in the year end top 10 in a row. If he makes it 3 that alone would say it enough (already says enough he has made it 2). Atleast there are about 12 women who can win any given slam potentially if Serena falters, despite other great players like Sharapova and Azarenka still standing in their way in that case.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2012
    #21
  22. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    Well those top 4 guys are kind of, sort of, really, really good. Even with a deeper field, I'd favor their chances simply cause of how good they are. One of them is GOAT, the other might end really high in the convo as well, Nole will probably end up with an Agassi career, and Murray with a Courier career....All at the same time. That's too tough for even a deep and stacked field to handle.
     
    #22
  23. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    ....and anyone outside Serena in the women's game would? Get real, the only two that would even have a shot is Azarenka and Sharapova.
     
    #23
  24. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,492
    Location:
    Australia
    Murray would still be hard to get through.
     
    #24
  25. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Venus has won many slams in a strong era of the womens game and she is "current". Clijsters who only recently retired was a major force and slam winner both in strong and weak times for the womens game. Kuznetsova is a multiple slam winner and finalist with slam wins dating back to 2004 and 2006, would you call that a weak time for the womens game too. If the womens game were as bad as you say why did the great Justine Henin, one of the dominant players of the so called strong era, flop in her comeback vs this field.
     
    #25
  26. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,492
    Location:
    Australia
    Time away from the game affects performance and dominance over the field, no matter how strong or weak it is.
     
    #26
  27. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,911
    Ahhhh, no. Weaker, yes.
     
    #27
  28. JeMar

    JeMar Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,698
    Parity does not necessarily equal depth.
     
    #28
  29. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    The women's field was weak by the time Henin decided to retire after having a monstrous year(2007). Sharapova got injured her shoulder and end up having surgery. And that was after she won the 2008 AO. Clijsters retire and had a baby. What's left was slamless Jankovic ended the year #1. Safina and Ivanovic also reaches #1, then Wozniacki(who gets criticize the most) consistently ranked #1 and also ended world #1 for two years in a row. Clijsters return to the tour after having a baby and won 2 slams. There's no way a retired atp player comeback and win a slam, because the depth on the men's field is far greater than the women. The WTA simply was more forgiving. Even a retire Henin knew the field was weak, and decided to return.
     
    #29
  30. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,436
    over the last 5 years there were mainly to different phases:

    1. serena worked out: she won

    2. serena sat on her ass and ate burgers: random eastern european girl won
     
    #30
  31. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    which worked out so well for her didnt it, LOL!
     
    #31
  32. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    Why even talk about Henin? Clijsters, who could only scratch away a single slam in the Serena/Henin era, was able to come back after HAVING A BABY and win THREE SLAMS AND A TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS.
     
    #32
  33. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Look at some of these QF lineups at slams from 2003/04:

    2003 Wimbledon: S Williams, V Williams, Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Farina Elia. (7/8 slam champs)

    2003 US: Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Mauresmo, Suarez, Schiavone, Myskina. (7/8 slam champs)

    2004 Wimbledon: Sharapova, S Williams, Mauresmo, Davenport, Capriati Suarez, Sprem, Sugiyama (5/8 slam champs)

    Now compare with recent lineups:

    2012 Australian: Azarenka, Sharapova, Clijsters, Kvitova, Wozniacki, Radwanska, Makarova, Errani (4/8 slam champs)

    2012 French: Sharapova, Errani, Stosur, Kvitova, Cibulkova, Kerber, Shvedova, Kanepi (3/8 slam champs)

    2012 Wimbledon: S Williams, Radwanska, Kerber, Azarenka, Lisicki, Kirilenko, Kvitova, Paszek (3/8 slam champs)

    It's obvious the women's field has declined in terms of depth.
     
    #33
  34. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,705
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    It's true that Henin should never have tried to come back. Her fellow Belgian Clijsters' successful return tempted her. She wanted to have another crack at Wimbledon, the one Slam that had eluded her. But her shoulder injury quickly kicked in again. She just wasn't fit enough and finally realised it.
     
    #34
  35. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    that has nothing to do with depth. depth has to do with quanity. instead of trolling this forum you need to troll a dictionary.
     
    #35
  36. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    nobody is disputing that.
     
    #36
  37. Roy125

    Roy125 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    San Diego, California
    I think people on this thread are mistaking depth for consistency of top players, when the two are opposite. Depth in a field means that there are many competitors that could win, and out of the top 4 men, there's almost zero chance someone could win a grand slam. This does not exist in the women's game.

    Women's depth>men's.
     
    #37
  38. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,542
    Great post.. A voice of reason here
     
    #38
  39. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Depth for me means a large number of contenders who regularly get to the latter stages of slams are and all worthy champions in their own right, preferably with a variety of styles. This was the case in womens' tennis in the early 2000s with Venus/Serena/Hingis/Henin/Clijsters/Capriati/Davenport/Mauresmo/
    Sharapova etc.

    At the moment we have one old uber-female in Serena, two other worthy champions in Azarenka and Sharapova, and lots of randoms (many identikit Eastern Europeans) getting to the latter stages of slams. There are only "many competitors who could win" because if Serena doesn't turn up, one of these lesser worthies could nab a slam or reach No 1.

    The men's game has depth because there are four very strong players then a group of others (Ferrer, Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych etc.) who push them all the way.
     
    #39
  40. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,104
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Venus in her current form looks even less likely to win a slam now then Delpo does on the mens side. I find it hilarious you say "delpo of old" then flush him away then bring up Venus who is a total shade of her former self as an example of female depth. At least Delpo is currently in the top 10 and has wins over members of the top 4 this year unlike Venus who did not make it past the 2nd round at any major including a wimbledon loss to Elena Vesnina. Venus right now is way more a shell of her former self than Delpo and
    Would not likely win a major in any point in time. If the current Venus went back to Wimbledon 2000 she would be utterly annihilated by Davenport.

    Kuznetsova did win in 2004 and 2009 but has been totally useless since then(current ranking #72). Her career record in finals is a losing one(13-19)and her US Open win was followed up by a first round beatdown the following year. Two of her opponents at the 2004 Us Open were injured, not to mention the very controversial line calling. She got break she was mentally not ready for and she would not win another major for 5 years...does that scream quality player to you? If she is so good why is she ranked #72?

    As for Henin her comeback was a failure of sorts for the same reason Hingis's was. She drastically altered her game into something that was not what she could handle. Hingis came back an overly defensive counter puncher (yet still got to #6) Henin came back with less variety and tried to simply overpower everyone. Neither played their classic games in their comebacks and both showed understandably poor results because of their horrible decisions..something which you yourself were quick to point out multiple times and make fun of both of then for.

    Clijsters who from 1999-2006 was only able to win 1 major comes back in 2009 and suddenly adds 3 more. She played her old game perfectly, the difference..weaker competition (Woz, Li and Zvonareva in her 3 finals...combined majors between them all...1). Are you seriously implying that those 3 are stellar players in comparison to the players in her first wave? She beat Serena once...at her other 2 wins Serena was absent.

    The field today may have more people you could see winning a major by good breaks, but that does not mean it has greater depth.
     
    #40
  41. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    truth is if you are on nadal's side all you have to play is murray to get to the final say if you are del porto or tsonga.....and a few months ago andy was a mental midget. he wins 1 major and now he is the best in the world? it's only because the ppl below him choke harder than he does.

    to further prove your point which i agree with, just look at the national teams of each country over the next 5 years and compare genders:

    usa- women over the men: the fed team has serena till rio, christine mchale, sloane stephens, possibly venus and in the near future taylor townsend and tornado ali. the men have the bryans and that's about it.

    czech repuplic- yes both teams won but the women have had more accomplishments: hantuchva was solid. kvitova even dropping in form went to two semis and the doubles team won an olympic silver and made 2 gs finals. the men's side had berdych and old man stepanek.

    russia- women over the men- maria, kirilenko, petrova and a few others. even an out of form kuzzy had a better year than most of the russian men.

    poland- the radwanskas- one was top 5 in the world.

    germany-petko, care bear, gourgeous, and lisicki over melzer anyday.
    italy- 2 time fed cup champs- 4 straight yec appearances, 4 straight top tens, 4 major final appearances(3 straight in france), 2 wins in france.

    nuff said.
     
    #41
  42. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    the women's game has both....
     
    #42
  43. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    by depth you mean 3 guys...besides who is that good on the atp as clijsters outside of the big 3?
     
    #43
  44. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    now compare it to the men's field.....and last i checked radwanska, kerber and errani were pretty good players.
     
    #44
  45. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    exactly,great post!
     
    #45
  46. TERRASTAR18

    TERRASTAR18 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,694
    let's use your argument-
    men- djoker, nadal when healthy, fed,murray-1st tier
    del porto, ferrer,tsonga, berdych-2nd tier

    women- serena-1st tier
    azarenka, sharapova-2nd tier
    radwanska, kvitova-3rd tier
    errani, wozniacki, care bear, petrova, lisicki, stosur, li na-tier 4
    petko, goergous, ivanovic, venus due to injury, zvonoreva.-tier 5

    men don't have more depth than the women.
     
    #46
  47. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I never mentioned tiers. I said there are a large number of contenders or strong players on the men's side, and 3 on the women's side. Just because more women get to the latter stages doesn't mean the field is deeper in terms of strength, it means there are only 3 strong players and then a lot of randoms can do pretty well and get high in the rankings.
     
    #47
  48. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    TerraStar and NadalAgassi can't comprehend that randomness and inconsitency =/= depth.
     
    #48
  49. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,104
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Using your Tiers 20 of the 27 biggest events(majors, Olympics, YEC, Premier Mandatory, Premier 5, and Premier) on the WTA Tour were won by the 5 women in your top 3 tiers.

    If we only count the majors, Olympics, YEC, Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 than 13 of the 15 of the biggest events were won by those 5. If we throw out Kvitova and use only the top 4 then 12 of those 15 events (75%) were won by the top 4 women.

    Now, if by depth we mean the simple ability to get to finals...maybe you can make that argument...but when it comes to who is actually winning the events...there is not much more variety there then on the mens side for 2012.
     
    #49
  50. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    Cream always rises to the top, why can't people accept this?

    If it doesn't rise to the top like past years of the WTA and early 00's men's tennis than something is wrong. PERIOD.
     
    #50

Share This Page