Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   How much do the weak fields detract from Serena and Federer's achievements (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=286470)

lambielspins 09-08-2009 05:51 PM

How much do the weak fields detract from Serena and Federer's achievements
 
It is through no fault of their own but how much do you believe the insanely weak competition for both Federer and Serena, especialy Serena, detracts from their achievements? Yes they have achieved alot but neither would have achieved as much vs most fields past.

Court Valkyrie 09-08-2009 05:53 PM

No...................

grafselesfan 09-08-2009 05:55 PM

For Federer yes. For Serena no.

zagor 09-08-2009 06:05 PM

They don't as far as I'm concerned,you can only beat who's in front of you,everything else is speculation.I also don't think that Serena is on the same level of greatness as Federer relative to their genders.

lambielspins 09-08-2009 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zagor (Post 3904925)
They don't as far as I'm concerned,you can only beat who's in front of you,everything else is speculation.I also don't think that Serena is on the same level of greatness as Federer relative to their genders.

I agree Serena isnt in the GOAT discussion like Federer at this point. However I cant yet look at Federer as the greatest ever which his accomplishments would make him unless he adds even more to his current achievements due to the field. Serena I would put more on par with someone with 6 or 7 slams like Goolagong or Bueno given the very weak field she is benefitting from.

Court Valkyrie 09-08-2009 06:13 PM

You have to also think this, "Is Federer just that much better than the rest of the field, and this ability just makes everyone else look weak?"

drwood 09-08-2009 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins (Post 3904942)
I agree Serena isnt in the GOAT discussion like Federer at this point. However I cant yet look at Federer as the greatest ever which his accomplishments would make him unless he adds even more to his current achievements due to the field. Serena I would put more on par with someone with 6 or 7 slams like Goolagong or Bueno given the very weak field she is benefitting from.

Compared to the weakest field ever from 82 to 86 where Navratilova won 12 of her 18 slams? Please. Serena has for most of her career played against one of the STRONGEST fields in WTA history...its only since 2007-2008 that the quality of the field has dropped to compete with (but not surpass) the weakest era in WTA history -- 1982 thru 1986. When Andrea Jaeger and Kathy Jordan are making slam finals, that's an extremely weak field.

lambielspins 09-08-2009 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Court Valkyrie (Post 3904988)
You have to also think this, "Is Federer just that much better than the rest of the field, and this ability just makes everyone else look weak?"

Of course that is always possible but I really dont think. The likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Djokovic, Murray on the mens side and the Russians and Serbian girls on the womens side would not even be as prominent at all in another era. They just arent that good and it is more that they are just pretty easy for a great like Federer or Serena to face as opposed to the kind of fields a great player would normally face than anything else.

lambielspins 09-08-2009 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drwood (Post 3904999)
Compared to the weakest field ever from 82 to 86 where Navratilova won 12 of her 18 slams? Please. Serena has for most of her career played against one of the STRONGEST fields in WTA history...its only since 2007-2008 that the quality of the field has dropped to compete with (but not surpass) the weakest era in WTA history -- 1982 thru 1986. When Andrea Jaeger and Kathy Jordan are making slam finals, that's an extremely weak field.

What made 82-86 strong was the top 3 of Chris, Martina, and Hana. Martina and Chris are two of the greatest ever both in their primes. Today we have Serena and Venus but lets face it, outside of grass Venus is WAY way past her prime, so already it isnt the same. You cant say you have Henin, she is retired, nor Lindsay who played a bit as a 30-something year old mom way past her prime. You can say you have Clijsters again but she has only been back for a few weeks. We will see if she is back in the form to win more slams or not. Hana is a strong #3, much better player than someone like Safina. Also Austin was there in 82-83, and Graf and Sabatini in 85 and 86.

The only slam final Kathy Jordan made was an Australian Open where the top players skipped so that doesnt even really count. Jaeger had multiple wins over Martina and Chris so she had to be pretty good.

I notice you didnt even address the current mens field.

drwood 09-08-2009 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins (Post 3905015)
What made 82-86 strong was the top 3 of Chris, Martina, and Hana. Martina and Chris are two of the greatest ever both in their primes. Today we have Serena and Venus but lets face it, outside of grass Venus is WAY way past her prime, so already it isnt the same. You cant say you have Henin, she is retired, nor Lindsay who played a bit as a 30-something year old mom way past her prime. You can say you have Clijsters again but she has only been back for a few weeks. We will see if she is back in the form to win more slams or not. Hana is a strong #3, much better player than someone like Safina. Also Austin was there in 82-83, and Graf and Sabatini in 85 and 86.

The only slam final Kathy Jordan made was an Australian Open where the top players skipped so that doesnt even really count. Jaeger had multiple wins over Martina and Chris so she had to be pretty good.

I notice you didnt even address the current mens field.

Addressing one inaccurate statement at a time. As for the men's field, the 98-03 field was easily weaker than the current men's field. Would Rios be even top 5 today? Of course not. Would prime Haas reach #2 today? Of course not. Would Korda win a slam today? Would Albert Costa win the French now? Of course not.

To say that the men's field is weak is even more ludicrous than saying the women's field is -- at least with the women's there's only one era comparably weak to today. With the men, there are several weaker -- I just gave one example.

drwood 09-08-2009 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins (Post 3905015)
What made 82-86 strong was the top 3 of Chris, Martina, and Hana. Martina and Chris are two of the greatest ever both in their primes. Today we have Serena and Venus but lets face it, outside of grass Venus is WAY way past her prime, so already it isnt the same. You cant say you have Henin, she is retired, nor Lindsay who played a bit as a 30-something year old mom way past her prime. You can say you have Clijsters again but she has only been back for a few weeks. We will see if she is back in the form to win more slams or not. Hana is a strong #3, much better player than someone like Safina. Also Austin was there in 82-83, and Graf and Sabatini in 85 and 86.

First of all, Chris was NOT in her prime from 82-86, even though Martina was -- her last 2 slams (85 and 86 French) would be like saying Sampras was in his prime in 02 or that Becker was in his prime in 96, which clearly was not the case. Secondly, the field was a complete joke outside those top 3 --- did you see some of the early matches in slams then? There's a reason why moonballers could advance deep in slams (and win them) back then and can't now. Period.

Plus, you're comparing a 5 year period with essentially a 2 year period, b/c its only been during that time that Henin and Sharapova disappeared (for different reasons); either of whom was clearly better than Mandlikova. If the current WTA field remains this weak for another 3 years, then you have a legitimate case, but as of right now, you don't.

By 82 Austin was a shell of her former self, which was why by 83 she was essentially out of the game, so no, she wasn't good then -- that's like saying that Mauresmo is a threat at slams now, when she obviously is past her prime and on the way out, just as Austin was then.

Quote:

The only slam final Kathy Jordan made was an Australian Open where the top players skipped so that doesnt even really count. Jaeger had multiple wins over Martina and Chris so she had to be pretty good.
Name a player as weak as Kathy Jordan that Serena faced in a slam final -- you can't. Jaeger had some talent, but admittedly tanked matches b/c she didn't want the pressure of being on top -- what kind of competitor is that? Plus even she was no longer a threat at any tournament after 1983.

Quote:

I notice you didnt even address the current mens field.
See my previous post

edberg505 09-08-2009 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drwood (Post 3905170)
First of all, Chris was NOT in her prime from 82-86, even though Martina was -- her last 2 slams (85 and 86 French) would be like saying Sampras was in his prime in 02 or that Becker was in his prime in 96, which clearly was not the case. Secondly, the field was a complete joke outside those top 3 --- did you see some of the early matches in slams then? There's a reason why moonballers could advance deep in slams (and win them) back then and can't now. Period.

Plus, you're comparing a 5 year period with essentially a 2 year period, b/c its only been during that time that Henin and Sharapova disappeared (for different reasons); either of whom was clearly better than Mandlikova. If the current WTA field remains this weak for another 3 years, then you have a legitimate case, but as of right now, you don't.

By 82 Austin was a shell of her former self, which was why by 83 she was essentially out of the game, so no, she wasn't good then -- that's like saying that Mauresmo is a threat at slams now, when she obviously is past her prime and on the way out, just as Austin was then.



Name a player as weak as Kathy Jordan that Serena faced in a slam final -- you can't. Jaeger had some talent, but admittedly tanked matches b/c she didn't want the pressure of being on top -- what kind of competitor is that? Plus even she was no longer a threat at any tournament after 1983.



See my previous post

It is an exercise in futility man. [start sarcasm mode]We all know that people like Rios, Korda, and Johansson would be unbeatable right now.[end sarcasm mode] I don't believe in this whole weak era thing. I think it's nonsense. I mean if you put Sampras in this era right now, there's no way he makes 21 straight semi-finals in the slams.

avmoghe 09-08-2009 07:10 PM

The "weak" era crap is nothing short of fanboy nonsense being spouted to try and stir up controversy.

There are fewer serve and volleyer players today due to a concentrated effort to slow down Wimbledon. That's about it. Serve and volley tennis doesn't suddenly make an era "strong" - nor is a variety of styles of play any indicator of quality of the tennis. If you imagine an ace serving machine that only serves aces and hits no other shots, you can see that it will be invincible against any human - every set goes to a tiebreak, where the human eventually double faults. Perfecting a single stroke in tennis can make you invincible.

Trying to back up a claim stating Sampras/Lendl/Borg/Wilander/McEnroe/etc would have won a slam or even made it to the top 10 today is an exercise in futility. Nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of these players would've even made it into the top 100 today. All that argument devolves into is

"player X dominated his era, and my biased, non-objective, fanboyish eyes tell me his strokes are superior to Murray/Djokovic/etc"

Quite frankly.. nobody cares.

One *actually* objective to compare an era is to count the number of players who try to compete at a professional level. The greater the number of players fighting to break into the top 100/top 10, the higher the quality of the players that do make it. This simply relies on the human competitive spirit to keep pushing the limits of the human body further and further. Even this method has its shortcomings, though.

フェデラー 09-08-2009 07:11 PM

Sampras couldnt even strinng 3 slam finals together, let alone 10.

TheFifthSet 09-08-2009 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan (Post 3904832)
For Federer yes. For Serena no.

And why is this?

mandy01 09-08-2009 07:12 PM

weak era is the ***********-excuse for Roger's achievements so far.( Its funny how they clang on to Nadal now :lol:)
You can only speculate as zagor said but its pretty much of no use.

フェデラー 09-08-2009 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan (Post 3904832)
For Federer yes. For Serena no.

you can cut the bull **** now, no one cares. Laver has said numerous times that this era was far greater than his. Maybe you should take a lesson from him, give Fed his credit, and move on.

akv89 09-08-2009 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins (Post 3904817)
It is through no fault of their own but how much do you believe the insanely weak competition for both Federer and Serena, especialy Serena, detracts from their achievements? Yes they have achieved alot but neither would have achieved as much vs most fields past.

Your question relies on the dubious assumption that the current era in men's tennis is weaker. So until someone proves that the quality of tennis being produced by the current players is weaker, this question doesn't deserve an answer.

pmerk34 09-08-2009 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins (Post 3905015)
What made 82-86 strong was the top 3 of Chris, Martina, and Hana. Martina and Chris are two of the greatest ever both in their primes. Today we have Serena and Venus but lets face it, outside of grass Venus is WAY way past her prime, so already it isnt the same. You cant say you have Henin, she is retired, nor Lindsay who played a bit as a 30-something year old mom way past her prime. You can say you have Clijsters again but she has only been back for a few weeks. We will see if she is back in the form to win more slams or not. Hana is a strong #3, much better player than someone like Safina. Also Austin was there in 82-83, and Graf and Sabatini in 85 and 86.

The only slam final Kathy Jordan made was an Australian Open where the top players skipped so that doesnt even really count. Jaeger had multiple wins over Martina and Chris so she had to be pretty good.

I notice you didnt even address the current mens field.

The one player who could have taken slams form Federer on faster surfaces was Marat Safin and he turned out more like a Hana Mandlikova that a Steffi Graf.

If Graf turned out to be like Safin then Martina Navratilova wins the FO in 1987, wins Wimby in 1988 and 1989 and the US Open in 1989. Or at the very least wins some of those that Steffi won,

ubermeyer 09-08-2009 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins (Post 3904817)
It is through no fault of their own but how much do you believe the insanely weak competition for both Federer and Serena, especialy Serena, detracts from their achievements? Yes they have achieved alot but neither would have achieved as much vs most fields past.

:shock:

what kind of troll are you? this is easily the strongest field ever!

heck, even if you took out federer, nadal, djokovic, del potro, roddick, and murray, it would be BY FAR easily the strongest field ever hands down.

Tell me one field that's stronger than today's.
Oh right... you can't.

Look at the Tsonga-Gonzalez match, look at the Monfils-Nadal match. both of them random 4th round matches today of the USO. All of them insaaaane tennis games. you obviously know nothing about tennis, you probably think it's played with 3 players, two rackets each and five balls at the same time.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse