How much do the weak fields detract from Serena and Federer's achievements

lambielspins · 09-08-2009, 05:51 PM

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

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.

drwood · 09-08-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins

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, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drwood

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.

TheFifthSet · 09-08-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

For Federer yes. For Serena no.

And why is this?

フェデラー · 09-08-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

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.

ubermeyer · 09-08-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gj011's cleverest troll account yet?

For Federer yes. For Serena no.

u n s u c c e s s f u l

t r o l l

i s

U N S U C C E S S F U L

!!!

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?"

lambielspins · 09-08-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Court Valkyrie

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.

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.

mandy01 · 09-08-2009, 07:12 PM

weak era is the Samprastard-excuse for Roger's achievements so far.( Its funny how they clang on to Nadal now

)
You can only speculate as zagor said but its pretty much of no use.

akv89 · 09-08-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins

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.

ubermeyer · 09-08-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lambielspins

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.

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.

TennisandMusic · 09-08-2009, 07:27 PM

I don't think it matters. Federer is good, Serena is good, blah blah.

boredone3456 · 09-08-2009, 07:58 PM

I would say slightly in Serena's case, especially the Aussie, Wimbledon and if she wins it this years US Open. And possibly the 2007 Australian as well. I would say it will impact her as she continues to win slams to, as the field doesn't seem like its magically going to improve anytime soon. Anything prior to 2007 for Serena is solid, but more recent wins definitely count for a little less for me because the era is so terrible. As for Fed, I really don't hold the era against him, he demolished the entire field not named Nadal and okay maybe Safin, it was good but in his prime Fed was just an animal. So for fed it doesn't factor in really.

bruce38 · 09-08-2009, 08:01 PM

Most tennis experts would say this is the strongest field of all-time. Guys like Sampras and Agassi would have many fewer slams had they been playing now.

09-08-2009, 05:51 PM	#1
lambielspins Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,715	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.

09-08-2009, 06:05 PM	#4
zagor Talk Tennis Guru Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Weak era Posts: 24,538	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. __________________ "If Federer played during the 90s he would have reached 3-6 ranking and would have won 2 slams max (no more than Rafter) - Sabratha, big Fed "fan".

09-08-2009, 07:10 PM	#13
avmoghe Semi-Pro Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 584	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. Last edited by avmoghe : 09-08-2009 at 07:13 PM.

09-08-2009, 07:11 PM	#14
フェデラー Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,296	Sampras couldnt even strinng 3 slam finals together, let alone 10. __________________ Wilson BLX 6.1 90 VS Natural Gut/ALU Power Rough

09-08-2009, 07:12 PM	#15
mandy01 G.O.A.T. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 10,473	weak era is the Samprastard-excuse for Roger's achievements so far.( Its funny how they clang on to Nadal now ) You can only speculate as zagor said but its pretty much of no use. __________________ Our character is defined ,not by others but by ourselves.Peek into your conscience.It tells you everything. Last edited by mandy01 : 09-08-2009 at 07:15 PM.