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

[lambielspins]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

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,

Exactly why IMO Martina didnt have weak competition and Federer and Serena both do. Martina had someone like Graf in her way, also someone like Evert. Federer has nobody until Nadal. You basically seem to be agreeing with that much. Serena only had Henin and Venus but she won almost all her slams before Henin became a big force and after she retires, while Venus is her own sister so isnt the same and not an all surface player anyway.

For the record is Safin really that capable of taking Federer out in fast court slams. He has zero shot at Wimbledon even if he played the match of his life. He is not Federer or Nadal caliber on grass. U.S Open maybe, but his best slam surface has been Australian, not the U.S Open, while Federer's has been the U.S Open, and it took his 2nd best match ever to so barely beat Federer in Australia so even there is doubtful.

[ubermeyer]

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

!!!

[TennisandMusic]

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

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by lambielspins

Exactly why IMO Martina didnt have weak competition and Federer and Serena both do. Martina had someone like Graf in her way, also someone like Evert. Federer has nobody until Nadal. You basically seem to be agreeing with that much. Serena only had Henin and Venus but she won almost all her slams before Henin became a big force and after she retires, while Venus is her own sister so isnt the same and not an all surface player anyway.

For the record is Safin really that capable of taking Federer out in fast court slams. He has zero shot at Wimbledon even if he played the match of his life. He is not Federer or Nadal caliber on grass. U.S Open maybe, but his best slam surface has been Australian, not the U.S Open, while Federer's has been the U.S Open, and it took his 2nd best match ever to so barely beat Federer in Australia so even there is doubtful.

Safin when focused was capable of beating anyone anywhere. Thats why he's more like Mandlikova was and not Nadal.

[lambielspins]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Safin when focused was capable of beating anyone anywhere. Thats why he's more like Mandlikova was and not Nadal.

Safin has no big wins on grass except Djokovic who is a mediocre grass courter anyway. He also doesnt have any huge wins on clay except for his first French in 98 where he beat a far out of prime form Agassi and Kuerten. So I dont really feel he is capable of beating anyone anywhere like Hana is. Hana truly could on one of her days beat anyone on grass, clay, any hard court, carpet, etc....whereas Safin it is more he is capable of beating anyone anytime on any non natural surface (not clay or grass) which still makes up most of the tour today anyway. Overall I totally see your point though.

[boredone3456]

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.

[Aabye]

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.

It doesn't matter. Just like the draw: you play who you play.

[bruce38]

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.

[Aabye]

Originally Posted by bruce38

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.

And people also say guys like Laver would win none at all now. This is all simply impossible to make an accurate comparison, because had Laver grown up now he would have probably been taller and stronger. Pure talent and heart are still pure talent and heart regardless of which age you live in.

I agree though that this has to be a pretty strong field if it is led by guys who can win so many matches day in and day out.

[The-Champ]

It is a weak era. The guy with 15 majors has a losing record against a disabled person.

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by Aabye

This is all simply impossible to make an accurate comparison, because had Laver grown up now he would have probably been taller and stronger.

.

Sure, he might have been stronger, but TALLER? You can't teach that stuff... it's genetic. Laver was 5'8. If he grew up now he would be... 5'8.

[Aabye]

Originally Posted by ubermeyer

.

Sure, he might have been stronger, but TALLER? You can't teach that stuff... it's genetic. Laver was 5'8. If he grew up now he would be... 5'8.

Diet habits have changed. I don't know how tall his parents were and we would be a couple of generations removed from them now anyway.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

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.

Serena has proven regardless who her competition is she wins. Yes her competition is weak now but even if it were strong she would still win the events she is playing well enough to be able to win. 2002-2003 vs an extremely strong field proved that.

Federer on the other hand has not yet proven the ability to atleast dominate (win he has probably but not dominate) vs a very strong field like Serena did in 2002-2003. If he wins the U.S Open for his 3rd slam of the year, even though aided by Rafa's mid season injury, I might reconsider my stance somewhat there. However to now that is the difference between him and Serena.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Serena has proven regardless who her competition is she wins. Yes her competition is weak now but even if it were strong she would still win the events she is playing well enough to be able to win. 2002-2003 vs an extremely strong field proved that.

Yes that is true but Serena in 2002-2003 was also a lot fitter to go with the stronger era that there was then. Serena of 2002 would probably beat current Serena in straight sets. But when you look at the draw of the final 8 at this years US Open, sorry but its completely pathetic apart from Serena and maybe Pennetta who had a decent summer. Even Kim, who yes I am so happy to see back, into the semi's after 2 years away is pretty good at a glance, but apart from an injured Venus her draw to that was not exactly amazing. Serena dominating now is not as impressive as when she dominated the slams in 2002, which is why I say she needs to win more slams than she would have in another era to move up the list higher than she is now.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Yes that is true but Serena in 2002-2003 was also a lot fitter to go with the stronger era that there was then. Serena of 2002 would probably beat current Serena in straight sets. But when you look at the draw of the final 8 at this years US Open, sorry but its completely pathetic apart from Serena and maybe Pennetta who had a decent summer. Even Kim, who yes I am so happy to see back, into the semi's after 2 years away is pretty good at a glance, but apart from an injured Venus her draw to that was not exactly amazing. Serena dominating now is not as impressive as when she dominated the slams in 2002, which is why I say she needs to win more slams than she would have in another era to move up the list higher than she is now.

Sorry but even at this weight Serena has the serve and power to win slams in ANY era.

[grafselesfan]

I dont think Clijsters is an easy opponent. She was a bonafide top 4-5 player in that very deep earlier 2000s field of Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, and others all at their peak together. In her prime she managed only 1 slam but many including you picked her as the best player to win only 1 slam just ahead of Sabatini. She won 37 career titles despite retiring at 23, and only won 1 slam due to a combination of some bad luck, some ill timed injuries (she could have won 2 or 3 more slams in the 2004 year she got injured alone which Serena, Henin, and Venus were all surprisingly quiet in, horrible timing), the killer competition back then, and her whole psyche issue with Henin. Now she is back looking to be almost playing as well as before. Many consider her a danger to Serena in that semi and are discussing her a possible winner now, so if Serena does beat her it certainly should not be dismissed as "weak" competition the way I would concede it could be for the lesser Russians and Serbs. Clijsters is a legit opponent, not quite as much as Venus and Henin, but one nonetheless.

pmerk34 is right that Serena is so good and so powerful she is a threat to win slams in any shape, even in a stronger era. In nearly any shape she has that serve, and boy that serve isnt easy for any women to return. She has the power, very good groundstrokes, decent volleys, and incrdible strength of mind. By my last comment who has saved as many match points on the way to slam titles as her. Just incredible. Even if some of those were vs mental midgets and chokers, which yes some of them were, she still had to hit a number of shots to save atleast one match point and play a quality point on her tournament would have been over. Just not an easy out, regardless if at her best or not. The one thing I would concede is in her current shape, which still isnt 100% for her, she wouldnt be able to win the French Open on her worst surface in other eras, but even in this era she isnt winning the French Open anymore it seems so who cares. She also is in much better shape than many people seem to think she is. If you look at pictures of her close up on a tennis court she is quite fit at the moment. Not as fit as 2002-2003 but still definitely in good shape. People seem to forget she is a big women by nature. That is just her body type.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I dont think Clijsters is an easy opponent. She was a bonafide top 4-5 player in that very deep earlier 2000s field of Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, and others all at their peak together. In her prime she managed only 1 slam but many including you picked her as the best player to win only 1 slam just ahead of Sabatini. She won 37 career titles despite retiring at 23, and only won 1 slam due to a combination of some bad luck, some ill timed injuries (she could have won 2 or 3 more slams in the 2004 year she got injured alone which Serena, Henin, and Venus were all surprisingly quiet in, horrible timing), the killer competition back then, and her whole psyche issue with Henin. Now she is back looking to be almost playing as well as before. Many consider her a danger to Serena in that semi and are discussing her a possible winner now, so if Serena does beat her it certainly should not be dismissed as "weak" competition the way I would concede it could be for the lesser Russians and Serbs. Clijsters is a legit opponent, not quite as much as Venus and Henin, but one nonetheless.

pmerk34 is right that Serena is so good and so powerful she is a threat to win slams in any shape, even in a stronger era. She also is in much better shape than many people seem to think she is. If you look at pictures of her close up on a tennis court she is quite fit at the moment. Not as fit as 2002-2003 but still definitely in good shape. People seem to forget she is a big women by nature. That is just her body type.

And she still gets to almost everything. No she's isn't elegant and gliding on the court, But the result is what matters.

I always found Steffi to be stiff and mechanical but she was fast with great footwork. Seles wasn't a great mover.

This girl Wickmayer who I saw live on Monday actually is pretty to watch.

[jamesblakefan#1]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Federer on the other hand has not yet proven the ability to atleast dominate (win he has probably but not dominate) vs a very strong field like Serena did in 2002-2003. If he wins the U.S Open for his 3rd slam of the year, even though aided by Rafa's mid season injury, I might reconsider my stance somewhat there. However to now that is the difference between him and Serena.

Fed's won 3 of the 4 slams in 3 different years (2004, 2006, 2007). Why would this year be any different, and you "might" reconsider your stance? What a joke. He has been dominant, he had one of the most dominant seasons of all time in 2006, and was only 2 sets from the Grand Slam that season. I don't know what more Federer has to do for some folks to give him credit....if 15 slams, 22 straight slam SF, and 237 straight weeks at #1 isn't dominant enough, I don't know what is...

And we've already exposed the flaws in all the weak/strong era talk, so gimme a break.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by jamesblakefan#1

Fed's won 3 of the 4 slams in 3 different years (2004, 2006, 2007). Why would this year be any different, and you "might" reconsider your stance? What a joke. He has been dominant, he had one of the most dominant seasons of all time in 2006, and was only 2 sets from the Grand Slam that season. I don't know what more Federer has to do for some folks to give him credit....if 15 slams, 22 straight slam SF, and 237 straight weeks at #1 isn't dominant enough, I don't know what is...

And we've already exposed the flaws in all the weak/strong era talk, so gimme a break.

Comw on JamesBlakefan you call 92-5 a "dominant season". what is wrong with you. The 5.0 at my club went 6-0 one season using a Pro Staff 6.0 85. THATS DOMINANCE>

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by jamesblakefan#1

Fed's won 3 of the 4 slams in 3 different years (2004, 2006, 2007). Why would this year be any different, and you "might" reconsider your stance? What a joke. He has been dominant, he had one of the most dominant seasons of all time in 2006, and was only 2 sets from the Grand Slam that season. I don't know what more Federer has to do for some folks to give him credit....if 15 slams, 22 straight slam SF, and 237 straight weeks at #1 isn't dominant enough, I don't know what is...

And we've already exposed the flaws in all the weak/strong era talk, so gimme a break.

You did not bold my entire statement. I said has not proven he could dominate vs a very strong field. The current mens field could be considered strong to a degree I suppose. 2004, 2006, even 2007 definitely wasnt though so do not prove ability to dominate a particularly strong field, hence my statement. I did not say he has never dominated, I said he has never dominated a strong field, and if he completed this year as the defact dominant player it would be the first time he ever has. Now if Nadal somehow won the U.S Open and ended the year with 2 slams to Federer's 2, with Nadal missing 1 of the middle slams he won last year with injury, of course Federer would now not be even close to the dominant player of the year. If Federer wins the U.S Open he definitely would be though.

Serena has already proven her ability to dominate a very strong womens field in 2002-2003. Yes the current womens field is very weak (as I have said many times) but Serena has already in the past given us indication events she is playing well enough to win she would win even had the competition been very strong.