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

lambielspins · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

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

grafselesfan · Sep 8, 2009

For Federer yes. For Serena no.

zagor · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

zagor said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

Court Valkyrie said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

drwood said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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.

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.

I notice you didnt even address the current mens field.

See my previous post

edberg505 · Sep 8, 2009

drwood said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

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

TheFifthSet · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
For Federer yes. For Serena no.

And why is this?

mandy01 · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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.

lambielspins · Sep 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

gj011's cleverest troll account yet? said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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

pmerk34 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

lambielspins said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

bruce38 said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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

ubermeyer · Sep 8, 2009

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

:shock:.

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 · Sep 8, 2009

ubermeyer said:
:shock:.

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 · Sep 8, 2009

boredone3456 said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

boredone3456 said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

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 · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

jamesblakefan#1 said:
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 · Sep 8, 2009

jamesblakefan#1 said:
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.

varsity8993 · Sep 8, 2009

All speculation without a time machine.

edberg505 · Sep 8, 2009

jamesblakefan#1 said:
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.

Oh come now. You know that if Korda was playing in this era he would totally dominate the field. I'd put Kucera, Schaller, Philippoussis, and Yzaga right up there with Korda as well.

jamesblakefan#1 · Sep 8, 2009

We already know that your definition of what a strong field is and isn't is biased and retarted, so I'm not even gonna get into this discussion w/ you GSF, it would be pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

grafselesfan · Sep 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
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.

You are right. She still chases down even well struck balls and is tough to get the ball past. Even not in her absolute best shape she is still one of the best movers out there, and her determination helps her get to more balls too. I found Graf light on her feet, but of course I am partial and enjoy her more than most probably would. I agree that she wasnt a fluid player or mover like Goolagong or Mandlikova per say though. Seles wasnt a great mover, but of course at her best didnt have to be as she was such an amazing ball striker and killer competitor.

crazylevity · Sep 8, 2009

Here is an article for your consideration, highlighting the strength and depth of today's mens field:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2009-09-07/200909071252361648859.html

pmerk34 · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
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.

The reason is because Federer wins everything. So you say the field was "weak". maybe he's just that good.

grafselesfan · Sep 8, 2009

jamesblakefan#1 said:
We already know that your definition of what a strong field is and isn't is biased and retarted, so I'm not even gonna get into this discussion w/ you GSF, it would be pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

Do you honestly believe Federer ever faced a field any year from 2004-2007 that is up to the level of the field Serena dominated in 2002-2003. Again not the current womens or mens fields (which I concede the mens is much stronger right now) but the fields of just those particular years.

grafselesfan · Sep 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
The reason is because Federer wins everything. So you say the field was "weak". maybe he's just that good.

Of course this is possible, but do you think Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, or Davydenko would be World beaters in any era? I sure as heck dont. There was Nadal but didnt become a major threat on non clay surfaces until mid 2007, Djokovic emerged as a big threat starting in mid 2007, and Murray not until late 2008.

mandy01 · Sep 8, 2009

Ahh...the Samprastards/Fed-haters are at it again :lol:
LOL..Desperate :lol:

sunny_cali · Sep 8, 2009

grafselesfan said:
Do you honestly believe Federer ever faced a field any year from 2004-2007 that is up to the level of the field Serena dominated in 2002-2003. Again not the current womens or mens fields (which I concede the mens is much stronger right now) but the fields of just those particular years.

the weakest field is probably 1997-2003, when Sampras picked a few slams.

And, yes, you keep droning about the same point again and again. Does'nt change anything. Fed is a great player, just like Nadal. (debates about GOAT are pointless exercises in futility)

Why don't you get it that it is nigh impossible to compare different era's -- and the fact that you don't have to, you know. Just enjoy the players of every era - is that too difficult to do ?

Basically, you and your ilk are so blinded by hate for one player (Fed) and insane fanboyism for someone in the past, you just can't sit back and enjoy the tennis of today.

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

Banned

Banned

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Banned

Professional

Professional

Legend

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

TennisandMusic

Guest

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Banned

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Similar threads