Does Serena have a better career than Federer?

[BorgTheGOAT]

what an idiotic post, they are putting in the same amount of work and doing their job. should people who blitz opponents in 3 easy sets and it lasts 1 hour get paid less than 5 hour matches?

In what kind of profession are you paid based on the amount of work you put in. I am also working the exact same number of hours as my boss, sometimes even more, nevertheless I do not get the same paycheck. This best of three best of five crap is not an argument against equal prize money, what sure as hell is one however, is the fact that men tennis draws far more viewership. If all tournaments were split, the women would not get any money since they couldn’t be subsidized by the men. Same in basically every other sport.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I highlighted the recent 2-time slam finalists and the 2-time slam semi-finalist for you. Tsitsipas is top 20 and has a promising future.
So essentially his loss to Millman, a true anomaly cashes you out?
If you can say Vinci is a somebody in singles in mirror without laughing it shows how weak and inconsistent the WTA players are.
There is not a big 2, 3 or 4 in WTA. They come and go. She's had no real competition since Clijsters and Henin retired in 2011. If those two continued & played into their 30's and Serena still had 20+slams, case over.

Let Fed play with nobodies since 2011 and he'd have 28+ slams.
Where did I ever say his losses at USO are not that big? Must be mistaking me for someone else here. No doubt he is in decline. His game is aging, shanks are increasing.

Oh i'm sorry, has Tsitsipas won a Masters or a slam? I mean as it stands he's not anything special. You saying he has a promising future would be like me posting in mid 2014 saying Bouchard is the next GOAT as she made 2 slam SF's and a slam Final but since then, nothing. No guarentee on Tsitsipas who's done nothing lately and is on a 4 match losing streak! The men's tour has shown us to be failure after failure from Tomic to Gasquet to Kyrgios to Dimitrov to Raonic to Nishikori to Cilic to Chung to Edmund to well whoever?

Don't try and say the WTA players are inconsistent when the ATP is full of even bigger headcases, it just makes you look stupid

 

[sredna42]

I don't see any man on the tour losing to Simona Halep in a Wimbledon match. Especially with a score of 6-2, 6-2

LOL! /thread

 

[tennisaddict]

According to...?

The 1980 men's final is and remains the greatest of all Wimbledon men's matches. Nothing Federer has participated in will ever match the magnitude of that in terms of players, their place in history, cultural importance for elevating tennis to global popularity, the drama of it all, etc.




Subjective nonsense having nothing to do with the OP question. But for anyone who desired to go there, as a player of historic significance in tennis, sports in general and beyond, Serena leaves Federer in the dust.

Once again, Federer has spent nearly two decades slapping away at the two-plus most incompetent generations I tennis history. Oh, let us' go back to the original Can't Win A Major Legion, ultimately never being a true, consistent threat, such as Nalbandian (one of the most overrated players of the past twenty years. The level of "greatness" attributed to him was utterly unjustified and largely based on two wins over Federer at majors), Blake (whatever), Davydenko (who lost to Federer 19 times), and Tipsarević (whatever) among too many names to list here. Finally there's Hewitt , who defenders love to throw in the mix as an era life preserver, but the truth of the matter was that he was already finished winning his last of two career majors a year before Federer won his first , and had diminished as a contender, making his 2005 Australian Open finals appearance more of Cinderella swan song than his being some constant contender/threat, but it provided Safin with what would be his last major after a drought that began after his 2000 US Open win.

Now in this aging "next generation," the latest Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Isner, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), have wasted long years tripping their way into majors events, and doing their customary rollover, then collect their checks as they scoot out of the door. As of this date, this group of vastly overrated players continue the aforementioned weakest era in tennis history. Its shameful, and what is more disheartening is the fact there's no one on the horizon (so far) who seems to be of a different cut than the losers listed here, or see that it is their job to do more than that smile+rollover.

Remove Djokovic and Nadal, and what kind of serious ATP competition landscape did Federer face (in comes the Murray defenders who will claim he "could have" won 10 majors "if not for...")? None. It was one long practice session where the outcome was determined before anyone ever stepped on court.

That, and Federer also failed to win Olympic Gold in singles---which Serena won, along with other records he lacked the ability to match (detailed in this thread).

Why do we have to remove Djokovic and Nadal ? Between these two they have 35 majors.

And who did Serena have ? Azarenka and Wozniacki.

 

[a10best]

Oh i'm sorry, has Tsitsipas won a Masters or a slam? I mean as it stands he's not anything special. You saying he has a promising future would be like me posting in mid 2014 saying Bouchard is the next GOAT as she made 2 slam SF's and a slam Final but since then, nothing. No guarentee on Tsitsipas who's done nothing lately and is on a 4 match losing streak! The men's tour has shown us to be failure after failure from Tomic to Gasquet to Kyrgios to Dimitrov to Raonic to Nishikori to Cilic to Chung to Edmund to well whoever?

Don't try and say the WTA players are inconsistent when the ATP is full of even bigger headcases, it just makes you look stupid

Tsitsipas has 2 Masters 1000 finals losses to Nadal and Djokovic. Vinci in singles has...?

"The men's tour has shown us to be failure after failure from Tomic to Gasquet to Kyrgios to Dimitrov to Raonic to Nishikori to Cilic to Chung to Edmund to well whoever?"

Raonic, Cilic, and Nishikori are hardly failures. The Big 4 are successes. You've revealed that you're a half-empty person, good to know.
Who in god's name would put Gasquet as a contender. He is at the end of career! Nishikori & Cilic when healthy are always a QF, SF or finals.
Nobody talks about or follows 100+ ranked Tomic. He never did much. Otoh, Kyrios? well, we have one-head case who has beaten the big four.
Is it legal to smoke weed there too?

WTA has nobody that can do that as since they NO BIG FOUR,THREE or TWO.

A lot more half-empties and inconsistent players are: Wozniacki, Keys, Konta, Pliskova, Mugs, Stephens, Barty. Jeezus just so many players soI am not wasting my time; just use the whole damn WTA rankings page. Enough with WTA.

sidenote: Serena up 5-1 in 3rd set against Pliskova in 2019 AUS Open semi.
Pliskova after her 6-4, 4-6, 7-5 win 2019 Aus Open..... The most "recent" epic collapse ever by a ATG.
Yes, she is the best woman but should've had 30 slams by now with the players she had in finals.

 

[zvelf]

The 1980 men's final is and remains the greatest of all Wimbledon men's matches. Nothing Federer has participated in will ever match the magnitude of that in terms of players, their place in history, cultural importance for elevating tennis to global popularity, the drama of it all, etc.

Eh, most tennis writers now consider the 2008 Wimbledon final to be the greater match.

Subjective nonsense having nothing to do with the OP question. But for anyone who desired to go there, as a player of historic significance in tennis, sports in general and beyond, Serena leaves Federer in the dust.

Once again, Federer has spent nearly two decades slapping away at the two-plus most incompetent generations I tennis history.

You slight Federer's competition while failing to mention Serena's even worse competition. True, Serena had stronger competition than Federer through 2007, a time period in which Serena won 8 of her majors or only 35% of them. Since then however, Federer's competition has been far, far stronger than Serena's. Federer's biggest rivals for the past 12 years have been Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, del Potro, and Cilic. Serena's biggest rivals have been Sharapova, Wozniacki, Halep, Kerber, Azarenka, and a subpar past-her-prime Venus. Those two lists aren't remotely comparable. What you do, as you always do, is pretend that Djokovic and Nadal don't mean much. Yeah, two of the inarguably five best players of all time and arguably two of the best three of all time don't mean much.

 

[a10best]

According to...?

The 1980 men's final is and remains the greatest of all Wimbledon men's matches. Nothing Federer has participated in will ever match the magnitude of that in terms of players, their place in history, cultural importance for elevating tennis to global popularity, the drama of it all, etc.

Subjective nonsense having nothing to do with the OP question. But for anyone who desired to go there, as a player of historic significance in tennis, sports in general and beyond, Serena leaves Federer in the dust.

According to Tennis analysts, media, former players, and McEnroe himself.

The 2008 final Fed-Nadal 9-7 5th set and 2019 final with Fed-Djokovic 13-12 final featured two of the greatest grass court players of all-time - Djokovic has 5 titles and Fed 8 titles. Once again, McEnroe and legends said this was the greatest Wimbldeon final ever. His words may not mean anything to you but facts are facts, no?

I'll give you a Yes on cultural importance, magnitude and global popularity of the 1980 final. The Borg-McEnroe match was a great final with opposite styles and popularized Donnay wood racquets and Fila tennis wear.

Serena leaves Federer in the dust.

I'll give you a No here. "in the dust"? an opinion not to be respected. She may leave Andy Murray in the dust, not Purrfect Roger.
In terms of global popularity Federer kills it by a moving planet landslide. Serena does not because as typical she will probably withdraw, retire or use an inury excuse. That is a turn-off globally people are aware of the mind games and drama.

 

[zvelf]

Serena's career has been objectively more impressive and dominant than Federer's. The only reason Serena's rivals aren't considered as "great" as the Big 3 is because she beat them all into the retirement, a credit to her longevity relative to her peers and her extended dominance reflected in her positive H2H against ALL her greatest rivals.

I see this myth repeated a lot that Serena caused her rivals to retire, but it's just not true and maligns some great players.

Hingis basically retired from singles in 2003 at age 22 due to struggling with a left ankle ligament injury, not due to Serena.

Capriati retired in 2004 at age 28 plagued with a back injury much of the year. She beat Serena in the last match they ever played, at the 2004 U.S. Open, and overall beat Serena in 3 of 4 matches in 2004 so Capriati was doing better against Serena at the end of her career than any other time.

Davenport retired in 2008 at age 32, 3 years after her last match with Serena. Serena won that match but Davenport had won the previous 2. No case can be made that Serena drove Davenport into retirement.

Henin retired in early 2008 at age 25 while still ranked #1 when she would have been the favorite going into the French Open. Serena beat her in their last match in 2008, but Henin had won their previous 3 matches. When Henin came back in 2010, Serena beat her in the final of the Australian Open, but Henin would play for another year before retiring again, never playing Serena again during that year.

Mauresmo retired at the end of 2009 at age 30, a normal retirement age at the time. The last time she played Serena was 2008 Wimbledon, which Serena won, but Mauresmo won their previous match, at the 2006 U.S. Open. Serena dominated Mauresmo across their career so Mauresmo losing to her didn't contribute to her retirement. It was already status quo.

Clijsters retired in early 2007 at age 23 after the Australian Open. She skipped 10 majors before coming back for the 2009 U.S. Open, and retired again in 2012 at age 29 after skipping 4 majors due to injury during her 3-year comeback. The last time Clijsters played Serena was when Clijsters beat Serena at the 2009 U.S. Open, a month out of her retirement. She didn't play Serena again in the 3 years of her return and Clijsters retired in a final year when she was debilitated by hip and ankle injuries, not due to fear of Serena.

 

[Liam]

what sure as hell is one however, is the fact that men tennis draws far more viewership. If all tournaments were split, the women would not get any money since they couldn’t be subsidized by the men.

I so agree. At the watercooler at work we couldn't stop talking about the Medvedev/Dmitrov SF!!!!! *eyeroll*

 

[a10best]

I so agree. At the watercooler at work we couldn't stop talking about the Medvedev/Dmitrov SF!!!!! *eyeroll*

So the Andreescu/Bencic semi got you all so hyped the police were called in?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I so agree. At the watercooler at work we couldn't stop talking about the Medvedev/Dmitrov SF!!!!! *eyeroll*

Yes again somebody coming up with the famous exceptions. Read the overall data that is what is important not the feelings of individuals. Over the last decade ATP has generated way more revenue than WTA. Outliers like a Cilic - Nishikori final are just that - statistically not relevant outliers.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Why do we have to remove Djokovic and Nadal ? Between these two they have 35 majors.

And who did Serena have ? Azarenka and Wozniacki.

Bull. I am talking about career wide, and the majority of Federer's competition have been the worst 2+generations in history. Nadal and Djokovic are only two majors winners; Serena--again career wide--has faced more majors winners since her first victory in 1999, and continues to do so to this day. In playing in the worst 2+generations in history, Federer was gifted majors year after year, and a tour cannot survive on two additional players, hence the wrecked, laughable men's tour that's trying to live off of the IV shoved into three players.

Ah, but you can live in revisionist history all you like. It has not a thing to do with evidence.

 

[icedevil0289]

In what kind of profession are you paid based on the amount of work you put in. I am also working the exact same number of hours as my boss, sometimes even more, nevertheless I do not get the same paycheck. This best of three best of five crap is not an argument against equal prize money, what sure as hell is one however, is the fact that men tennis draws far more viewership. If all tournaments were split, the women would not get any money since they couldn’t be subsidized by the men. Same in basically every other sport.

i'm sorry you and your boss are not the same thing, that is someone who is doing a completely diffferent job at a higher level. unless you are saying that men just perform at a higher level and deserve more and are equivalent to your boss in which case... i cant have a rational conversation for you.

by putting in the work, i mean doing what they are being paid to do, which is compete, win tournaments etc, and both the men and women are doing it, if the men do it for a few hours more, that doesnt matter. you arent being paid by the hour, if you were, plenty of men should hand back their money.

well in terms of men drawing more money, i'd say serena draws in plenty of money more so than your average male tennis player. the only thing atp has going is the big 3 and id say roger is a good portion of that.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

According to Tennis analysts, media, former players, and McEnroe himself.

In terms of global popularity Federer kills it by a moving planet landslide. Serena does not because as typical she will probably withdraw, retire or use an inury excuse. That is a turn-off globally people are aware of the mind games and drama.

All subjective BS not at all supported by evidence. Federer was not, nor will he ever be as historic a figure as Serena. She has been making history/elevating tennis for two decades, which is beyond debate. She has faced more majors winners than Federer ever had/has (unlike the ATP's hyped Can't Win A Major Legion for 2+generations), which is real competition--not three people trying to keep a dying men's tour alive with that ever drying out IV bag.

 

[tennisaddict]

Bull. I am talking about career wide, and the majority of Federer's competition have been the worst 2+generations in history. Nadal and Djokovic are only two majors winners; Serena--again career wide--has faced more majors winners since her first victory in 1999, and continues to do so to this day. In playing in the worst 2+generations in history, Federer was gifted majors year after year, and a tour cannot survive on two additional players, hence the wrecked, laughable men's tour that's trying to live off of the IV shoved into three players.

Ah, but you can live in revisionist history all you like. It has not a thing to do with evidence.

Show me the 2 WTA players who compare in pedigree to Nadal and Djokovic , else keep your p**hole shut.

 

[a10best]

Bull. I am talking about career wide, and the majority of Federer's competition have been the worst 2+generations in history. Nadal and Djokovic are only two majors winners; Serena--again career wide--has faced more majors winners since her first victory in 1999, and continues to do so to this day. In playing in the worst 2+generations in history, Federer was gifted majors year after year, and a tour cannot survive on two additional players, hence the wrecked, laughable men's tour that's trying to live off of the IV shoved into three players.

Ah, but you can live in revisionist history all you like. It has not a thing to do with evidence.

Who Safina, Stosur, Pliskova, Lisicki, Wozniacki, Jankovic, Vinci? Those were fake #1's who got ranked so high by playing & winning lower level tournaments.
More Thunder drivvel.

 

[a10best]

All subjective BS not at all supported by evidence. Federer was not, nor will he ever be as historic a figure as Serena. She has been making history/elevating tennis for two decades, which is beyond debate. She has faced more majors winners than Federer ever had/has (unlike the ATP's hyped Can't Win A Major Legion for 2+generations), which is real competition--not three people trying to keep a dying men's tour alive with that ever drying out IV bag.

Correct. The world majority subjectively appreciates Federer's accomplishments more is fact. Unlike the WTA with a host of inconsistent players who drop out of sight (top 100) after 1-2 years of playing hot tennis. Lisicki, Ivanovic, Stosur, Petkovic, and so on.
You do recall "real competition" Lisicki's win over Serena at Wimbledon, correct?

 

[steenkash]

Serena has had a better career, Federer would have struggled against the likes of Li Na and Ana Ivanovic.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

well in terms of men drawing more money, i'd say serena draws in plenty of money more so than your average male tennis player. the only thing atp has going is the big 3 and id say roger is a good portion of that.

This is why Serena gets and should get more money than the ‘average’ male player, however this is not how it works. You cannot compare the very best women to average men but most compare them to the very best men. Federer draws in more than Serena and average men draw in more than average women, in short the men as a whole draw more than the women. This is basic concept of stats, when comparing two groups, you do compare averages, not the positive outliers of one group with the negative ones of the other. Following your logic you couldn’t say either that men are taller than women because the tallest woman is taller than an average man. Your comment regarding not being able to hold a serious conversation with me I will better not address.

 

[Phoenix1983]

What does this have to do with misogyny? It is simply a fact that men’s tennis is kn a higher level than women’s tennis (even you has to admit) same with F1 and F2. I do not care at all about motor sports but I would assume the gap is even bigger between men’s and women’s tennis.

Why do I “have to admit” that men’s tennis is at a higher level than women’s tennis? Now, you can point to certain eras and say that the men’s game was stronger than the women’s during that period - but the reverse has also applied at times. Are you seriously telling me that you believe men’s tennis was at a higher level in the early years of this century than women’s tennis in its golden age? Give me a break.

Yes, the comment you quoted was misogynistic and it’s only when talking about sports that people think they can get away with such comments. Imagine someone said “it’s clear that female doctors are in a lower league to male doctors”.

 

[zvelf]

Bull. I am talking about career wide, and the majority of Federer's competition have been the worst 2+generations in history. Nadal and Djokovic are only two majors winners

Why do you omit Murray and Wawrinka? They won 3 majors each.

Serena--again career wide--has faced more majors winners since her first victory in 1999, and continues to do so to this day. In playing in the worst 2+generations in history, Federer was gifted majors year after year, and a tour cannot survive on two additional players, hence the wrecked, laughable men's tour that's trying to live off of the IV shoved into three players.

Not all major winners are created equal. Of the major winners who have won 3 or more who played Federer and Serena at their peaks, Federer has Nadal (18), Djokovic (16), Murray (3), and Wawrinka (3). Serena has Henin (7), Venus (7), Hingis (5), Sharapova (5), Clijsters (4), Davenport (3), Capriati (3), and Kerber (3). Federer has played all of these men for the bulk of his career. After 2008, all of these women were either retired or no longer at their peaks (Venus due to Sjögrens Syndrome), except for Sharapova and Kerber and Clijsters (who retired 7 years ago in 2012). Federer has played those 4 men 139 times, more than Serena has played those 8 women, which is 127 times, and Nadal and Djokovic's level far surpasses any of the women there relatively speaking.

 

[Tostao80]

According to Tennis analysts, media, former players, and McEnroe himself.

The 2008 final Fed-Nadal 9-7 5th set and 2019 final with Fed-Djokovic 13-12 final featured two of the greatest grass court players of all-time - Djokovic has 5 titles and Fed 8 titles. Once again, McEnroe and legends said this was the greatest Wimbldeon final ever. His words may not mean anything to you but facts are facts, no?

I'll give you a Yes on cultural importance, magnitude and global popularity of the 1980 final. The Borg-McEnroe match was a great final with opposite styles and popularized Donnay wood racquets and Fila tennis wear.


I'll give you a No here. "in the dust"? an opinion not to be respected. She may leave Andy Murray in the dust, not Purrfect Roger.
In terms of global popularity Federer kills it by a moving planet landslide. Serena does not because as typical she will probably withdraw, retire or use an inury excuse. That is a turn-off globally people are aware of the mind games and drama.

Yes, Serena will withdraw or retire, or an injury excuse, like she did at Wimbledon. Oh wait.

 

[a10best]

Yes, Serena will withdraw or retire, or an injury excuse, like she did at Wimbledon. Oh wait.

you're right. It's not a WTA premier event, she'll play.

FWIW, I'm a fan of the game, not al players. I've given my props to Serena for what she has achieved. That being said, she should easily win this USO final in 2 sets as her form looks like it did 10 yrs ago.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Correct. The world majority subjectively appreciates Federer's accomplishments more is fact.

Yet you cannot prove that. Its just repeating that with not an ounce of evidence.


Meanwhile, Federer's so-called "competition" never had the number of majors winners Serena's did. Numbers do not lie...but Federer fans? By the second.

 

[a10best]

Yet you cannot prove that. Its just repeating that with not an ounce of evidence.


Meanwhile, Federer's so-called "competition" never had the number of majors winners Serena's did. Numbers do not lie...but Federer fans? By the second.

Murray, Cilic, Roddick did win slams. Anderson was a 3-time finalist. berdych was a finalist and always in the semis. I don't have to mention Nadal & Djokovic's 35 slams, right?

 

[BringBackSV]

Agree.

No one ever says when comparing, say, Federer/Nadal to Tiger Woods, “put them on a golf course with Tiger and let’s see who comes out on top”.

It’s the same with men’s and women’s tennis. No one is asking whether Serena would beat Federer if she played a match against him. They’re asking whether she is greater in her sport than he is in his.

And for the record - despite being much more of a Federer fan than a Serena one - I think she is.

Most people are not dumb enough to try to compare Fed to Tiger, unfortunately that appears to not be the case with Serena and Fed. If you want to argue she's been more dominant or whatever, fine but so what? Roger isn't just objectively better, they have not faced similar circumstances. This is at least as dumb as comparing players who played 5 decades apart.

 

[BGod]

Federer.

Serena doesn't have the same stretches of dominance and overall achievement. Plus a lot of weak competition.

 

[Rogfan]

Yes, especially after Sunday, her legacy will eclipse everyone's, as much as I enjoy Feddy.

Oops, didn’t age well

 

[ibbi]

How about the fact that in pursuit of Petros' record Fed had one failed Australian Open final before equalling and heading over the line. Serena's now had 4 to try and tie Court, and she's not won a set in any of them.

Granted Federer was still in his 20s when chasing that record, but you can't tell me Serena's so old that though she can win 6 matches in a row again and again and again she's too decrepit to even manage a set in a 7th?

 

[Bobby Jr]

Simply put, if we take all their career achievements currently, has Serena Williams had a better career in Women's tennis than Federer has had in Men's tennis?

No. Federer dominates virtually every important metric in tennis.

Serena dominates almost none aside from open era major titles. Everything else important she is 2nd (behind Graf) or even further down the list (also behind Martina, Chrissie).

Federer is the benchmark for open era achievement for men, being ahead of the previous argued (open era all-things-considered) greats (Sampras, Connors, Lendl) in the vast majority of the key departments that gave them their argument for greatness. Serena, by contrast is behind others in most of those same categories: matches won, career winning %, career winning % over top 10 players, weeks at #1 etc etc.

 

[Zetty]

Oops, didn’t age well

Yes thankfully

 

[PDJ]

Why does Serena need to have a better career than any male tennis player?

Also, is Serena a never-in-shape ball basher with no skills of foot speed; or and an underachiever who should have 40 Slams?
Because she can't be both.

She's definitely not both...

 

[Bud]

Serena and it's not close

 

[ABCD]

Is it not 23>20?

 

[Spider]

I think it is unfair to compare the two.

However if we do, I would vote for Roger. Simply because he has had to content with two other ATG and has had to do that for over a decade.

 

[KG1965]

Now before someone starts making it about men's vs women's tennis... I am only talking about achievements in their respective tours. Simply put, if we take all their career achievements currently, has Serena Williams had a better career in Women's tennis than Federer has had in Men's tennis?

Surely Court, Evert, Navratilova have won more.

Perhaps also Graf.

Serena is a good 5th all time.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Is it not 23>20?

No, because it about relative greatness.

In men's tennis until a couple of years ago no-one had more than 14 majors. Federer raised the bar by more than 42% over the previous record.

In women's tennis a whole bunch had 18 or more... so the bar is different. Serena has only passed the previous bar (let's just say it was 18, not 24) by 27%.

Kind of like asking if Phelps' 3 gold medals in one afternoon which took him barely 10 minutes to achieve is "better" than Mo Farah or Ashton Eaton's single gold medals where they were more dominant in much more difficult to win sports. The benchmarks are set differently so hard to compare legitimately on a strict gold medal count alone.

 

[zvelf]

No, because it about relative greatness.

A lot of people in this thread don't seem to get this.

 

[YommieSan]

I think so because:

1. Serena first first slam as a teen. Fed never done that.

2. Serena won Olympic gold. Fed never done that.