FO QFs: vast difference in strength between men and women's fields

Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The men's quarter-finals contain 5 slam champions, who have won a total of 33 slams between them. 7 of the top 8 seeds made the quarter-finals, with the only exception being Raonic, who was beaten 6-8 in the fifth set of his R16 match. His opponent, Carreno Busta, is the only slam quarter-final debutant.

The women's quarter-finals contain zero slam champions, and only three women who have ever reached a slam final. 7 of the 8 players were born in the 1990s.

The strength of the men's game is currently far higher than the women's.

So be it.
 
Moose Malloy said:
By that logic the women's game was far stronger than the men's game in 97/98, which I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Hmm, not sure about 97-98 (I'd have to check the draws), but it was certainly stronger from around 1999-2006, with many great champions (S Williams, V Williams, Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Mauresmo, Davenport, Pierce, young Sharapova etc.) all playing near their peak simultaneously.
 
Boogslice said:
How does this say anything about the strength of the women's field? Players born in the 90s are between 18 and 27 years old. Seems like a pretty good age to make a slam QF to me.
Click to expand...

In previous eras maybe....but in this era, it seems to all about experience, especially in the men's game...
 
Fedeonic said:
The ATP establishment is yet again on full force.
Good for the WTA actually that they'll crown a new GS champion.
Click to expand...
It's nice and all, but it feels a little bit empty since Serena isn't there. It's like if the Big 4 + Stan withdrew and you had Nishikori, Thiem, Goffin, PCB, and 4 other players duking it out.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
The men's quarter-finals contain 5 slam champions, who have won a total of 33 slams between them.
Click to expand...

Nowhere near an even distribution, since Nadal has 14, and Djokovic 12. 26 out of 33 majors just for those two, which makes the rest appear to be less than impressive.

The women's quarter-finals contain zero slam champions, and only three women who have ever reached a slam final. 7 of the 8 players were born in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

It means younger female players are doing their job--defeating the old guard and moving ahead, unlike the men's game, where the so-called "next generation" players such as Thiem, Isner, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon (now an aging "next generation") repeatedly fail to win majors, leaving the field wide open for aging veterans to clean up.


Sysyphus said:
I thought this was just proof that the younger generations are useless on the men's side, etc etc etc
Click to expand...

As of this date in 2017, they are.
 
I thought same old champs contending for titles was a bad reflection on the tour/youngsters. Anyway WTA French Open doesn't have that never in doubt feeling about the end result so that's a plus for them.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Nowhere near an even distribution, since Nadal has 14, and Djokovic 12. 26 out of 33 majors just for those two, which makes the rest appear to be less than impressive.



It means younger female players are doing their job--defeating the old guard and moving ahead, unlike the men's game, where the so-called "next generation" players such as Thiem, Isner, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon (now an aging "next generation") repeatedly fail to win majors, leaving the field wide open for aging veterans to clean up.

As of this date in 2017, they are.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What does it say when the hope of the "next generation" of the ATP is now the next next generation?
Has there ever been a worse 2nd tier? They couldn't even stop them from making practically every final.

The young women are stepping up and taking it. The next slam winners on the ATP will get there because of retirement and old age.

"The strength of the men's game is currently far higher than the women's."

Why, because 30 year olds continue to kick the ass of every single challenger that comes along?
 
sportmac said:
Exactly. What does it say when the hope of the "next generation" of the ATP is now the next next generation?
Has there ever been a worse 2nd tier? They couldn't even stop them from making practically every final.

The young women are stepping up and taking it. The next slam winners on the ATP will get there because of retirement and old age.

"The strength of the men's game is currently far higher than the women's."

Why, because 30 year olds continue to kick the ass of every single challenger that comes along?
Click to expand...

I agree that it doesn't say much for the ATP, but I don't see how the younger women are doing too great either. They would all very likely be losing to Serena if she wasn't pregnant. The only difference between the 2 tours is that if Serena is the equivalent of one of the Big 4, there's nobody else on the WTA that fills in for the other 3 especially in Sharapova's absence. Hence the main reason why you get new slam finalists on the WTA. All because someone has to play Serena. There are just less ATG roadblocks.
 
A tennis career is getting longer in the ATP, that's all. The interesting question is what makes it possible?
 
Boogslice said:
How does this say anything about the strength of the women's field? Players born in the 90s are between 18 and 27 years old. Seems like a pretty good age to make a slam QF to me.
Click to expand...

True the current US Fed Cup capt was 14 and a QF in 1981 I think and MJ Fernandez was also in 1986 I believe.

I wasn't aware that the men's seeds held so well.
 
Thundergod said:
There's no one to take it from this tourney unless you want to count Kerber who's been terrible this year and 36 year old Venus at her worst slam.
Click to expand...
Steve0904 said:
I agree that it doesn't say much for the ATP, but I don't see how the younger women are doing too great either. They would all very likely be losing to Serena if she wasn't pregnant. The only difference between the 2 tours is that if Serena is the equivalent of one of the Big 4, there's nobody else on the WTA that fills in for the other 3 especially in Sharapova's absence. Hence the main reason why you get new slam finalists on the WTA. All because someone has to play Serena. There are just less ATG roadblocks.
Click to expand...
Since Federer won his first slam 11 men have won a slam. Since Serena won her first, 23 women have won slams.
So I don't agree, they would all not very likely be losing to her.
 
Thundergod said:
There's no one to take it from this tourney unless you want to count Kerber who's been terrible this year and 36 year old Venus at her worst slam.
Click to expand...
The statement was about young women winning slams while the men just seem to be waiting to get there through attrition.
 
sportmac said:
Since Federer won his first slam 11 men have won a slam. Since Serena won her first, 23 women have won slams.
So I don't agree, they would all not very likely be losing to her.
Click to expand...

You're crossing eras here though. Serena won her first slam at USO 1999 when Venus was still in her prime and Henin and Clijsters were coming onto the scene. Not to mention women like Davenport and Capriati. How many of those reflect the current state of the WTA? None. The only young player who has won a slam lately is Muguruza. Kerber is 29 years old, and the last person to beat Serena at a slam before 2016 was 32 year old Roberta Vinci who played the final against 33 year old Penetta.

I don't think I need to say that Serena won the first 3 slams in 2015 beating every young player she came across in matches where said young player usually had a chance to win only to "get nervous" (let's be friendly and not call them chokes).

This isn't an ATP vs WTA thing for me. I'm not trying to say anything offensive towards the WTA or any of the women on the tour. Truthfully I just don't think either tour is doing great where young players are concerned.
 
1999 French Open QF - men had 2 major champions with a total of 4 slams. Women had 6 major champions with 41 slams.

1998 French Open QF - men had one major champion with a total of 1 slam. women had 5 major champions with a total of 28 slams.

1997 French Open QF - men had 2 major champions with a total of 3 slams. Women had 4 major winners with a total of 34 slams.

@Phoenix1983 I'm a bit surprised by this thread since you seem to often be rather critical of the aging men's tour and the complete failure of the mid 20s generation.

I've followed the game pretty closely for over 30 years, and have almost always been way more interested in the men's draw than the women's draws at the majors. Not this year, or last year either frankly. I've seen Nadal win 9 French Opens, I'm not particularly excited about seeing him win a 10th. Winning a 3rd Wimbledon however...

I have no idea who will win the women's draw and I find myself more interested in it because of that. Plus ostapenko and svitolina are still pretty young aren't they? Who knows they could end up having a guga like career(trust me, everyone thought he would be a one slam wonder in '97)
Also if mladenovic makes the final, and it goes 3 sets, you may witness the craziest crowd behavior in your lifetime. Isn't that something to look forward to? And yes, I saw Mary Pierce win it in 2000. They never gave her this kind of support since she wasn't considered a real Frenchwoman.
 
Thundergod said:
It's nice and all, but it feels a little bit empty since Serena isn't there. It's like if the Big 4 + Stan withdrew and you had Nishikori, Thiem, Goffin, PCB, and 4 other players duking it out.
Click to expand...
But what if Serena suddenly announced her retirement tomorrow? How much longer would you put an asterisk on someone's trophy just because she's no longer in the draw? There comes a point when you just have to accept that times have changed and there's a new crop of young women working hard to make their mark in the game and if they do happen to win all seven matches they competed in, their victory shouldn't be discredited just because the best player in recent years wasn't part of the competition.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Nowhere near an even distribution, since Nadal has 14, and Djokovic 12. 26 out of 33 majors just for those two, which makes the rest appear to be less than impressive.



It means younger female players are doing their job--defeating the old guard and moving ahead, unlike the men's game, where the so-called "next generation" players such as Thiem, Isner, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon (now an aging "next generation") repeatedly fail to win majors, leaving the field wide open for aging veterans to clean up.




As of this date in 2017, they are.
Click to expand...
isner is 32, older than Nadal, Djok, Murray. to ever call him next gen is asinine. And this is just a weird era as we got 3 all time greats still playing at very high levels
 
tacou said:
most of the men's majors belong to three (really two) 30+ year olds.
Click to expand...

Of the 33 Slams won by the 5 Slam winning quarter-finalists, Nadal accounts for 14, Djokovic for 12, 3 each for Murray and Wawrinka and 1 for Cilic. Cilic is the only one still under 30 years of age.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Nowhere near an even distribution, since Nadal has 14, and Djokovic 12. 26 out of 33 majors just for those two, which makes the rest appear to be less than impressive.
Click to expand...

Who said it had to be an even distribution? The fact remains that 5 of the men's quarter-finalists have won a total of 33 Slams between them. If you want to discard the lesser contributions of Murray, Wawrinka and Cilic, then fine. Call it 26 Slams then! :rolleyes:


THUNDERVOLLEY said:
It means younger female players are doing their job--defeating the old guard and moving ahead, unlike the men's game, where the so-called "next generation" players such as Thiem, Isner, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon (now an aging "next generation") repeatedly fail to win majors, leaving the field wide open for aging veterans to clean up.
Click to expand...

Well, you could hardly include Isner and Simon in that group considering both of them are even older than all 8 remaining quarter-finalists!
 
Steve0904 said:
You're crossing eras here though. Serena won her first slam at USO 1999 when Venus was still in her prime and Henin and Clijsters were coming onto the scene. Not to mention women like Davenport and Capriati. How many of those reflect the current state of the WTA? None. The only young player who has won a slam lately is Muguruza. Kerber is 29 years old, and the last person to beat Serena at a slam before 2016 was 32 year old Roberta Vinci who played the final against 33 year old Penetta.

I don't think I need to say that Serena won the first 3 slams in 2015 beating every young player she came across in matches where said young player usually had a chance to win only to "get nervous" (let's be friendly and not call them chokes).

This isn't an ATP vs WTA thing for me. I'm not trying to say anything offensive towards the WTA or any of the women on the tour. Truthfully I just don't think either tour is doing great where young players are concerned.
Click to expand...
Crossing eras? The ATP is skipping eras. There have been no equivalent to any of those players on the men's side. As I said, for 12 plus years there hasn't been anyone who has been able to stop Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djoko from getting to nearly every final, let alone winning anything.
Let's just take it from 2004 when Fed won his first slam. Since 2004 19 women have won slams compared to the men's 11.

How many young players on the ATP have had this chance to win only to "get nervous"? And Muguruza is one more than the ATP has produced.

18 of the top 30 men are 29 and older, 8 of the top 30 women, 6 men are 25 and under, 15 women.
 
Last edited:
sportmac said:
Crossing eras? The ATP is skipping eras. There have been no equivalent to any of those players on the men's side. As I said, for 12 plus years there hasn't been anyone who has been able to stop Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djoko from getting to nearly every final, let alone winning anything.
Let's just take it from 2004 when Fed won his first slam. Since 2004 19 women have won slams compared to the men's 11.
Click to expand...
While that may be true, why, in spite of producing so many more slam winners, has the women's draw run out of them so fast? I guess Venus and Stosur were the last slam winners to leave the draw? And they both won it many years ago. Let's suppose Big Four = Serena + Sharapova and imagine the men's draw as it stands without the Big Four. That would still leave slam winners Wawrinka and Cilic in the draw. Wawrinka, regarded as wildly inconsistent, has already made a slam semi and a masters final this year. In spite of four players - as opposed to one on the WTA - dominating the ATP, it has a stronger second tier than WTA. I am not happy with the way ATP is at the moment, but it's not like WTA is shimmering with strength either. Weak eras on both tours but at least for the present we have a strong last eight line up in the ATP.
 
Rafa24 said:
Shouldn't be equal pay anyways. They play best of 3. Men play best of 5.
Click to expand...

lmao quantity does not =quality. there have been plenty of mens matches that are miserable to watch, even with going the distance, and ofcourse there aer the regular blow outs where they spend less time on court than some of the women do. Also, time and time again the women have all said they would be willing to play bo5. although based on your posts in the margaret court post, I can see you're just a stellar person all around
 
sportmac said:
Crossing eras? The ATP is skipping eras. There have been no equivalent to any of those players on the men's side. As I said, for 12 plus years there hasn't been anyone who has been able to stop Fed/Nadal/Murray/Djoko from getting to nearly every final, let alone winning anything.
Let's just take it from 2004 when Fed won his first slam. Since 2004 19 women have won slams compared to the men's 11.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but aren't you going a bit too far back? This is about the current state of both tours, yes? I've seen many young players try to beat an old Serena and fail miserably just like I've seen it on the ATP. I'm not saying it's easy to do because it's not, but the difference on the ATP is that there are 3 of them (and then there's Murray). If Serena was in this draw (and not pregnant which has nothing to do with the younger women stepping up) right now she would be a huge favourite. And she would be an even bigger favourite at Wimbledon and the USO. You know that as well as I do.

And I'll take this part of my post to mention a stat of my own. Serena has won 10 slams north of her 30th birthday, and there's only one of her. :) That said, I don't see how one tour is any better than the other right now.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
While that may be true, why, in spite of producing so many more slam winners, has the women's draw run out of them so fast? I guess Venus and Stosur were the last slam winners to leave the draw? And they both won it many years ago. Let's suppose Big Four = Serena + Sharapova and imagine the men's draw as it stands without the Big Four. That would still leave slam winners Wawrinka and Cilic in the draw. Wawrinka, regarded as wildly inconsistent, has already made a slam semi and a masters final this year. In spite of four players - as opposed to one on the WTA - dominating the ATP, it has a stronger second tier than WTA. I am not happy with the way ATP is at the moment, but it's not like WTA is shimmering with strength either. Weak eras on both tours but at least for the present we have a strong last eight line up in the ATP.
Click to expand...

"...it has a stronger second tier than WTA. "

Kvitova, Muguruza, Azarenka? Sure, one gave birth and one was stabbed and they're just coming back but that's a strong 2nd tier.

I can't argue with your point about the men's, it is indeed the same 30+ year olds winning again.
 
They should just make best of 3 on both draws with a best of 5 final. Takes care of scheduling and equality. Of course, then people will line up to say, "Oh but I am old school and can't accept reducing men's matches to best of 3." Fine, then don't complain about equal prize money.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
It means younger female players are doing their job--defeating the old guard and moving ahead, unlike the men's game, where the so-called "next generation" players such as Thiem, Isner, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon (now an aging "next generation") repeatedly fail to win majors, leaving the field wide open for aging veterans to clean up.
Click to expand...
Thiem and Kyrgios are 23 and 22 years old respectively. Isner and Simon are ten years older! How are they to be lumped into the same "generation" exactly?
 
sportmac said:
"...it has a stronger second tier than WTA. "

Kvitova, Muguruza, Azarenka? Sure, one gave birth and one was stabbed and they're just coming back but that's a strong 2nd tier.

I can't argue with your point about the men's, it is indeed the same 30+ year olds winning again.
Click to expand...
AND Roger Federer is not playing the French Open. Easy to make excuses both ways. As for Muguruza, duh, she played and lost before the QFs. So did Kerber (first round).
 
Steve0904 said:
I get your point, but aren't you going a bit too far back? This is about the current state of both tours, yes? I've seen many young players try to beat an old Serena and fail miserably just like I've seen it on the ATP. I'm not saying it's easy to do because it's not, but the difference on the ATP is that there are 3 of them (and then there's Murray). If Serena was in this draw (and not pregnant which has nothing to do with the younger women stepping up) right now she would be a huge favourite. And she would be an even bigger favourite at Wimbledon and the USO. You know that as well as I do.

And I'll take this part of my post to mention a stat of my own. Serena has won 10 slams north of her 30th birthday, and there's only one of her. :) That said, I don't see how one tour is any better than the other right now.
Click to expand...
If we're talking about the current state then I'll point to my edit of my post above:

18 of the top 30 men are 29 and older, 8 of the top 30 women, 6 men are 25 and under, 15 women.

So I'll argue that the women's game currently has a brighter future.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
AND Roger Federer is not playing the French Open. Easy to make excuses both ways. As for Muguruza, duh, she played and lost before the QFs. So did Kerber (first round).
Click to expand...
Why is Zverev or Krygios beating top players seen as a big positive thing yet any young WTA player beats a top player and it's an indictment against the entire WTA?
 
sportmac said:
If we're talking about the current state then I'll point to my edit of my post above:

18 of the top 30 men are 29 and older, 8 of the top 30 women, 6 men are 25 and under, 15 women.

So I'll argue that the women's game currently has a brighter future.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that as long as they (most of them) live up to their potential. That said, if all of the big 4 retired tomorrow or were out of this draw like Serena is, a guy like Thiem might win this RG although he'd probably have to beat Wawrinka. The women's game is not all that different without Serena right now. It's a bit of a free for all, although Halep is looking good.

Kyrgios would probably win a slam somewhere too, as would Zverev eventually. I'd also say it kind of depends on what you consider brighter future to mean. It could mean that there are a lot of "good" players but no great ones. Or it could mean that there's one great dominant player who has the star quality to drive the game, like a Serena.
 
Steve0904 said:
I'd agree with that as long as they (most of them) live up to their potential. That said, if all of the big 4 retired tomorrow or were out of this draw like Serena is, a guy like Thiem might win this RG although he'd probably have to beat Wawrinka. The women's game is not all that different without Serena right now. It's a bit of a free for all, although Halep is looking good.

Kyrgios would probably win a slam somewhere too, as would Zverev eventually. I'd also say it kind of depends on what you consider brighter future to mean. It could mean that there are a lot of "good" players but no great ones. Or it could mean that there's one great dominant player who has the star quality to drive the game, like a Serena.
Click to expand...
True, it's not knowable who will rise but the women have more potential in the rankings at this point just by looking at the ages on the list. If we just take the top 30 then we can speculate on the women's side who might make a move, etc. with 50% of them 25 or under. On the men's you can't with 60% of them over 29 (20% 25 or under). We have to wait for them to retire or decline before those spots are filled with younger players so we can have that debate.
 
sportmac said:
And what do they that have to do with my post? Some "young" players who have had good wins - Kasatkina, Keys, Bencic, Ostapenko, Osaka...
Click to expand...
My point was about the defending champion and the world no.1 both losing to established players and not young ones. You're saying young stars taking out the top players is being held against the WTA but that isn't really what happened in this tournament barring Stosur who has not been a force to reckon with for quite some time. Established players have been taking out those with slams whereas the male slam winners are progressing through even after facing potentially tough opponents (Delpo for Murray and Fognini for Wawrinka). I am not comparing the next gen here. I am just saying as it stands the ATP is in better shape. If the young guns on ATP fail while the ones on WTA succeed, this would change. But there isn't enough to suggest that this would definitely be the case. Let's see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

diggler
Women's scheduling solved by men's best of 3
2
Replies
88
Views
4K
BumElbow
B
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
Worst ATP finals in history?
2 3
Replies
132
Views
9K
Justice Underworld
Justice Underworld
TsitsiBH
Top 10 best players of each generation (New Balls, Golden Gen, Lost Gen, Next Gen, Baby Gen) ? And how would you rank these generations ?
2
Replies
86
Views
6K
Cabeza del Demonio
Cabeza del Demonio
Hitman
Alcaraz and Serena are the only players across all tennis disciplines who won their first slam finals at all four slams
Replies
14
Views
295
Waspsting
W
THUNDERVOLLEY
2009 U.S. Open women's final: television ratings reveal much...
Replies
11
Views
4K
ubermeyer
ubermeyer
Back
Top