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

[sportmac]

There is little to no competition when Serena plays. Also a strong field should be defined by strong or high level competition and simply not just competition. You can have a lot of competition in Challengers/Futures/or whatever level of play, but no one is ever going to call them a strong field. There's nothing to suggest that the competition is high level without Serena. When Serena is included, it becomes very apparent that there is no strong field.

As it is, there's no one even a tier below her let alone someone who consistently challenges her.

You continue to ignore the slam statistics. More women have won slams then the men since the dawn of Serena/Fed.

"Also a strong field should be defined by strong or high level competition and simply not just competition."
Who's going to make that call? No future's has a strong field? What, you think talent only exists at the top level? All local leagues or high schools are weak because they're not pro's? Semi pro ball is weak because it's not made up of the talented few that can make it to the pro's? You're the judge of what is and isn't high level competition?

 

[captainbryce]

There are only 3 "top" women players:

Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, and Victoria Azarenka. And none of them played this tournament (for various reasons).

The second tier for the WTA are: Angelique Kerber, Petra Kvitova, Venus Williams, and Svetlana Kusnetsova. They've all won multiple grand slam titles, but Kerber is in a slump, and the other three haven't won anything recently. All have lost before the quarter final.

The third tier are: Garbine Mugaruza, Simona Halep, Caroline Wozniacki, Karolina Plishkova, Agnieska Radwanska, and Samantha Stosur. All players who've either played consistently enough to be ranked consistently high, or caught lightning in a bottle and made a GS final, or won before. And only two of them are left in the draw at this point.

Everyone else is essentially a place holder, with Bouchard, Keys, and Konta consistently being the most overrated!

So it's not that the WTA is in a "weak era" so much as this particular field at the FO this year was very weak!

 

[Thundergod]

You continue to ignore the slam statistics. More women have won slams then the men since the dawn of Serena/Fed.

"Also a strong field should be defined by strong or high level competition and simply not just competition."
Who's going to make that call? No future's has a strong field? What, you think talent only exists at the top level? All local leagues or high schools are weak because they're not pro's? Semi pro ball is weak because it's not made up of the talented few that can make it to the pro's? You're the judge of what is and isn't high level competition?

You know the reason why there are more women slam winners. Whenever Serena doesn't win a slam, no one's good enough to mop up more than two slams. In a lot of the 2000s some women were good enough, but certainly not the past few years. There is only 1 Serena as opposed to the Big 3 in the men's tour, which means that someone has to win a slam whenever she loses/doesn't attend.

Also, sure, there can be strong fields within their brackets of play, but those fields are all very weak in comparison to the main pro tour, which is what we are discussing. However this doesn't make WTA field strong.

 

[sportmac]

You know the reason why there are more women slam winners. Whenever Serena doesn't win a slam, no one's good enough to mop up more than two slams. In a lot of the 2000s some women were good enough, but certainly not the past few years. There is only 1 Serena as opposed to the Big 3 in the men's tour, which means that someone has to win a slam whenever she loses/doesn't attend.

Also, sure, there can be strong fields within their brackets of play, but those fields are all very weak in comparison to the main pro tour, which is what we are discussing. However this doesn't make WTA field strong.

So she loses or doesn't play someone wins. Repeatedly. Far more than the men which has a pitiful 2nd tier for over a decade.
As I posted before, the women have incredible depth now, it's a new game, a different era. You can talk about the past all you want, it's not the same female athlete. It's so much harder to win at any round in the WTA. The men walk to the finals.

You brought up the challengers, you're the one trying to define what is and what is not a strong field and you used it as an example. "but no one is ever going to call them a strong field." Except, now you are, while you still insist that it's you who decides what is and what isn't a strong field. Except when you change your mind of course.

What's the point? You're probably going to tell me about the women's serve next.

 

[Druss]

It was Wozniacki's best chance to ever win a slam. The former world No1 failed miserably yet again. How she ever made all those weeks at No1 is beyond me!

 

[Phoenix1983]

As far as upsets, Carl Bialik of FiveThirtyEight crunched the numbers in 2015, and found that in lower-level tournaments where men and women both play best-of-three matches, they have very similar rates of upsets. The longer a sport event goes the more likely the better person will win.

Here's Clisters on the competition in 2010:

“When I started, all the top players thought the Grand Slams began in the quarterfinals, because the early rounds were so easy and we only had to give 50 percent to get through them, now I have to be at least 85 to 90 percent at my best from the beginning of a tournament. Venus and Serena raised the bar for everyone. We all had to go back to the gym. Younger players saw that, and now they’re hitting harder and harder.”

It's a fundamental sea change in women and the women's game. In the last 10 or so years a new level of female athlete has emerged. Bigger, stronger, faster. They're now hitting 110/115 mph serves, unheard of a decade or so ago (except for the sisters). They're hitting ground strokes near male speed (Keys is right there with them).
There's more evenly matched talent than ever before. The old rules don't apply.

This is true across all sports. It's a different breed of females that are coming up. The men's game is changing to - to bigger, stronger athletes, but they've always had that to some degree so it's not at noticeable. In the women's game it's new territory. I don't get why it's so hard to grasp by tennis fans.

Yes, but surely some consistent champions would emerge among this "bigger, stronger, faster" group? That's what happens in all sports - great champions rise to the top in their era. All I see at the moment is lots of inconsistent, streaky youngsters. And no, they're not streaky because the field is so amazing that we have loads of great young champions, as you seem to believe. They're streaky because they don't have the talent or mentality of former greats.

This argument is going round in circles now, so I'll leave it there...

 

[Kalin]

A bit late to the party but I noticed yesterday that there were lots of Carolinas and a Kristina in the last 8. This is my contribution to this thread. Oh, well

 

[sportmac]

... loads of great young champions as you seem to believe. They're streaky because they don't have the talent or mentality of former greats.

This argument is going round in circles now, so I'll leave it there...

That's what I believe? That's some damn fine creative reading you got going there. Damn fine. When you have nothing else start creative reading.

Instead of addressing the changes in the women's game you go with no talent and no mentality. You can't even address the change in women's sports, all you know is a different era and you're sticking with it. Why not go all the way back to when the likes of Seles and Hingis were kicking butt at 16?

 

[Moose Malloy]

There is a 20 year old in the semis this year on the women's side. Last time this happened on the men's side was Del Potro at 2009 USO. For the sake of the ATP, I hope it happens again someday.

 

[Boogslice]

Navratilova just said "holy sh-, I mean holy cow!" when TC showed a graphic showing Ostapenko's avg forehand speed - it was up there with the ATP, above Murray's.

 

[Rafa24]

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

I've not posted in a "margaret court" post. You must be confusing me with someone else based on avatars.