If Serena had a weak era so did Federer

[Service Ace]

Only trolls make the argument that Serena had a weak era while at the same time propping up mugs like Henin and Clijsters who had a good year or two before absolutely fading into obscurity. Trolls that deny Serena and bring up the weak era/Steffi argument are the biggest hypocritical phonies on this forum.

 

[enqvisthaas]

Only trolls make the argument that Serena had a weak era while at the same time propping up mugs like Henin and Clijsters who had a good year or two before absolutely fading into obscurity. Trolls that deny Serena and bring up the weak era/Steffi argument are the biggest hypocritical phonies on this forum.

We might as well say everyones favorite had the toughest era, and every player that someone doesnt like was in a mug era. Atleast that seems to be the way for some people.

People trying to prop up Graf's competition of all things as a way to demean Serena is hilarious though. Graf wasnt even clearly viewed the GOAT over women with many fewer slams like Navratilova for someone people due to her acknowledged weak competition, especialy with the Seles stabbing. ASV was her biggest career rival, Sanchez who even today wouldnt be a contender anywhere but clay. People mock Kerber but she is basically Sanchez with a way better forehand.

 

[enqvisthaas]

Agassi met Sampras only twice at Wimb. Sampras wasn't his only roadblock at Wimb. I mean during 1994-1998, Agassi was nowhere to be seen against Sampras.

Federer is a much better player than Agassi ever was. He would have beaten Sampras at Wimb, unlike Agassi. The reverse of your argument can also be applied: that Sampras never had a player like prime Fed at Wimb to contend with.

I included Sampras as one of those with the weakest competition though.

Of course Agassi isnt as good as Sampras or Federer, and that is why had such a tough task facing Sampras, a clearly superior player especialy on faster courts, who was also a bad match up for him to boot. Sampras beat Agassi twice at Wimbledon and 4 times at the U.S Open and analyzing the draws Agassi would have been the likely winner of all 6, and at worst won 4 or 5 of the 6. At the very least his U.S Open would be WAY better and absolutely legendary without Sampras. It is hard to see him losing any of the 95, 2000, 2001 U.S Opens, 1990 is debateable. He also faced numerous surface specialists on clay, grass, carpet, as someone who clearly was at their best on hard courts, and still managed to contend and win something big on each on those surfaces. That is why I credit him as atleast having respectable competition, and moreso than Sampras who for him had a weak era to stay #1 and win at Wimbledon especialy. It isnt me saying Agassi is better than Sampras, but he had it tougher competition wise, in part since he is a weaker player to begin with and doesnt have quite enough game to beat form Sampras on fast courts in a big match.

 

[Chadillac]

People mock Kerber but she is basically Sanchez with a way better forehand.

Huh? They both have two legs and use a tennis racket?

 

[enqvisthaas]

Huh? They both have two legs and use a tennis racket?

Both incredibly fast, both play incredible defense, both have good but not great volleys but relative to pure baseliners pretty good, both have just ok serves (now that Kerber's has improved alot), both have very good backhands, both are mentally very tough, both are extremely consistent. The only real differences is Kerber's forehand is light years better, and she uses angles much better in general.

 

[Wander]

I'm sure you're talking in relative terms and not absolute terms.

 

[mxmx]

Serena has been riding the gravy train for the last 8 years. Fed has had much tougher competition during his career.

but how does one measure a weak era? Is it not just because she makes everyone else seem weak in comparison?

 

[Man of steel]

We might as well say everyones favorite had the toughest era, and every player that someone doesnt like was in a mug era. Atleast that seems to be the way for some people.

People trying to prop up Graf's competition of all things as a way to demean Serena is hilarious though. Graf wasnt even clearly viewed the GOAT over women with many fewer slams like Navratilova for someone people due to her acknowledged weak competition, especialy with the Seles stabbing. ASV was her biggest career rival, Sanchez who even today wouldnt be a contender anywhere but clay. People mock Kerber but she is basically Sanchez with a way better forehand.

Frankly apart from old navratilova i have to say graf had weak competition on grass at wimbledon. ASV would never had gotten near a wimbledon title let alone a wimbledon final if she played in the 00's.

 

[Mr.Lob]

but how does one measure a weak era? Is it not just because she makes everyone else seem weak in comparison?

Serena is winning more slams in her 30's than in her 20's, which
should be a pretty big clue. Where do their competitors rank in terms of all time greats? Are their opponents consistently at the top, or up and down? Yes, someone could be so strong as to make competition look weak, but don't think that's the case with Serena. And yeah, Fed has a two or three year period where his competition wasn't as strong. Nadal has had the toughest road to slams of any current player.

 

[enqvisthaas]

Frankly apart from old navratilova i have to say graf had weak competition on grass at wimbledon. ASV would never had gotten near a wimbledon title let alone a wimbledon final if she played in the 00's.

Omigod unbelievably. And compared to Serena's at Wimbledon or on grass in general completely laughable.

Prime Venus >>> Very old Navratilova

Davenport on grass = Novotna on grass (maybe)

Mauresmo on grass >>> any version of Seles on grass

Sharapova or Henin or Kvitova on grass >>> Sanchez or Sabatini or Martinez on grass

Yet Serena still has the same number of Wimbledon titles and probably will go higher than grass.

 

[70後]

Davenport on grass = Novotna on grass (maybe)

Impossible. Mental toughness, ground strokes, game everything, best that Novotna could ever muster would and did get blown away by just about any version of Davenport, which is exactly their h2h. Especially the mentality part, quite incomparable, never mind power.

 

[mxmx]

"Yes, someone could be so strong as to make competition look weak, but don't think that's the case with Serena"

But why not? That is just your opinion? But why do you say this?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

no

 

[Elektra]

Serena is a great competitor she won grandslams during the golden era of women's tennis. So discounting her is unfair cause she proved that she is a great competitor. Before 2011- she did not take her tennis career seriously. She started taking her tennis career more seriously when Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo retired from the sport. They were players who could challenge her and not intimidated by her. She had Sharapova's number after 2007 but the only person who challenge her was Azarenka and Murguruza once she get herself together.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

LOL those mugs were a challenge more than
Sharapova, Azarenka, kvitova, kerber and muguruza? Lol keep dreaming. All of them at least were able to win slam in that time period. Can't say the same for any of those mugs that you mentioned

Hewitt has 2 slams, 2 years at #1 (one whole year ranked at #1 too) and 2 WTF trophies.

Don't bother mentioning Muguruza or Kvitova. I'd also say Hewitt was better than Azarenka too.

Would've ended his career with 3 or 4 slams to his name if it wasn't for Federer.

 

[mxmx]

Serena is winning more slams in her 30's than in her 20's, which
should be a pretty big clue. Where do their competitors rank in terms of all time greats? Are their opponents consistently at the top, or up and down? Yes, someone could be so strong as to make competition look weak, but don't think that's the case with Serena. And yeah, Fed has a two or three year period where his competition wasn't as strong. Nadal has had the toughest road to slams of any current player.

Federer
is winning more slams than he should in his mid 30's...
should also be a pretty big clue.

I agree that the big 4 are greats...but only in recent years has the weak era gotten stronger because the Andy's and top 10 got stronger.. not as strong as the previous era though. The depth of good players sucks more than in the previous era imo. The big four rode the weakness to get so many slams.

 

[Man of steel]

Serena is a great competitor she won grandslams during the golden era of women's tennis. So discounting her is unfair cause she proved that she is a great competitor. Before 2011- she did not take her tennis career seriously. She started taking her tennis career more seriously when Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo retired from the sport. They were players who could challenge her and not intimidated by her. She had Sharapova's number after 2007 but the only person who challenge her was Azarenka and Murguruza once she get herself together.

Lol mauresmo was intimidated and was no match for serena. Momo was one of many of serena's pidgeons