I once made a thread about Serena's incredible resurgence in 2012 and this poster got started about how that was 'nothing' compared to 'Martinka 1997'. I mean, he wasn't talking about just numbers or titles won - he stated that Martina played a higher level in 1997 than Serena in 2012. His heart never left the mid-late 90s when Hingis ruled women's tennis. I honestly don't think posts like this one of his come from a place of genuine enquiry or concern about the state of tennis today but a curious mixture of nostalgia for those days when he was younger and resentment against the current lot. I remember back in 2006 or so, Sharapova appeared on one of the talk shows and was asked if she found her results after winning Wimbledon in 2004 disappointing and she said not at all because she was still young and learning, so didn't mind losing to players like Venus. It would surprise our friend to learn that in all likelihood Swiatek too doesn't care that he gloats at 'her bubble being burst' because she wasn't expected to win RG last year anyway.Would Raducanu beat Sabatini, or Hingis at the same age? I don't know, and I don't care, because it's of no importance whatsoever. She does not have to beat Sabatini, because she won't be playing her. She has to beat Sabalenka, Pliskova, Osaka, Barty and Azarenka. Try to enjoy watching her try to do do that, probably sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, rather than getting lost in unresolvable angst about the overall level of tennis.
I can enjoy watching a competitive match between the world no. 24 and world no. 34 just as much as between nos. 1 and 2 if it is close and they are playing well. I don't have some deep seated need to feel like I am watching the best tennis ever played every time I watch it.
I also enjoy watching old film of Graf, Navratilova and Sabatini, players I was amazed by when young, but it doesn't make me enjoy watching Sabalenka vs Giorgi less.
It doesn't 'need to be heard' because whether it is a 'weak era' or not is not only a matter of opinion that is at least very difficult, probably impossible to measure, but it's also completely inconsequential.
As for Raducanu, she beat the 2019 US Open semi finalist, Bencic, in straight sets...as a qualifier. I think those words are worth repeating over and over for their import. She didn't get 'lucky', she punched way above her class and at unprecedented levels. It is an achievement to be cherished; there's a reason no qualifier has won a slam before because it is supposed to be near-impossible. Even if it's true that the entire tour is somehow sclerotic, it doesn't explain how Raducanu already knew what to do when and kept doing it over and over for 10 matches.
Even if Raducanu does become the one slam wonder that Jason and co desperately hope she will turn out to be, she will still be a wondrous wonder. You can never take away what she achieved at this USO from her precisely because it defied the wildest of expectations. It's sad that some people are so caught in their agendas that they cannot even just halt the analysis paralysis for a while and just stand up and clap.