Steffi had what Serena & Nole lacked

Status
Not open for further replies.

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is not significantly better than his opposition today?
Strategy? Djoko wins with fitness, strong ground game, confidence, not strategy.

Olympics are a big tennis event today.
Sorry responding seperate.

Djokovic wins on strategy. He's one of the most strategic players in Federer and Nadal. He plays patterns a lot, more so then most.

His most obvious strategy change was Med going to net, even S&V. But most his strategy is more sutitle, he just continues to put opposition into places they don't want to be. This comes from his BTL backhand.

Regarding the Olympic, it's only a big event after,
4 Majors
ATP finals
9 Masters

Though I think it rates in the pack of Masters, above Madrid Canadian, Shanghai and Paris.


, It has BO5 final which maybe helps.
This is backed by its value,
0pt was 750pt also demonstration 1984.
$0 prize money.

Field is generally worse than Masters including non-compulsory and during period when compulsory didn't exist.

Personally I think one of the reasons it grew in prominence was as a seperate for the big 4.
2012 was the only Oly that holds much value due to reasonable field

Has no set calander , get pushed into the existing tennis calander. Poor lead up and often busy with more important events, which players choose.

Some players rate it, others don't. Some rate DC much higher but it's no longer so not in discussion.

I think it has higher value in the WTA. Not sure why.

I don't rate it a big Tourney. Many agree, some, mainly non-tennis viewers disagree. But to me it's like Oly to football or basketball maybe distance cycling & boxing . Not so important.
 

skaj

Legend
Sorry responding seperate.

Djokovic wins on strategy. He's one of the most strategic players in Federer and Nadal. He plays patterns a lot, more so then most.

His most obvious strategy change was Med going to net, even S&V. But most his strategy is more sutitle, he just continues to put opposition into places they don't want to be. This comes from his BTL backhand.

Regarding the Olympic, it's only a big event after,
4 Majors
ATP finals
9 Masters

Though I think it rates in the pack of Masters, above Madrid Canadian, Shanghai and Paris.


, It has BO5 final which maybe helps.
This is backed by its value,
0pt was 750pt also demonstration 1984.
$0 prize money.

Field is generally worse than Masters including non-compulsory and during period when compulsory didn't exist.

Personally I think one of the reasons it grew in prominence was as a seperate for the big 4.
2012 was the only Oly that holds much value due to reasonable field

Has no set calander , get pushed into the existing tennis calander. Poor lead up and often busy with more important events, which players choose.

Some players rate it, others don't. Some rate DC much higher but it's no longer so not in discussion.

I think it has higher value in the WTA. Not sure why.

I don't rate it a big Tourney. Many agree, some, mainly non-tennis viewers disagree. But to me it's like Oly to football or basketball maybe distance cycling & boxing . Not so important.
What you are talking about is what basically all tennis players do. That's not winning on strategy, that just using strategy which is normal for any player.

The Olympics are the biggest event after slams for most players. The field is different every time, because they happen every 4 years.
 

CHillTennis

Semi-Pro
Of course you can compare the pressure.
It's really possible to make a comparison.

Steffi Graf was at the beginning of her career in 1988.

You would assume that she would have had many more chances for a grand slam if she had lost in the finals of the US Open.

Novak Djokovic was 34 years old and going for history in that match (oldest player to achieve the calendar year grand slam, first player in 50+ years, most grand slam titles of all time, etc. )

There was a lot more riding on it for Novak.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Yes, super skillful, smart and quick Kimiko Date, who almost beat Graf at Wimbledon in 1996, was a great player who came back as an even greater player in the 2000s and managed to beat some of the players 10-20 years younger. She's is known as a great example of achieving longevity by taking a break and taking care of your body(plus good genes, of course). Of course, it's not like she was dominating Sharapova, Stosur etc, as you desperately tried to make it look like here.
...
Yes, Date "an even greater player" in her early 40s than at age 25.
Sounds reasonable considered the many examples of the past in which a player peaked in her early 40s...
:laughing:

But back to Sabatini and Sanchez Vicario. Yes, it would probably be pretty brutal, they would be blown off the court by "clowns" like Sharapova, Stosur, Azarenka etc.
Graf couldn't handle one big hitter in her time, imagine having to deal all the big hitters Serena had to deal with in the least decade, plus some other tricky players like Radwanska for example.
...
Which "big hitter couldn't Graf handle in her time"? :unsure:
And which "all the big hitters Serena had to deal with in the last decade" were as good or even better than said "big hitter"? :unsure:

Questions you want to answer?
No?
Thought so...
:laughing:
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
It's really possible to make a comparison.

Steffi Graf was at the beginning of her career in 1988.

You would assume that she would have had many more chances for a grand slam if she had lost in the finals of the US Open.

Novak Djokovic was 34 years old and going for history in that match (oldest player to achieve the calendar year grand slam, first player in 50+ years, most grand slam titles of all time, etc. )

There was a lot more riding on it for Novak.
Djokovic ist an experienced, battle-hardened man.
Steffi was a 19-year-old teenager who had won her first slam only the year before.
 

skaj

Legend
Yes, Date "an even greater player" in her early 40s than at age 25.
Sounds reasonable considered the many examples of the past in which a player peaked in her early 40s...
:laughing:



Which "big hitter couldn't Graf handle in her time"? :unsure:
And which "all the big hitters Serena had to deal with in the last decade" were as good or even better than said "big hitter"? :unsure:

Questions you want to answer?
No?
Thought so...
:laughing:
No, you didn't get it, it's completely opposite. Date was a great and rare example of it.

Which big hitter Graf couldn't handle. Boy, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room in this entire thread...

Serena had to handle many big hitters, including the one you seem to have to ignore, because her era was, unlike Graf's field with those kind of players.

And who are you talking to in the last few rows? Yourself probably, since you have a laughing emoji with no reason whatsoever...
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
No, you didn't get it, it's completely opposite. Date was a great and rare example of it.
...
So Date was a "rare example" of a player who was better at 42 than at 25, right?
Don't you realize what a ludicrous excuse that is?


...
Which big hitter Graf couldn't handle. Boy, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room in this entire thread...
...
You would perhaps call Seles, Pierce, Capriati, Davenport "big hitters" in the 90s.
Steffi is 10-5, 4-2, 10-1 and 8-6 against those players.
32-14 win/loss on aggregate.
Davenport looks quite close because Steffi was 3-5 against her in 1998/99 when she (Steffi) was far over the hill (before it was 5-1 in Steffi's favor).

...
Serena had to handle many big hitters, including the one you seem to have to ignore, because her era was, unlike Graf's field with those kind of players.
...
Well, then name those "big hitters" Serena had to face.
- Seles was done after 1996.
- Capriati retired in 2004 when Serena had won 6 slams.
- Pierce retired in 2006 when Serena had won 7 slams.
- Davenport was done in 2007 when Serena had won 8 slams.
So you can't mean them, right?

So which big hitters do you mean?
Azarenka...? :laughing:
Kvitova...? :laughing::laughing:
Pliskova...? :laughing: :laughing::laughing:
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
What you are talking about is what basically all tennis players do. That's not winning on strategy, that just using strategy which is normal for any player.

The Olympics are the biggest event after slams for most players. The field is different every time, because they happen every 4 years.
Well as a player and a long time watcher 80s, I feel tennis has a lot of strategy and is not mindless ball bashing. All players use strategy to highlight their strength, hide their weaknesses and put their opposition in compromising position. I think players like Zverve serving 134mph 2nd serves is poor strategy over the long run, but also playing ultra conservative is also an issue. I believe Djokovic plays with more strategy than say Nadal, but that's mainly because Nadal strategy is backed by one of the biggest weapons in the game. His game plan changes much more subtly through a match and his end point is away to get back to his A game. I do not think the big 3 challengers in Med, Tsis & Zve play as smart as Djokovic. Djokovic does tend to learn from playing players, his losses early in HH get rectified.

Regarding the Olympic I already stated factually / quantifiable why is lesser to Masters. I do not believe players give the option would omitt one of the bigger Masters over Oly.
I do not see any player never playing IW instead playing Oly as a Tourney. Players might substitute a single Tourney once maybe twice but they wouldnt elect never to play IW or RO over Olympics. Only winners claim its greatness maybe Bronze, but even Silver like M Fish said he'd rather have nothing than silver.

BTW this test has already been done to a degree in the ammature vs proffessional era. The best of the best chose professional competition over Majors.
 

skaj

Legend
So Date was a "rare example" of a player who was better at 42 than at 25, right?
Don't you realize what a ludicrous excuse that is?




You would perhaps call Seles, Pierce, Capriati, Davenport "big hitters" in the 90s.
Steffi is 10-5, 4-2, 10-1 and 8-6 against those players.
32-14 win/loss on aggregate.
Davenport looks quite close because Steffi was 3-5 against her in 1998/99 when she (Steffi) was far over the hill (before it was 5-1 in Steffi's favor).



Well, then name those "big hitters" Serena had to face.
- Seles was done after 1996.
- Capriati retired in 2004 when Serena had won 6 slams.
- Pierce retired in 2006 when Serena had won 7 slams.
- Davenport was done in 2007 when Serena had won 8 slams.
So you can't mean them, right?

So which big hitters do you mean?
Azarenka...? :laughing:
Kvitova...? :laughing::laughing:
Pliskova...? :laughing: :laughing::laughing:
Ludicrous is to think that it was a common case for a player to be better at 40 than at 26, which is what you proposed. Yes, Date is a rare case of this, I have explained why, you can go back and read it, in case you have missed it(like you are missing many things here).

Oh goodness me, you are still in denial/pretending(it's impossible that you are uninformed) about the Graf's main rival from the 90s...

And so, the big hitters according to you are only the ones Graf has faced?

Azarenka, Kvitova, Pliskova don't hit hard according to you I guess, and probably no one else after Graf's retirement hit hard...
 

skaj

Legend
Well as a player and a long time watcher 80s, I feel tennis has a lot of strategy and is not mindless ball bashing. All players use strategy to highlight their strength, hide their weaknesses and put their opposition in compromising position. I think players like Zverve serving 134mph 2nd serves is poor strategy over the long run, but also playing ultra conservative is also an issue. I believe Djokovic plays with more strategy than say Nadal, but that's mainly because Nadal strategy is backed by one of the biggest weapons in the game. His game plan changes much more subtly through a match and his end point is away to get back to his A game. I do not think the big 3 challengers in Med, Tsis & Zve play as smart as Djokovic. Djokovic does tend to learn from playing players, his losses early in HH get rectified.

Regarding the Olympic I already stated factually / quantifiable why is lesser to Masters. I do not believe players give the option would omitt one of the bigger Masters over Oly.
I do not see any player never playing IW instead playing Oly as a Tourney. Players might substitute a single Tourney once maybe twice but they wouldnt elect never to play IW or RO over Olympics. Only winners claim its greatness maybe Bronze, but even Silver like M Fish said he'd rather have nothing than silver.

BTW this test has already been done to a degree in the ammature vs proffessional era. The best of the best chose professional competition over Majors.
Playing with more strategy than Nadal certainly doesn't make you a player who wins with strategy(and I don't even think he does use strategy more than Rafael). Djokovic wins with his ground game(- very solid hitting off both sides, reliable serve, excellent return, great lateral movement), as well as his fitness and confidence.

Yes, you gave your ideas on why the Olympics should be lesser than masters, but unfortunately for those there are other factors to why players and people in general value the event in a certain way. It is the greatest event in sports, which came back to professional tennis in the late 80s, and since then it grew more popular in the sport. In the 21st century, players like Federer, Nadal, Serena, Djokovic, care a great deal about the gold medal, a very special prize which you can win only once in 4 year(as opposed to masters, for example, which you can win every two months or so). And for the same reasons, of course there is a greater chance to miss all the Olympics, than all the Indian Wells/Rome/Miami/Madrid etc. tournaments.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Ludicrous is to think that it was a common case for a player to be better at 40 than at 26, which is what you proposed. ...
Of course Date was not better in 2010-14 when she beat 5 slam winners of the 2010s as a 40/44-year-old.
It is YOU who claims that.

Of course a 40/44-year-old Kimiko was only a shadow of her former 25-year-old self, as every tennis player in the history of mankind was and will be.
But she is living proof how much better women's tennis of the 90s was compared to the 10s.
And she herself said in 2011 that even a 42-year-old Steffi still could be #1 of she decided to return.


...
Oh goodness me, you are still in denial/pretending(it's impossible that you are uninformed) about the Graf's main rival from the 90s...

And so, the big hitters according to you are only the ones Graf has faced?

Azarenka, Kvitova, Pliskova don't hit hard according to you I guess, and probably no one else after Graf's retirement hit hard...
Yes, Azarenka, Kvitova, Pliskobot hit as hard as Seles, Pierce, Capriati, Davenport.
But are of course worse players than those old-timers.

The 1987-96 decade was the Golden Age of women's tennis. A never-seen-again array of all-time greats and other great players. Tons of all-time classic slam finals. Those 10 glorious years had more great slam finals than the other 44 years of the open era (1968-86 and1997-2021) combined!
 

skaj

Legend
Of course Date was not better in 2010-14 when she beat 5 slam winners of the 2010s as a 40/44-year-old.
It is YOU who claims that.

Of course a 40/44-year-old Kimiko was only a shadow of her former 25-year-old self, as every tennis player in the history of mankind was and will be.
But she is living proof how much better women's tennis of the 90s was compared to the 10s.
And she herself said in 2011 that even a 42-year-old Steffi still could be #1 of she decided to return.




Yes, Azarenka, Kvitova, Pliskobot hit as hard as Seles, Pierce, Capriati, Davenport.
But are of course worse players than those old-timers.

The 1987-96 decade was the Golden Age of women's tennis. A never-seen-again array of all-time greats and other great players. Tons of all-time classic slam finals. Those 10 glorious years had more great slam finals than the other 44 years of the open era (1968-86 and1997-2021) combined!
Of course 2010 Date was a better player in many ways than she was in the first part of her career. It is YOU who claims that was not, not me. And you don't have any arguments to back that up.

Not that Date winning a couple of matches against a couple of players has much to do with this discussion(much less "prove" anything there).

And of course that the 2010s are tougher than the period from Seles stabbing to the late 90s and the rise of the best WTA generation ever.

And what does the fact that those four players hit hard as the other four have to do with what I have said? Serena played numerous hard hitters, the three were just an example. Graf's main rival was a hard-hitter, but she was sidelined by stabbing(I guess this is not familiar to you..). She played Capriati, who as a very young teen played well for her age in the early 90s, and then her career went downhill very fast, she did not come back as a good player until after Steffi had retired. Mary Pierce is notorious for her inconsistency(and when she was on she was able to blow Graf of the court). Davenport did not reach her prime until the late 90s. Your "Golden Age of women's tennis" decade is this plus Sabatini, Sanchez, Novotna crew, and aging Navratiloa&Evert. How glorious.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Of course 2010 Date was a better player in many ways than she was in the first part of her career. ...

Not that Date winning a couple of matches against a couple of players has much to do with this discussion(much less "prove" anything there).
...
Again, do you suggest with a straight face that a 40/44-year-old Kimiko Date was a better player than a 22/25-year-old Date?
Do you know any athlete in the history of mankind who was better as a 40/44-year-old than as a 22/25-year-old?

A 40/44-year-old Date in 2010-14 beat Sharapova, Li, Stosur, Muguruza, Pennetta (all five slam winners of the 2010s), Hantuchova (three times), Kirilenko (three times), Razzano, Petrova (twice), Safina (twice), Pavlyuchenkova, Peer, Puig (twice).
She won sets against Kanepi, Wozniacki, Lisicki, Azarenka, Dementieva (twice), Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Kerber, Radwanska, V. Williams (twice).
Many very close three-set losses.

Kimiko Date is living proof how much better the 90s were than the 10s.
And she knows it and acknowledged it by saying that even a 40-year-old Steffi Graf would have been #1 in 2010.
You think she was lying?
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
...
Your "Golden Age of women's tennis" decade is this plus Sabatini, Sanchez, Novotna crew, and aging Navratiloa&Evert. How glorious.
The "Golden Age" had great slam finals between Steffi and a 30/32-year-old Navratilova (who made a slam final even at 37).
And great slam finals between Steffi and peak 90-96 Seles.
Great slam finals with one of the greatest clay courters of all time called Arantxa Sanchez.
And great matches against Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez, Pierce, Capriati, Fernandez, Davenport, Hingis, Williams sisters.

The "Golden Age" of 1987-96 had by far the most all-time classic slam finals:
Wimbledon 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995.
FO 1987, 1989, 1992, 1996.
AO 1993.
USO 1995.

Name any other decade which had the same number of all-time classic slam finals.
You and your comrades always become very quiet when I ask this question ....:D
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Again, do you suggest with a straight face that a 40/44-year-old Kimiko Date was a better player than a 22/25-year-old Date?
Do you know any athlete in the history of mankind who was better as a 40/44-year-old than as a 22/25-year-old?
We can also add to this that she was out of the game and most likely barely training for more than a decade. That is not even comparable to a 38 year old Federer who at least stayed on the tour and sharp (and even he of course was way below the level of his 25 year old self).
 

Sunny014

Legend
Exactly, which is why they shouldn't even try to compare her to Djokovic. She would have been crushed by the first man she met in her golden slam year. Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Lendl would have made mince meat out of her if she had stepped onto the court with them. Keep women's and men's accomplishments separate.
Steffi didn't have a global competitive tennis scene to go up against. People always cherry pick that Serena benefitted from modern fitness, but ignore that the tennis scene is way more competitive and highly trained today than it was back then. And the pressure with modern media compared to back then is way higher too, Steffi didn't play under nearly the same pressure. Much more media obligations, records shoved in your face, fans clamoring for selfies, social media comments everywhere, low life gamblers sending you death threats when you cost them their bet, the list goes on and on.
Also the mid 80s to the early 90s was a period when Teenagers would win slams, maybe Tennis was not that physical then as it is now, now a teenager to win has to be physically far ahead of people in mid 20s, this is quite tough to do now. An athlete like Nadal would now come just once in many decades, they don't make them like him anymore.

Thats why Steffi's 1988 Golden Slam cannot be compared to the challenges faced by Novak/Federer in the presence of Nadal, it is just stupid.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
...
Thats why Steffi's 1988 Golden Slam cannot be compared to the challenges faced by Novak/Federer in the presence of Nadal, it is just stupid.
Yes, Steffi had to beat top fit ATGs aged 31 and 33 in slam finals to win her Golden Slam.
Djokovic's two main opponents were 35 and 40 year old ATGs with injuries. And yet he failed.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Yes, Steffi had to beat top fit ATGs aged 31 and 33 in slam finals to win her Golden Slam.
Djokovic's two main opponents were 35 and 40 year old ATGs with injuries. And yet he failed.
Even a small child knows that 30+ in 1980s was a very old age, no matter how fit someone is they cannot do anything.

Steffi is NOTHING compared to Novak, infact if they play against each other Novak would be triple bagel her peak for peak
 

skaj

Legend
Again, do you suggest with a straight face that a 40/44-year-old Kimiko Date was a better player than a 22/25-year-old Date?
Do you know any athlete in the history of mankind who was better as a 40/44-year-old than as a 22/25-year-old?

A 40/44-year-old Date in 2010-14 beat Sharapova, Li, Stosur, Muguruza, Pennetta (all five slam winners of the 2010s), Hantuchova (three times), Kirilenko (three times), Razzano, Petrova (twice), Safina (twice), Pavlyuchenkova, Peer, Puig (twice).
She won sets against Kanepi, Wozniacki, Lisicki, Azarenka, Dementieva (twice), Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Kerber, Radwanska, V. Williams (twice).
Many very close three-set losses.

Kimiko Date is living proof how much better the 90s were than the 10s.
And she knows it and acknowledged it by saying that even a 40-year-old Steffi Graf would have been #1 in 2010.
You think she was lying?
I am not suggesting anything, I am saying what I have said, and that is the fact that 2010 Date was improved compared to the 1990s Date, and also that that is irrelevant to this discussion. Her beating some slam winners, and players like Peer and Razzano(seriously?), and also her winning sets to some other players(even more - seriously??!) has nothing to do with this discussion. A good player at 40 winning matches and sets, it's nothing new in the world of tennis, she didn't invent it, remind yourself of that, or learn it.

And where exactly did Kimiko Date say that "a 40 year old Graf would be #1 in 2010"?
 

skaj

Legend
The "Golden Age" had great slam finals between Steffi and a 30/32-year-old Navratilova (who made a slam final even at 37).
And great slam finals between Steffi and peak 90-96 Seles.
Great slam finals with one of the greatest clay courters of all time called Arantxa Sanchez.
And great matches against Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez, Pierce, Capriati, Fernandez, Davenport, Hingis, Williams sisters.

The "Golden Age" of 1987-96 had by far the most all-time classic slam finals:
Wimbledon 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995.
FO 1987, 1989, 1992, 1996.
AO 1993.
USO 1995.

Name any other decade which had the same number of all-time classic slam finals.
You and your comrades always become very quiet when I ask this question ....:D
Your desperate attempts don't stop...

Yes, Navratilova made slam final that year, when Martinez won Wimbledon... "the Golden Age"...

And "peak" 100kg Seles in 96...

And great finals involving the ultimate pusher and overachiever Sanchez Vicario...

I have explained Pierce, Capriati, Davenport, as well as the greatest WTA generation ever which includes Hingis and Williamses you are mentioning, and which came to their prime after 1996. See post #112

Not to mention that (what you consider)"all-time classic slam finals" and the toughest era in WTA history have little to do with one another.

What comrades and what quiet are you talking about exactly??
 

Sunny014

Legend
Seles would never have been 100 Kgs in 1996 if that stabbing never happened, she would have been fit and mean, ruling champ and her game would have been many level above what it was in 1996, it was depression which made her indulge in gluttony and reach 100.

Sad.....

That Gunter fellow did a lot of damage to Tennis with his actions.
 

skaj

Legend
We can also add to this that she was out of the game and most likely barely training for more than a decade. That is not even comparable to a 38 year old Federer who at least stayed on the tour and sharp (and even he of course was way below the level of his 25 year old self).
Most likely for someone who does not know facts. Date ran a marathon between the two parts of her career, and successfully so.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Most likely for someone who does not know facts. Date ran a marathon between the two parts of her career, and successfully so.
Ok so she ran a marathon during a decade of inactivity, good for her. This does not change what I said though, as it only means she stayed physically fit. If she hasn’t practiced tennis regularly and most importantly didn’t play any serious matches during this time her decline will be faster than for someone like Federer who stayed on tour. A marathon is also not as tough as you think, a professional tennis player should be able to finish it with little preparation.
 

skaj

Legend
Ok so she ran a marathon during a decade of inactivity, good for her. This does not change what I said though, as it only means she stayed physically fit. If she hasn’t practiced tennis regularly and most importantly didn’t play any serious matches during this time her decline will be faster than for someone like Federer who stayed on tour. A marathon is also not as tough as you think, a professional tennis player should be able to finish it with little preparation.
Fitness is very important when it comes to adjusting to faster game, so yes, good for her that she ran a marathon, very good for her. And how about actually seeing her play - tennis, upon her comeback. She was so well adjusted to the new pace. Her natural quick reflexes, hands and feet helped a lot too, as well as her playing style. Not only physically, she adjusted strategically so well too. So, it does not make sense to say that she did not have the right preparation.

And please don't talk about "what I think" because, as you can see, you do not know what I think. I didn't say her "being able to finish a marathon" was a great result, and that is "tough for a tennis player'". You have misread that and missed the point(again).
 

mxmx

Hall of Fame
1) Venus was no force anymore in the 2010 due to her Sjogren's disease. Serena won 12 of her 23 slams in the 2010s.
2) Henin retired in winter 2008 due to burn out (had a short-lived and unsuccessful return 2 years later). Serena won 15 of her 23 slams after winter 2008.
3) Clijsters first retired in spring 2007 (Serena had only won 8 slams at that point). Came back in summer 2009 (Serena was at 11 then) and retired again in summer 2012 due to injuries. Serena won 10 of her 23 slams after that.
4) Hingis won her last slam in winter 1999 when Seles had zero slams. Retired in 2002 (played no role during her short comeback in 2006/07). Serena won 19 of her 23 slams after 2002.

So Serena won the majority of her slams without anyone of those four as opposition.
Serena won most of her slams in the Wozniacki/Azarenka era.
Steffi would have loved to play against those mugs.
Naw. Even Sharapova with her annoying grunting would at times have been tough competition to Steffi. I'm sure Serena would have loved playing let's say ASV.
 

mxmx

Hall of Fame
Even a small child knows that 30+ in 1980s was a very old age, no matter how fit someone is they cannot do anything.

Steffi is NOTHING compared to Novak, infact if they play against each other Novak would be triple bagel her peak for peak
You didn't read all the posts did you?
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Fitness is very important when it comes to adjusting to faster game, so yes, good for her that she ran a marathon, very good for her. And how about actually seeing her play - tennis, upon her comeback. She was so well adjusted to the new pace. Her natural quick reflexes, hands and feet helped a lot too, as well as her playing style. Not only physically, she adjusted strategically so well too. So, it does not make sense to say that she did not have the right preparation.
Missed the point completely. Unless you want to tell me that during her 12 year hiatus she followed a training regime (in terms of both fitness AND tennis training) which was even remotely close to what she did during her playing days (Let us even ignore the fact that without actual competitive match play you will get rusty anyways no matter how hard you train) she will be expected to be way worse at the time of her comeback than she would have been had she actually stayed on tour (like Federer for instance). This even comes on top of the fact that no top level athlete in the whole history of sports will ever be better with 40 than he was with 25 even if there wasn’t any 12 year break in between.

The reason that she could do well and actually be competitive at her comeback is simply that the competition had become weaker.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Even a small child knows that 30+ in 1980s was a very old age, no matter how fit someone is they cannot do anything.
...
In the 80s Evert won FO 85 & 86 and Navratilova Wim & USO 87 as 30/31-year-olds.
Evert made the AO 88 final as a 33-year-old, Navratilova won Wimbledon 90 as a 33-year-old, made the Wimbledon 94 final as a 37-year-old.

Court won 3 slams as a 30/31-year-old in 1973.
Billie Jean King won 2 slams as a 30/31-year-old in 1974/75 and made two Wimbledon semis as a 38/39-year-old in 1982/83.
Virginia Wade won Wimbledon in 1977 as a 32-year-old.

The average age of the top 10 in 1985 was older than the current top 10.

So the Indian kid is blabbering nonsense again.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
I am not suggesting anything, I am saying what I have said, and that is the fact that 2010 Date was improved compared to the 1990s Date, and also that that is irrelevant to this discussion. Her beating some slam winners, and players like Peer and Razzano(seriously?), and also her winning sets to some other players(even more - seriously??!) has nothing to do with this discussion. A good player at 40 winning matches and sets, it's nothing new in the world of tennis, she didn't invent it, remind yourself of that, or learn it.
...
2010 Date was improved compared to 1990 Date?
A 40plus-year-old improved compared to her 22-year-old self?? o_O

"A good player at 40 winning matches and sets nothing new"? :-D
Could you give us a list of those 40/44-year-old players beating slam winners left and right?


....
And where exactly did Kimiko Date say that "a 40 year old Graf would be #1 in 2010"?
Q: Who’s the best player you ever played?
Date: For me it’s Steffi Graf. Always Steffi Graf.
Q: You think she could beat most of today’s players?
Date: Yeah, I think so. If she has the motivation and starts a little bit practicing, I think she could beat everybody.
(Q&A with Kimiko Date-Krumm, sportsnews.com, August 2, 2011)


Graf retired a little prematurely some felt, back in 1999, having won everything the game could offer her and so we never got to see her take on the Williams sisters in their pomp. However Date-Krumm is convinced that if ‘Fraulein Forehand’ made a comeback today, she would still be world number one.
“Yes I think so,” she says. “And why ? Well because tennis is not only power and not only age. Yes, of course this generation of players need power. But to win Grand Slam titles you need mental toughness and experience. In matches there are many turning points and she still knows how to win, how to play these big moments.”
(Tennis World Magazine Exclusive - An interview with Kimiko Date-Krumm, October 18, 2011)
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Your desperate attempts don't stop...

Yes, Navratilova made slam final that year, when Martinez won Wimbledon... "the Golden Age"...

And "peak" 100kg Seles in 96...
Seles had a 56-6 win/loss run until October 1996 when she returned in August 1995.
2 losses were against non-slumping Steffi in the USO 95 & 96 finals. With a still slumping Steffi (1990-92 style) Seles might have had a 58-4 win/loss record. Which is a 93.5 winning percentage.

In her best year ever (1992) Seles was at 70-5 win/loss and a 93.3 winning percentage.

Real numbers beat the Skaj again, as always.
Not woulda-coulda BS or fanboi gut feelings.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Seles would never have been 100 Kgs in 1996 if that stabbing never happened, she would have been fit and mean, ruling champ and her game would have been many level above what it was in 1996, it was depression which made her indulge in gluttony and reach 100.

Sad.....

That Gunter fellow did a lot of damage to Tennis with his actions.
What about Seles's "widening caboose" and her "gesturing to her hips, thighs, and behind" pre-stabbing didn't make it to your brain?
Seles lying again or what?
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Naw. Even Sharapova with her annoying grunting would at times have been tough competition to Steffi. I'm sure Serena would have loved playing let's say ASV.
Serena played Sanchez and has a losing record against her.
Over-the-hill Sanchez (was #17 at that year's end) even beat Serena on clay in 1999, the year Serena won her first slam.

Sharapova lost against a 40-year-old Date in 2010. :-D
Steffi would have wiped the floor with MaSha. It would not have been pretty.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Missed the point completely. Unless you want to tell me that during her 12 year hiatus she followed a training regime (in terms of both fitness AND tennis training) which was even remotely close to what she did during her playing days (Let us even ignore the fact that without actual competitive match play you will get rusty anyways no matter how hard you train) she will be expected to be way worse at the time of her comeback than she would have been had she actually stayed on tour (like Federer for instance). This even comes on top of the fact that no top level athlete in the whole history of sports will ever be better with 40 than he was with 25 even if there wasn’t any 12 year break in between.

The reason that she could do well and actually be competitive at her comeback is simply that the competition had become weaker.
Date implicitly said so herself since she claimed in 2011 that a 42-year-old Steffi most probably would still be #1.
And who better on this planet to judge this than Kimiko Date who often played against a young Steffi and 15/20 years later also against all the top players of the early 2010s?
 

mxmx

Hall of Fame
Serena played Sanchez and has a losing record against her.
Over-the-hill Sanchez (was #17 at that year's end) even beat Serena on clay in 1999, the year Serena won her first slam.

Sharapova lost against a 40-year-old Date in 2010. :-D
Steffi would have wiped the floor with MaSha. It would not have been pretty.
We are talking here primes. I agree that Steffi would beat Sharapova most of the time. No way Sharapova is better than her. But we still need to consider what Sharapova achieved and look at her game.

Older, cleverer Serena would wipe the floor with ASV on every surface outside clay. Steffi really sucked against a tenacious Vicario.

Longevity counts and a Steffi fan took longevity out of Seles.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
We are talking here primes. I agree that Steffi would beat Sharapova most of the time. No way Sharapova is better than her. But we still need to consider what Sharapova achieved and look at her game.

Older, cleverer Serena would wipe the floor with ASV on every surface outside clay. Steffi really sucked against a tenacious Vicario.

Longevity counts and a Steffi fan took longevity out of Seles.

Serena even lost to Roberta Vince on fast hard courts, when it really counted, at the USO 2015.
 

skaj

Legend
Missed the point completely. Unless you want to tell me that during her 12 year hiatus she followed a training regime (in terms of both fitness AND tennis training) which was even remotely close to what she did during her playing days (Let us even ignore the fact that without actual competitive match play you will get rusty anyways no matter how hard you train) she will be expected to be way worse at the time of her comeback than she would have been had she actually stayed on tour (like Federer for instance). This even comes on top of the fact that no top level athlete in the whole history of sports will ever be better with 40 than he was with 25 even if there wasn’t any 12 year break in between.

The reason that she could do well and actually be competitive at her comeback is simply that the competition had become weaker.
You are the one who is missing the point. I am not trying to tell you anything, I am trying to show you why you are wrong, but you don't seem to get it. Whatever she did, she was ready to play the way he did in late 2000s/early 2010s, which was good tennis. Maybe you didn't follow WTA at the time, but in that case my suggestion is not to comment on it then. => What you expect, and reality are two different things. We saw that here already. What you think is a fact, doesn't make it a fact in reality. The body is used and abused in professional tennis, and the mind gets tired too. The break from competing is not necessarily a bad thing, on a contrary.
 

skaj

Legend
2010 Date was improved compared to 1990 Date?
A 40plus-year-old improved compared to her 22-year-old self?? o_O

"A good player at 40 winning matches and sets nothing new"? :-D
Could you give us a list of those 40/44-year-old players beating slam winners left and right?




Q: Who’s the best player you ever played?
Date: For me it’s Steffi Graf. Always Steffi Graf.
Q: You think she could beat most of today’s players?
Date: Yeah, I think so. If she has the motivation and starts a little bit practicing, I think she could beat everybody.
(Q&A with Kimiko Date-Krumm, sportsnews.com, August 2, 2011)


Graf retired a little prematurely some felt, back in 1999, having won everything the game could offer her and so we never got to see her take on the Williams sisters in their pomp. However Date-Krumm is convinced that if ‘Fraulein Forehand’ made a comeback today, she would still be world number one.
“Yes I think so,” she says. “And why ? Well because tennis is not only power and not only age. Yes, of course this generation of players need power. But to win Grand Slam titles you need mental toughness and experience. In matches there are many turning points and she still knows how to win, how to play these big moments.”
(Tennis World Magazine Exclusive - An interview with Kimiko Date-Krumm, October 18, 2011)
Yes she improved, of course, which part of "improve" does your mind not understand?

First of all Date was 37 when she came back. And there are pretty famous players, I am not surprised you don't know about it, considering your poor knowledge and logic: King, Rosewall, Williams, Federer...

So, do you agree with Date that at 40 you can win matches or not? Since she was talking about tennis(in general), no mention of your "weak era". I am confused...
 

skaj

Legend
Seles had a 56-6 win/loss run until October 1996 when she returned in August 1995.
2 losses were against non-slumping Steffi in the USO 95 & 96 finals. With a still slumping Steffi (1990-92 style) Seles might have had a 58-4 win/loss record. Which is a 93.5 winning percentage.

In her best year ever (1992) Seles was at 70-5 win/loss and a 93.3 winning percentage.

Real numbers beat the Skaj again, as always.
Not woulda-coulda BS or fanboi gut feelings.
Of course Seles had that percentage in that weak Sanchez/Sabatini era. We have covered that, get with the programme.

I see that you wish Graf was 'slumping" in 1992, but if you had seen the matches she played then, you would have known that she had played some of her best tennis back then. The only difference is that she had the worthy rival, who made her play even better than usual(didn't help her much though...).
 

skaj

Legend
Serena played Sanchez and has a losing record against her.
Over-the-hill Sanchez (was #17 at that year's end) even beat Serena on clay in 1999, the year Serena won her first slam.

Sharapova lost against a 40-year-old Date in 2010. :-D
Steffi would have wiped the floor with MaSha. It would not have been pretty.
Serena was a developing teen American adjusting on clay when she was playing Sanchez. She also 1)retired in that match 2)almost won a controversial match at RG against her a year before. Please learn your facts before you post here.

Sharapova lost to Vesnina in straight sets that fall, far from prime Maria. I don't know which Steffi do you think would "wipe the floor" with which Masha. Peak for peak she would be happy to win.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Yes she improved, of course, which part of "improve" does your mind not understand?

First of all Date was 37 when she came back. And there are pretty famous players, I am not surprised you don't know about it, considering your poor knowledge and logic: King, Rosewall, Williams, Federer...

So, do you agree with Date that at 40 you can win matches or not? Since she was talking about tennis(in general), no mention of your "weak era". I am confused...

Date was 37 when she returned in April 2008 after a 12-year-old absence.

She beat Sharapova on her 40th birthday in September 2010.
Stosur in October 2010 (aged 40).
Li in October 2010 (aged 40).
Muguruza in January 2014 (aged 43).
Pennetta in April 2014 (aged 43).
All five Date victims won slams in 2011-16.
Date beat them as a 40/43-year-old grandma.

So now you compare Kimiko Date (who never made a slam final in her whole life) with King, S. Williams, Federer and some others? :-D
Whom did 12-time slam champ King beat at 40plus? She played only 2 matches (at the AO 83) and beat a qualifer before losing in the 2nd round.
Whom did 23-time slam champ S. Williams beat at 40 plus? No one because she didn't play a match yesterday or today.
Whom did 7-time slamp champ V. Williams beat at 40plus? Azarenka in 2020, a player who won her last slam in 2013.
20-time slam champ Federer didn't play even one match after his 40th birthday.

Roswall?
What about Spencer Gore?

I love your flailing about.
But Kimiko Date is living proof of how much better women's tennis of the 1990s was compared to the 2010s.
You can't argue her away.
And then she even claimed in 2011 that a 42-year-old Steffi still could be #1.... :laughing:
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Of course Seles had that percentage in that weak Sanchez/Sabatini era. We have covered that, get with the programme.

I see that you wish Graf was 'slumping" in 1992, but if you had seen the matches she played then, you would have known that she had played some of her best tennis back then. The only difference is that she had the worthy rival, who made her play even better than usual(didn't help her much though...).
So 95/96 was weaker than 91/92?
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Of course Seles had that percentage in that weak Sanchez/Sabatini era. We have covered that, get with the programme.

I see that you wish Graf was 'slumping" in 1992, but if you had seen the matches she played then, you would have known that she had played some of her best tennis back then. The only difference is that she had the worthy rival, who made her play even better than usual(didn't help her much though...).
Steffi was inconsistent in 1992.
Yes, she played at her best when she humiliated #1 Seles with 6-2 6-1 in their most important match ever, the Wimbledon final.
But Steffi lost the Olympics final to young Capriati, lost to ASV on USO's fast hard court. And to McNeil at the the YEC in November.

So no wonder that Seles could win the 92 squeaker final.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Serena was a developing teen American adjusting on clay when she was playing Sanchez. She also 1)retired in that match 2)almost won a controversial match at RG against her a year before. Please learn your facts before you post here.

Sharapova lost to Vesnina in straight sets that fall, far from prime Maria. I don't know which Steffi do you think would "wipe the floor" with which Masha. Peak for peak she would be happy to win.
When was Sharapova at her peak?
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Yes, she had Gunter Parche.
Parche is responsible for the woulda-coulda-shoulda Seles myth.

"Monica's going to milk this sucker dry. Tennis is just a stepping-stone. Her real goal is being a star."
(Mary Carillo, on the Seles stabbing, August 1993)
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Parche is responsible for the woulda-coulda-shoulda Seles myth.

"Monica's going to milk this sucker dry. Tennis is just a stepping-stone. Her real goal is being a star."
(Mary Carillo, on the Seles stabbing, August 1993)
No offense man, but sometimes your posts genuinely seem like you feel Seles deserved to be stabbed.

I get that Steffi is the GOAT and all and that Seles is an inferior player and everything. But how can you have no sympathy for someone who was stabbed on court in such a brutal manner?
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
No offense man, but sometimes your posts genuinely seem like you feel Seles deserved to be stabbed.

I get that Steffi is the GOAT and all and that Seles is an inferior player and everything. But how can you have no sympathy for someone who was stabbed on court in such a brutal manner?
Initially I had a lot of sympathy for her.
But then she claimed that Steffi had never tried to contact her after the stabbing (a lie) and conniving insinuated that Steffi voted against her keeping her #1 ranking.
Her dad called Steffi a "knife #1" and demanded from her to leave the tour as long as his daughter didn't return.
However, the worst were Seles fanatics. They send Steffi dozens of death threats, claimed that the Graf family hired the assassin, told again and again the lie that Steffi voted against Seles and made fun of the Graf Blackmail Scandal.

And yes, over the years I lost all sympathy for that woman.
 
No offense man, but sometimes your posts genuinely seem like you feel Seles deserved to be stabbed.

I get that Steffi is the GOAT and all and that Seles is an inferior player and everything. But how can you have no sympathy for someone who was stabbed on court in such a brutal manner?
Seles herself might deserve sympathy but her fans sure as heck don't. They won't admit it but they love she got stabbed since they can milk ridiculous "would have won 30 or 35 slams" fantasies forever, while even they know deep down no way in freaking hell she comes close to such achievements if she actually were not stabbed; and use the stabbing for an excuse for every loss she ever took. And we know Seles fans love excuses, they even deny the slam losses she took pre stabbing with cheese ass excuses that don't apply to any other player "lost Wimbledon final due to not grunting", LOL!!! In fact you could argue according to Seles fans she never really lost in a slam. Every loss before 1991 she was too young, even though 1990 is conveniently thrown in with 91-early 93 for head to head stats as it makes her prime head to head with Graf look better than by omiting 1991, but seperated for the purpose of excusing her early losses in slams in 1990. Cherry picking. She skipped Wimbledon to bang Trump allegedly in 91 (like she was ever winning there anyway), then the "didn't grunt, or would have won" is applied to her getting destroyed by Graf in the 92 final there. Then every loss after is due to the stabbing. Seles = really undefeated in slams per life. The Nadal of womens tennis, the forever moral champion, undefeated when she wins. My two biggest regrets of the stabbing are:

1. Seles fans having to give up their fantasy world of her being a 30+ slam winner and continuing to dominate another decade, which NEVER ever would have happened, forever, now. They will never admit it but they would hate doing this and pray to go back to the world their favorite was stabbed, so they could return to these fantasies.

2. The excuse for every future slam loss Seles had, particularly her guaranteed annual loss at Wimbledon. "She was made to wear white clothes". "the queen didn't show up". "they made her not grunt again". "they made her not grunt again". "they made her not grunt again".

As someone who is not a fan of either Graf or Seles, I can only laugh at the delusional ideas and never ending bitterness of whiny baby Seles fans.

If some Graf fans like R. Schweikart seems unsympathetic when it comes to Seles arguments, well that should be no surprise given the obnoxiousness, asinine bias, delusions, and insanity of Seles fans. Seles herself does not need sympathy, she has enough people feeling sorry for her, and like all pro players doesn't give a twat what people on some random tennis forum say (something a lot of people here seem to forget).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top