PDA

View Full Version : Prediction: Serena Will Surpass Federer in Slam Count


supergrunt
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:40 PM
She's just better mentally. You'd never see her lose to anyone 5 or 6 times in a row.

Tenis Srbija
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:44 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9xnw4lAWE1re18z3o1_400.gif

TheLegendof
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:44 PM
:tape::tape::tape::tape:

Possible, but you have to consider the competition. No comparison.

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:46 PM
Being a part time player who can come back from taking huge breaks to slam winning form in a couple of months in a tour full of talentless ball bashers surely helps Serena. She was about to lose to Henin 4 times in a row in 2007 before she decided to withdraw from the YEC. Who knows what would have happened if Justine had not started 2007 late. Probably 5 in a row.

And Federer isn't her rival. There are women who are more accomplished than Federer that she needs to surpass.

NashaMasha
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:47 PM
Federer will win at least 2 more GS , and it means Serena has to win this US Open + 5 more Slams to surpass him...

Olórin
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:52 PM
Being a part time player who can come back from taking huge breaks to slam winning form in a couple of months in a tour full of talentless ball bashers surely helps Serena. She was about to lose to Henin 4 times in a row in 2007 before she decided to withdraw from the YEC. Who knows what would have happened if Justine had not started 2007 late. Probably 5 in a row.

Fedtard :lol:

Serena had stiffer competition in her peak than Federer did in hers. READ: Roddick and Nadal when he could only play on clay. Serena had Venus and Capriati in their primes and supporting cast of Davenport, Hingis and the Belgians.

And no it wouldn't have been 5 in a row because they met at the beginning of Justine's 2007 and guess who won.

Wojtek
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:53 PM
one of the most idiotic thread that have ever posted here.

:tape::tape::tape::tape:

Probably another blind Williams fan was thread starter

Wojtek
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:55 PM
Fedtard :lol:

Serena had stiffer competition in her peak than Federer did in hers. READ: Roddick and Nadal when he could only play on clay. Serena had Venus and Capriati in their primes and supporting cast of Davenport, Hingis and the Belgians.

And no it wouldn't have been 5 in a row because they met at the beginning of Justine's 2007 and guess who won.
omg are you normal? How can you compare Serena and Roger?

Roger's game is just amazing.

Slutiana
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:56 PM
:lol:

Simugna Help
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:57 PM
Meaningless comparison.
Federer's legacy is his slam count and his incredible consistency.

pierce85
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:57 PM
Roger's game is a work of art, Serena's a work of serve, simple as that

FattyKid
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:57 PM
Now that Henin and Clijsters have retired, Serena has a massive head to head advantage over everyone else and shall win 22 or 23 slams whereas Federer shall end up with 17 or 18 slams.

n1_and_uh_noone
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:00 PM
Roger was never dominated by his major Austrian lefty rival: Bammer for Serena, probably Melzer for Roger.

Tenis Srbija
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:02 PM
Now that Henin and Clijsters have retired, Serena has a massive head to head advantage over everyone else and shall win 22 or 23 slams whereas Federer shall end up with 17 or 18 slams.

:happy: :happy: :happy: Yeah, at the age of 40 she will win hers 40th Grand Slam! :yeah:

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:03 PM
Fedtard :lol:

Serena had stiffer competition in her peak than Federer did in hers. READ: Roddick and Nadal when he could only play on clay. Serena had Venus and Capriati in their primes and supporting cast of Davenport, Hingis and the Belgians.

And no it wouldn't have been 5 in a row because they met at the beginning of Justine's 2007 and guess who won.

This argument will lead to men vs women and you know where that goes. There is no comparison.

As for the second part, that's why I said if Justine hadn't started late. Serena barely escaped in Miami final thanks to a rusty Henin. Without Miami or not Serena was too scared to get another beat down at the YEC so she withdrew and Bartoli got double bageled instead :lol:

FattyKid
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:03 PM
40 is the new 20, Serena shall be winning slams past the age of 45.

Pump-it-UP
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:09 PM
This has been a safe prediction for quite some time now

pierce85
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:10 PM
For all I care Serena can win 22 slams, she' be the greatest woman then but still not greater than Roger.

Roger in his prime had the most complete game for a tennis player ever, and he was playing week after week showing amazing work ethic and dedication to the sport (in fact he has never retired from a match), he was not a part time player like Serena

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:19 PM
For all I care Serena can win 22 slams, she' be the greatest woman then but still not greater than Roger.

Roger in his prime had the most complete game for a tennis player ever, and he was playing week after week showing amazing work ethic and dedication to the sport (in fact he has never retired from a match), he was not a part time player like Serena

Serena isn't close to being the greatest female player based on achievements. Why the need to compare her to a man?

pierce85
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:23 PM
Serena isn't close to being the greatest female player based on achievements. Why the need to compare her to a man?

The thread compares her accomplishments to a man so :shrug:

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:31 PM
The thread compares her accomplishments to a man so :shrug:

It wasn't directed at you exclusively. I don't get why some of her stupid fans do this sometimes. It will only draw negative reactions and start pointless men vs women arguments.

Mynarco
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:33 PM
Does that mean Serena is greater than Roger? I really don't think so. Well to be fair you cannot compare the men's achievements with the women's because they are in two different groups of competition

justineheninfan
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:35 PM
Being a part time player who can come back from taking huge breaks to slam winning form in a couple of months in a tour full of talentless ball bashers surely helps Serena. She was about to lose to Henin 4 times in a row in 2007 before she decided to withdraw from the YEC. Who knows what would have happened if Justine had not started 2007 late. Probably 5 in a row.

And Federer isn't her rival. There are women who are more accomplished than Federer that she needs to surpass.


Serena at the height of her dominance in 2002-2003 faced argaubly the deepest womens field in tennis history. Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, all at or near their best. Federer at the height of his dominance faced Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, and baby Nadal who back then sucked outside of clay. Once Nadal began to contend on all surfaces and Djokovic emerged Federer's dominance immediately ended even though he never went into an AWOL period like Serena did. Serena pretty much determines if she is dominating or not on her own. 2007 is the only year since 2002 she was even playing top 5 caliber tennis someone (Henin) was better than her. The other years she was either largely not playing or barely playing.

Yeah the field today sucks but Serena has already proven herself against A-level competition, which Federer never has to the extent he dominated great competition.


Now to the thread question yes I think Serena will win more slams than Federer. I see her reaching atleast 19. I coudl see him stay at 17, but 18 would probably be his maximum.

justineheninfan
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:42 PM
Does that mean Serena is greater than Roger? I really don't think so. Well to be fair you cannot compare the men's achievements with the women's because they are in two different groups of competition

No it doesnt neccessarily mean that but I predict in 10 years time Serena will end up having even more backers for female tennis GOAT than Federer for mens. It may not seem that way now but Serena is still building her career and legacy while Federer is pretty much done doing his. Both will be overrated when they first retire due to their current status (the way it always is) but once he has been retired awhile I see Federer as being seen as inferior to Laver once again, and possibly to Gonzales as well. Nadal if he recovers from his injury could end up surpassing Federer as well. While Serena is she reaches around 20 slams will be considered the GOAT by many. Graf would still have the better career but she has the asterix of the Seles stabbing, and most experts like a prime Serena in that matchup, and Evert and Navratilova played at a time of far less depth in the womens game than more modern times.

The other thing to consider though is this. Had the Open Era been around earlier Federer in slam count would probably only be where Serena currently is, around 6th. Experts have broken it down and feel Rosewall, Gonzales, Laver, Tilden, and possibly Tilden would all have won 18 or more slams had the professional and amateur games not been split, and look virtually exactly like the WTA list now with the leader having 24, second having 22, third having 19, fourth tied with about 18, and so on. His slam record is incredibly misleading, just as much as Sampras's was before him. In truth neither should be even close to it.

BeyRena
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:51 PM
Serena will NEVER be as great as Roger even with 25 Slams. She just doesn't have the right skin colour.

young_gunner913
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:53 PM
:tape::tape::tape::tape:

Possible, but you have to consider the competition. No comparison.

Yeah because for all those years when Federer was winning slams and before Nadal became a threat outside of RG, Federer had soooooooooo much competition. :spit::spit::spit:

pierce85
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:54 PM
Serena at the height of her dominance in 2002-2003 faced argaubly the deepest womens field in tennis history. Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, all at or near their best. Federer at the height of his dominance faced Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, and baby Nadal who back then sucked outside of clay. Once Nadal began to contend on all surfaces and Djokovic emerged Federer's dominance immediately ended even though he never went into an AWOL period like Serena did. Serena pretty much determines if she is dominating or not on her own. 2007 is the only year since 2002 she was even playing top 5 caliber tennis someone (Henin) was better than her. The other years she was either largely not playing or barely playing.

Yeah the field today sucks but Serena has already proven herself against A-level competition, which Federer never has to the extent he dominated great competition.


Now to the thread question yes I think Serena will win more slams than Federer. I see her reaching atleast 19. I coudl see him stay at 17, but 18 would probably be his maximum.

Federer in his prime would have steamrolled any version of Djokovic. As for Nadal , it's just a bad match up for him and he still leads the hard courts-grass head to head. Their head to head is so lopsided because Nadal is a beast on clay and they have played many clay matches. Nadal, on the other hand, isn't a beast outside of clay (in fact he hasn't won a hardcourt title since 2010 --pathetic :lol:)

Nevertheless, Federer's prime game wouldn't have any problem to beat any player in history (apart from his bad demon Nadal on clay)

Tenis Srbija
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:02 PM
Yeah because for all those years when Federer was winning slams and before Nadal became a threat outside of RG, Federer had soooooooooo much competition. :spit::spit::spit:

Well, to be honest Federer was fucking amazing those days. You know, sometimes you can have a big competition and still be the absolutely best... :shrug:

young_gunner913
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:07 PM
Well, to be honest Federer was fucking amazing those days. You know, sometimes you can have a big competition and still be the absolutely best... :shrug:

There was ZERO competition. :lol: I mean fuck. Take a look at Serena's best years 2002-2003 when she was an absolute beast competition wise and she had to face Venus, Linds, J-Crap, Henin, Kimberly. That group of 5 right there trumps most of the competition in Federer's prime because his only "rival" was his bitch, Roddick. Anyone who thinks Regina would be as remotely successful having to face Rafa or Novak (playing to their standards nowadays) is an utter moron.

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:09 PM
Serena at the height of her dominance in 2002-2003 faced argaubly the deepest womens field in tennis history. Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo, all at or near their best. Federer at the height of his dominance faced Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, and baby Nadal who back then sucked outside of clay. Once Nadal began to contend on all surfaces and Djokovic emerged Federer's dominance immediately ended even though he never went into an AWOL period like Serena did. Serena pretty much determines if she is dominating or not on her own. 2007 is the only year since 2002 she was even playing top 5 caliber tennis someone (Henin) was better than her. The other years she was either largely not playing or barely playing.

Yeah the field today sucks but Serena has already proven herself against A-level competition, which Federer never has to the extent he dominated great competition.


Now to the thread question yes I think Serena will win more slams than Federer. I see her reaching atleast 19. I coudl see him stay at 17, but 18 would probably be his maximum.

That's an outright lie. Serena's competition in 2002 is way overrated. Sure it seems impressive when you line up the names of all the greats from her generation but when you look closer the picture is quite different. Capriati with 1 title (AO), pre-peak Belgians with zero slams, slamless choker extraordiaire Mauresmo, Davenport absent in 3 slams and without a title the whole year, semi-retired Hingis, way past her prime Seles, Dokic in top 10, Fernandez in RG semifinal. Her only competition was Venus who some argue gifted that RG title to her little sister.

There was a time when Serena was unable to win a slam with Henin in the draw. IIRC that ended in 2010 final when Henin was unranked. Serena hasn't proven herself on clay against anyone really. Saying she determines her dominance is an extremely arrogant and deluded statement. She couldn't determine shit on clay. Just one RG final in her entire career. Where is the dominance or consistency? Winning slams after taking long breaks is impressive but only happens in women's tennis. That's why I will not argue with you about men's tennis here. It seems you don't know much about it but Serena isn't some goddess who determines what she will do.

donellcarey
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:11 PM
I'm not sure about it, but it's definitely possible.

bandabou
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:12 PM
Hmmmm...this could well end up being true. But it all depends if she wins this Open..then the gap will be two and that's doable.

BeyRena
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:19 PM
That's an outright lie. Serena's competition in 2002 is way overrated. Sure it seems impressive when you line up the names of all the greats from her generation but when you look closer the picture is quite different. Capriati with 1 title (AO), pre-peak Belgians with zero slams, slamless choker extraordiaire Mauresmo, Davenport absent in 3 slams and without a title the whole year, semi-retired Hingis, way past her prime Seles, Dokic in top 10, Fernandez in RG semifinal. Her only competition was Venus who some argue gifted that RG title to her little sister.

There was a time when Serena was unable to win a slam with Henin in the draw. IIRC that ended in 2010 final when Henin was unranked. Serena hasn't proven herself on clay against anyone really. Saying she determines her dominance is an extremely arrogant and deluded statement. She couldn't determine shit on clay. Just one RG final in her entire career. Where is the dominance or consistency? Winning slams after taking long breaks is impressive but only happens in women's tennis. That's why I will not argue with you about men's tennis here. It seems you don't know much about it but Serena isn't some goddess who determines what she will do.

I know only 2 who did that on the WTA, I know others that took years to win another one after long breaks.

Tenis Srbija
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:23 PM
There was ZERO competition. :lol: I mean fuck. Take a look at Serena's best years 2002-2003 when she was an absolute beast competition wise and she had to face Venus, Linds, J-Crap, Henin, Kimberly. That group of 5 right there trumps most of the competition in Federer's prime because his only "rival" was his bitch, Roddick. Anyone who thinks Regina would be as remotely successful having to face Rafa or Novak (playing to their standards nowadays) is an utter moron.

I just said that Federer played some spectacular tennis back then. That could be a major factor in "having no competition", since here people are only saying "(s)he had no competition" and "(s)he was playing when the competition was fiercful"...

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:36 PM
No it doesnt neccessarily mean that but I predict in 10 years time Serena will end up having even more backers for female tennis GOAT than Federer for mens. It may not seem that way now but Serena is still building her career and legacy while Federer is pretty much done doing his. Both will be overrated when they first retire due to their current status (the way it always is) but once he has been retired awhile I see Federer as being seen as inferior to Laver once again, and possibly to Gonzales as well. Nadal if he recovers from his injury could end up surpassing Federer as well. While Serena is she reaches around 20 slams will be considered the GOAT by many. Graf would still have the better career but she has the asterix of the Seles stabbing, and most experts like a prime Serena in that matchup, and Evert and Navratilova played at a time of far less depth in the womens game than more modern times.

The other thing to consider though is this. Had the Open Era been around earlier Federer in slam count would probably only be where Serena currently is, around 6th. Experts have broken it down and feel Rosewall, Gonzales, Laver, Tilden, and possibly Tilden would all have won 18 or more slams had the professional and amateur games not been split, and look virtually exactly like the WTA list now with the leader having 24, second having 22, third having 19, fourth tied with about 18, and so on. His slam record is incredibly misleading, just as much as Sampras's was before him. In truth neither should be even close to it.

Wow this is some delusional shit. I want what you're having. The only thing Serena has anywhere near the GOAT contenders is her slam record and no that's not enough. It's being proven every day on the men's tour that obtaining similar results to past greats is still possible. Considering the level at the top of women's game Serena has no excuse to be so far behind in every department. Of course I don't expect ridiculous numbers like Graf's but she simply doesn't have anything to back up GOAT claims in terms of achievements. Again I won't comment on your laughable predictions and claims about men's tennis.

Clijsters28
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:39 PM
I just said that Federer played some spectacular tennis back then. That could be a major factor in "having no competition", since here people are only saying "(s)he had no competition" and "(s)he was playing when the competition was fiercful"...

On the contrary. When people talk about Roddick winning 6 slams if Federer didnt exist it just makes you cringe and realize how truly abysmal the Federer peak era was outside of him.

Sweety Darling
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:40 PM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.

young_gunner913
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:45 PM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.

Yeah keep telling yourself that. :spit: Absolutely pathetic.

pierce85
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:45 PM
Serena has won slams with pathetic competition too, Wimbledon 2010 anyone? I mean facing Zvonareva in a slam final is beyond ridiculous. Wimbledon 2012? Us Open 2012 (Serena will win it for sure)

young_gunner913
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:47 PM
Serena has won slams with pathetic competition too, Wimbledon 2010 anyone? I mean facing Zvonareva in a slam final is beyond ridiculous. Wimbledon 2012? Us Open 2012 (Serena will win it for sure)

Pretty sure she knocked out the defending champion & World #1 back to back.

Cosmic Voices
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:51 PM
Your joking right?
Rena's a legend I'm not disputing, but Roger is exceptional.
Don't forget he's never been a part time player and rarely has been injured. He's also been great role model and had amazing rivalries

Tenis Srbija
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:52 PM
On the contrary. When people talk about Roddick winning 6 slams if Federer didnt exist it just makes you cringe and realize how truly abysmal the Federer peak era was outside of him.

No, it actually tells you how good Federer was. I mean really...

pierce85
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:55 PM
Pretty sure she knocked out the defending champion & World #1 back to back.

Yes, but we are talking about lack of depth in women tennis here. Those two players you mentioned are not that intimidating or so impressive. Yeah , Kvitova has a pretty impressive game when on but she is too incosistent and her game breaks down too often and Azarenka can always be overpowered by a hardhitter in form

I mean it's not impressive if you look at the times when Serena won against players like Hingis,Henin,Davenport,Seles, Venus, Clijsters with games far more superior to Azarenka and Kvitova

young_gunner913
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:03 PM
Yes, but we are talking about lack of depth in women tennis here. Those two players you mentioned are not that intimidating or so impressive. Yeah , Kvitova has a pretty impressive game when on but she is too incosistent and her game breaks down too often and Azarenka can always be overpowered by a hardhitter in form

I mean it's not impressive if you look at the times when Serena won against players like Hingis,Henin,Davenport,Seles, Venus, Clijsters with games far more superior to Azarenka and Kvitova

Petra Kvitova on grass isn't intimidating? :lol: Dude, shut up and go take some more bitter pills. Obviously the game's players have changed but one thing still remains the same, Serena is winning.

Lucemferre
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:04 PM
On the contrary. When people talk about Roddick winning 6 slams if Federer didnt exist it just makes you cringe and realize how truly abysmal the Federer peak era was outside of him.

Don't believe everything you hear. Federer's peak is considered 2004-2007 (age 22-26) which is expected of a male player. What these weak era apologists forget is the year Nadal won his first slam: 2005! So if you want to humiliate an entire generation, fine, but Nadal although 5 years younger, is a part of that era. Roddick was just one of many from the 'new balls please' generation along with Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Haas, Davydenko etc. Their leader is no.1 even today at 31.

Cosmic Voices
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:06 PM
Tbf nadal has managed to do everything rena has done (bar multiple wins at individual slams) at the ages of 26 so

Brad[le]y.
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:09 PM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.

:spit: Roddick beat Nalbandian (who of course choked) and Ferrero to win his ONLY slam title. According to you that means more than winning 14 slams beating the likes of Venus, Hingis, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Sharapova, and Capriati. Priceless :lol:

Mr.Sharapova
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:11 PM
:haha:. Are you serious? Even if she does what's the big deal?

bbjpa
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Lance Armstrong also surpass Bernard Hinault :oh:

Emina.
Sep 17th, 2012, 08:39 PM
I will dance with great joy when this thing happens! :dance: :yippee:

Olórin
Sep 17th, 2012, 08:52 PM
Tbf nadal has managed to do everything rena has done (bar multiple wins at individual slams) at the ages of 26 so

Win the Year Ending championships, winning different slams without dropping a set, the small matter of holding all four slams at the same time...

You didn't quite finish your sentence there, what was your actual point? Or did your brain just trail off? Anyway, Serena had won everything there was to win at the age of 21, other than the Olympics. The trick is to keep on doing it and boost your numbers.

missvarsha
Sep 17th, 2012, 09:09 PM
It wouldn't surprise me.
If anything as the years have gone by, the gap between Sereta and her competition has gotten wider rather than narrower.

ziros
Sep 17th, 2012, 09:55 PM
It's irrelevant really. She's not currently considered greater than Nadal,who has 11 slams,so she'll never be in the same conversation as Federer anyway...

Raiden
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:12 PM
Meaningless comparison.
Federer's legacy is his slam count and his incredible consistency.Federer's tennis legacy, (besides revolutionizing the forehand) is that he saved the entire sport.

If it wasn't for him Nadal would have won a gazillion calendar slams by now and that could have had such a drastic effect on tennis that talent scouts would have abandoned schools and playgrounds and probably have started handing out free racquets at junior mr.Olympia/mr.Universe competitions.

Pureracket
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:13 PM
Why do people always talk about the level of competition for Serena when it comes to Slams? Of Serena's 15 Slam victories, all but one(Zvonareva) has not won a Slam. Dinara Safina (AO '09) and Jelena Jankovic' (USO '08) were never Slam winners but they both held the #1 ranking at a particular time.

Though Federer's opponents have been quality, I must say his competition in finals have been nowhere near the competition Serena Williams has faced. He beat Mark Philippoussis(Wimbledon '03), Marco Bagdhatis (AO '06), and Robin Soderling (FO '09).

I think people who can blindly say disparaging things about Serena's competition in Slams probably need to look a little closer at the opponents. (I rather like this post, so don't be surprised if you see if copy&pasted in other threads where it's applicable).

ivanban
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:15 PM
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i241/ivanban/shit.gif

Raiden
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:22 PM
Of Serena's 15 Slam victories, all but one(Zvonareva) has not won a Slam.O'rly?


http://www.womenstennisblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/tennis-us_open-williams-jankovic.jpg


http://images2.sina.com/english/sports/p/2009/0131/U138P200T1D214986F14DT20090131211457.jpg

Pureracket
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:27 PM
O'rly?


http://www.womenstennisblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/tennis-us_open-williams-jankovic.jpg


http://images2.sina.com/english/sports/p/2009/0131/U138P200T1D214986F14DT20090131211457.jpgAh...you didn't read the rest of the post, eh? No worries, I do that almost on the time. LOL! (no, but seriously, I do).

Brad[le]y.
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:28 PM
Why do people always talk about the level of competition for Serena when it comes to Slams? Of Serena's 15 Slam victories, all but one(Zvonareva) has not won a Slam. Dinara Safina (AO '09) and Jelena Jankovic' (USO '08) were never Slam winners but they both held the #1 ranking at a particular time.
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc470/Skyblue101/serena-williams-champion.jpg
This one doesn't have #1 or a slam either :shrug:

Pureracket
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:31 PM
y.;22212664']http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc470/Skyblue101/serena-williams-champion.jpg
This one doesn't have #1 or a slam either :shrug:Yea, but she was the Polish flagbearer, so that should count for something, right? Right?

Stonerpova
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:46 PM
So you're predicting that the reigning Wimbledon and US Open champion will win 2 more slams? Ballsy.

dencod16
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:51 PM
The only reason why people think Federer is better than everyone else is being of his one-handed-backhand, same with Henin, people perceive one handed backhand as better than a double-handed-backhand. People saying that Serena's game is based on her serve, whereas Federer's game is also based on his accurate serving. Without Federer's serve he wouldn't be where he is right now, how many times has his serve saved him as much as Serena's.

And with this men is better than women is just crap. first of all they cannot be compared because the two are different games and different tours. As many people said this greatest of all time list should never contain men and women, they should have separate lists. Men will never be greater than Women, so does Women will never be greater than Men. And if she gets to 18 and Federer has 17, wouldn't her goal should be passing Graf for the most Slams titles that matters.

Stonerpova
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:53 PM
The only reason why people think Federer is better than everyone else is being of his one-handed-backhand, same with Henin, people perceive one handed backhand as better than a double-handed-backhand. People saying that Serena's game is based on her serve, whereas Federer's game is also based on his accurate serving. Without Federer's serve he wouldn't be where he is right now, how many times has his serve saved him as much as Serena's.

And with this men is better than women is just crap. first of all they cannot be compared because the two are different games and different tours. As many people said this greatest of all time list should never contain men and women, they should have separate lists. Men will never be greater than Women, so does Women will never be greater than Men. And if she gets to 18 and Federer has 17, wouldn't her goal should be passing Graf for the most Slams titles that matters.

:spit:

pov
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:57 PM
I think she probably will. I also think that it has nothing to do with being mentally better. If she had 2- 3 others that were as consistently stellar as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray over the past few years, she probably wouldn't have 15.

Jane Lane
Sep 17th, 2012, 10:58 PM
So you're predicting that the reigning Wimbledon and US Open champion will win 2 more slams? Ballsy.

Earth-shattering, tbh.

dencod16
Sep 17th, 2012, 11:15 PM
I think she probably will. I also think that it has nothing to do with being mentally better. If she had 2- 3 others that were as consistently stellar as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray over the past few years, she probably wouldn't have 15.

Murray is part of the discussion cause he has won one slam? And Djokovic started only last year. And Nadal can only be consistent on Clay and nowhere else. If this 3 were at there prime while Federer was winning all those slams neither Federer would have gotten to 17. And who has Federer in some of those slams Mark Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Soderling, Hewitt and Agassi (past their prime), Andy Roddick his toy 4 times maybe barring the WImbledon 2009 3 times, and a mentally fragile Andy Murray 3 times which anyone would have beaten on those finals. thats what 12 titles. Federer would have had 5 slams if it's about difficult opposition.

Serena had what Sharapova, Jankovic, Safina, Zvonareva, and Radwanska. Serena would still have had 10 slams.

Brad[le]y.
Sep 17th, 2012, 11:30 PM
So you're predicting that the reigning Wimbledon and US Open champion will win 2 more slams? Ballsy.

1. It says surpass, not match
2. Federer can still win more slams

:p

fifty-fifty
Sep 18th, 2012, 12:21 AM
y.;22212828']1. It says surpass, not match
2. Federer can still win more slams

:p


Aren't men less likely to win slams over are of 30 yr? I think Fed has 1 slam max left in him. As for prediction, I suggest sticking to WTA. Evert/Navaratilova should be used as a target for now.

friendsita
Sep 18th, 2012, 12:31 AM
She will.

Moveyourfeet
Sep 18th, 2012, 12:43 AM
Goderer shall never be compared with fakeidolrena.

ivanban
Sep 18th, 2012, 01:45 PM
The only reason why people think Federer is better than everyone else is being of his one-handed-backhand, same with Henin, people perceive one handed backhand as better than a double-handed-backhand. People saying that Serena's game is based on her serve, whereas Federer's game is also based on his accurate serving. Without Federer's serve he wouldn't be where he is right now, how many times has his serve saved him as much as Serena's.

I'm sorry to burst you bubble, but Federer's forehand is waaaaayyyy better than his backhand :shrug: Why do you think he's always setting himself to hit a FH when ball is going to his BH side?! :spit:

Start da Game
Sep 18th, 2012, 01:54 PM
slam count mean jackshit when you have allowed your biggest rival to own you left, right and center at grandslams......serena has already surpassed federer......just for the heck of convincing the stats obsessed fedtards, she will surely win more slams than fed......it is written in a stone......

dragonflies
Sep 18th, 2012, 04:20 PM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.







The stupidity in this forum has gone way beyond my imagination.:facepalm:

Jane Lane
Sep 18th, 2012, 04:24 PM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.

:hysteric:

bandabou
Sep 18th, 2012, 04:25 PM
I think she probably will. I also think that it has nothing to do with being mentally better. If she had 2- 3 others that were as consistently stellar as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray over the past few years, she probably wouldn't have 15.

Murray?! The Dinara Safina of the ATP when it's about major finals.:spit:

Jane Lane
Sep 18th, 2012, 04:26 PM
Murray?! The Dinara Safina of the ATP when it's about major finals.:spit:

Except he *did* win one. :vomit:

AliceMariaRenka
Sep 18th, 2012, 04:54 PM
She has everything it takes to do so.

MrProdigy555
Sep 18th, 2012, 05:03 PM
I don't know my people are flipping the fuck out.

What if I had predicted that Serena would surpass Sampras. TAKE IT AS JUST THAT. Serena surpassed Sampras. That's what happened. That's the only statement being made.

So, to predict that Serena will surpass Federer is simply saying that they believe Serena will get more than 17 Grand Slams. That's it. :rolleyes:

fifty-fifty
Sep 19th, 2012, 12:15 AM
I don't know my people are flipping the fuck out.

What if I had predicted that Serena would surpass Sampras. TAKE IT AS JUST THAT. Serena surpassed Sampras. That's what happened. That's the only statement being made.

So, to predict that Serena will surpass Federer is simply saying that they believe Serena will get more than 17 Grand Slams. That's it. :rolleyes:

So why not just write She will win more than 17 Slams? Don't compare apples and oranges

Lulu.
Sep 19th, 2012, 12:19 AM
We'll see.

MrProdigy555
Sep 19th, 2012, 03:06 AM
So why not just write She will win more than 17 Slams? Don't compare apples and oranges
A slam count is a slam count. It's not apples to oranges when you're speaking of a number (in this case). There is no extra comparison in the OP, other than that Serena's slam count will surpass Federer's (17).

In that case, we shouldn't compare overall GS titles, because that's comparing apples to oranges (with difference of competition/eras, right?). Would there still be a problem if someone predicted Serena to win more Australian Open Grand Slams than Federer? Don't think so. Simply a numerical comparison.

Raiden
Sep 19th, 2012, 03:24 AM
I don't know my people are flipping the fuck out.

What if I had predicted that Serena would surpass Sampras. TAKE IT AS JUST THAT. Serena surpassed Sampras. That's what happened. That's the only statement being made.

So, to predict that Serena will surpass Federer is simply saying that they believe Serena will get more than 17 Grand Slams. That's it. :rolleyes:No that's not it.

Basically you just found out that your smug belief that Fed will not win any more slams than 17 is not a universally shared thought (logical, since he took his 17th only two months ago).

That aside it's kinda poignant that Serena had won her sixth slam at the time Fed took his first - so she's the one who was overtaken by him - which means she should not only surpass Fed but be ahead of him by six slams just in order to restore the original margin between the two.

Kunal
Sep 19th, 2012, 04:26 AM
that is looking more and more likely. i wouldnt have been so sure before wimbledon.

bandabou
Sep 19th, 2012, 06:37 AM
No that's not it.

Basically you just found out that your smug belief that Fed will not win any more slams than 17 is not a universally shared thought (logical, since he took his 17th only two months ago).

That aside it's kinda poignant that Serena had won her sixth slam at the time Fed took his first - so she's the one who was overtaken by him - which means she should not only surpass Fed but be ahead of him by six slams just in order to restore the original margin between the two.

Righttt, right....:lol: Now let's talk about THAT when Nadal surpasses Roger..because Roger had the same 6 major head start on Rafa. :lol:

Drake1980
Sep 19th, 2012, 06:41 AM
quite possibly

ahoura
Sep 19th, 2012, 06:47 AM
Comparison Maestro With Williams ? :lol:
Epic Lol

moonly
Sep 19th, 2012, 08:43 AM
Ich wollte mal fragen ob sich jemand mit Übertragungsrechten oder Lizenzen für das Internet genauer auskennt.
Mein Problem: Ich bin jetzt für ein Jahr im aussereuropäischen Ausland und mir ist aufgefallen, dass ich Sport1 genauso wie z.B. zattoo nicht streamen kann, auch wenn dies auf deutschem Boden legal wäre weil die entsprechende Seite den Stream kostenfrei anbietet.
Mir wäre nicht bekannt, dass jemand die Rechte an der Netzausstrahlung für die BBL ausserhalb Europas interessiert wäre geschweige den dafür bezahlt.*
http://www.akkus-adapter.com/sony-vaio-vgn-z-series.html
Weiss da jemand was genaueres oder kennt eine Lösung des Problems?

Raiden
Sep 19th, 2012, 08:44 AM
Righttt, right....:lol: Now let's talk about THAT when Nadal surpasses Roger..because Roger had the same 6 major head start on Rafa. :lol:You need to be up to date - currently it's more likely that Djoker surpasses Nadal than the last one surpassing 'rer.

Sam L
Sep 19th, 2012, 08:46 AM
No that's not it.

Basically you just found out that your smug belief that Fed will not win any more slams than 17 is not a universally shared thought (logical, since he took his 17th only two months ago).

That aside it's kinda poignant that Serena had won her sixth slam at the time Fed took his first - so she's the one who was overtaken by him - which means she should not only surpass Fed but be ahead of him by six slams just in order to restore the original margin between the two.

Maybe she will win 6 more than Fed. :confused: Being the winner of the last two slams, the sky's the limit right now.

She's going to keep going and there's nothing any of you haters can do about it. :lol: And the beauty of being a Serena fan right now. :)

Johnbert
Sep 19th, 2012, 09:20 AM
slam count mean jackshit when you have allowed your biggest rival to own you left, right and center at grandslams......serena has already surpassed federer......just for the heck of convincing the stats obsessed fedtards, she will surely win more slams than fed......it is written in a stone......

End da game :haha: the H2h thing is all you have. Thats why you mention it all the time. At least Roger have not lost 7 finals in a row to his rival and isn't the first male player ever to lose 3 gs-finals in a row.. :)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using VerticalSports.Com App

Start da Game
Sep 19th, 2012, 02:43 PM
End da game :haha: the H2h thing is all you have. Thats why you mention it all the time. At least Roger have not lost 7 finals in a row to his rival and isn't the first male player ever to lose 3 gs-finals in a row.. :)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using VerticalSports.Com App

it's not about how many you lose, it's about how hard you hit back.......in fed's case, he could never hit back at nadal......rafa overcame the djokovic hurdle and thrashed him thrice in a row this year before hurting himself......unlike federer who chickened out of battles with rafa after 2008......

with the rise of murray, djokovic and fed will start sliding down and once again it will come down to rafa to protect djokovic and federer by drawing murray in his half and defeating him over and over......what will you do then? will you bandwagon rafa?

serena is overtaking federer in numbers as well......it cannot be stopped......she is winning slams as easily as plucking cherries from tree......

Tenis Srbija
Sep 19th, 2012, 03:58 PM
slam count mean jackshit when you have allowed your biggest rival to own you left, right and center at grandslams......serena has already surpassed federer......just for the heck of convincing the stats obsessed fedtards, she will surely win more slams than fed......it is written in a stone......

http://x.vukajlija.com/var/uploads/reactions/201209/24031/tumblr_maixxctqok1qdlh1io1_400.gif

bandabou
Sep 19th, 2012, 04:57 PM
You need to be up to date - currently it's more likely that Djoker surpasses Nadal than the last one surpassing 'rer.

Right, right..Djokovic probably already had his peak, so no..ain't happening.
Soooo, you say Nadal is done?! hmm..interesting. :lol:

timafi
Sep 19th, 2012, 08:58 PM
let's say Serena surpasses Roger's 17 slams.Only a delusional fool can believe that it would make Serena better than Roger.There is nofuckingbody on the WTA tour that is close to Nadal,Djokovic,Murray (to some extent),Berdych,Tsonga in terms of every fucking thing that makes those matches against Roger simply incredible.
You'll stay up until early hours of the morning to watch these top guys go at each other.Serena does NOT have any competition left.Venus due to her Syndrome is not consistent and hasn't beaten Serena in a while,even before she got sick.THE best players have been gone for YEARS now and add Kim to the list

get real.It doesn't matter if Serena wins 25 majors because at the end of the day,Roger Federer will ALWAYS be 100% BETTER than Serena

spencercarlos
Sep 19th, 2012, 10:53 PM
:tape::tape::tape::tape:

Possible, but you have to consider the competition. No comparison.
This, the womens game is simply ridiculous. Serena not even at her top phisical shape is able to trash the tour at will. :lol:

Thread starter please call me when Serena dominates the tour like Federer did in 3 seasons winning 3 slams per year. :oh: Federer has about 80 titles on the tour, a lot more grand slam finals, huge consistency 23 straight semis, QF streak still going on, 10 straight slam finals, so really Serena maybe will surpass Federer in the slam count, and she should really with her current competition, but she has been i no ways as trascedental Federer has, he is the REAL GOAT on his tour.

Moveyourfeet
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:15 AM
slam count mean jackshit when you have allowed your biggest rival to own you left, right and center at grandslams......

You need to worry about topspin monkey's knee arthroscopy looking like noodles. :wavey:

Moveyourfeet
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:16 AM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.

I see no lies.

Smoke944
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:29 AM
It doesn't matter. Roddicks one slam is worth more than Serena's 14 because of the difference in level of competition. Even if she were to win 100 slams it would never surpass Federer's achievement.

Yes.

rjd1111
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:39 AM
Fedtard :lol:

Serena had stiffer competition in her peak than Federer did in hers. READ: Roddick and Nadal when he could only play on clay. Serena had Venus and Capriati in their primes and supporting cast of Davenport, Hingis and the Belgians.

And no it wouldn't have been 5 in a row because they met at the beginning of Justine's 2007 and guess who won.



And definately not 5 in a row. After 2007 Serena dealt Henin the worst whuppin

a No 1 ever recieved to send her to her 1st retirement. 6-2 6-0

F-R-E-A-K
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:55 AM
:hysteric:

capcl
Sep 20th, 2012, 05:33 AM
Being a part time player who can come back from taking huge breaks to slam winning form in a couple of months in a tour full of talentless ball bashers surely helps Serena. She was about to lose to Henin 4 times in a row in 2007 before she decided to withdraw from the YEC. Who knows what would have happened if Justine had not started 2007 late. Probably 5 in a row.

And Federer isn't her rival. There are women who are more accomplished than Federer that she needs to surpass.

:tape: :lol:
Women more accompliished than Federer?

UpChuckSerious
Sep 20th, 2012, 06:07 AM
I recall Federer not always having the greatest competition as well. During his most dominant seasons on the ATP tour, his "greatest rivals" were a tenacious but lightweight Lleyton Hewitt and a hungry but limited Andy Roddick; because those guys weren't consistent challengers to him, Fed also played and destroyed a host of other guys who were eager but incapable of playing the all around, potent offense+defense game he invented, and which Nadal, Djokovic and Murray all replicated.

This isn't to say the men's game didn't still have greater depth than the women's game--overall, it did, but I think Fed's competition could be put into better perspective than it has been in this thread.

Ultimately, the problem for Serena is that the women around her are considered to be mentally fragile; the men are praised for their professionalism and work ethics. It's impossible for Serena to be equated with someone who is not only consistently successful, but who also competes in a sport that people associate with high degrees of professionalism and athletic excellence.

Raiden
Sep 20th, 2012, 10:53 AM
I recall Federer not always having the greatest competition as well. During his most dominant seasons on the ATP tour, his "greatest rivals" were a tenacious but lightweight Lleyton Hewitt and a hungry but limited Andy RoddickBullshit.

Your Nadaltard invented argument is garbage on many levels. First of all it's false (there was also Marat Safin as a rival, and let's not forget Agassi was still there (older in age but not in mileage (since he did not play that much tennis in early/mid part of his career). Second of all even Andy Roddick was not some limited scrub the way you portray him. He owns Djokovic since forever. Third of all you can't define two years (2003-2005) as the only times when Fed dominated. That is absurd. Fed dominated most of his era, which is 2003-2012. And his rivals were/are ALL of the following: Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and (hell yeah) Juan Martin Del Potro.

So yours and Nadaltards' (and ay other copycat haters) stupid attempt to split Federer's time is futile. Why do you think Federer is refusing to retire? He is in the process of demilishing that phoney hate-based idea that keeps rearing it's ugly head that the post Federer era has began - guess what, it has not! We're still in his era - he is dominating RIGHT NOW - 10 glorious years and COUNTING - STILL top of the world - STILL ruling the roost - suck on that, hata :nerner:

http://i.minus.com/iCBJ6pFstEpy9.png

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31400000/Wimbledon-Championships-2012-Winners-Ball-roger-federer-31413951-391-594.jpg

spencercarlos
Sep 20th, 2012, 10:54 AM
Bullshit.

Your Nadaltard invented argument is garbage on many levels. First of all it's false (there was also Marat Safin as a rival, and let's not forget Agassi was still there (older in age but not in experience (since he did not play that much tennis in early/mid part of his career). Second of all even Andy Roddick was not some limited scrub the way you portray him. He owns Djokovic since forever. Only recently has the joker has began to have the upper hand. Third of all you can't define two years (2003-2005) as an era. That is absurd. Fed's era is 2003-2012. And that means his rivals are ALL of the following: Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and (hell yeah) Juan Martin Del Potro.

So yours and Nadaltards' (and ay other copycat tard's) stupid attempt to separate Federer era is futile. Why do you think Federer is refusing to retire? He is in the process of demilishing that phoney hate-based idea that keeps rearing it's ugly head that the post Federer era has began - guess what, it has not! We're still in his era - 10 glorious years and COUNTING - suck on that, hata :nerner:

http://i.minus.com/iCBJ6pFstEpy9.png

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31400000/Wimbledon-Championships-2012-Winners-Ball-roger-federer-31413951-391-594.jpg
Add Nalbandian who at least was a great player between 2003 and 2008 as top tenner. Federer also went through the likes of clay courters like Moya, Coria and Gaudio all slam winners, contenders. Federer dominated these players. Tough foes like Davydenko and Ferrer are up there as well.

Matt01
Sep 20th, 2012, 12:33 PM
And definately not 5 in a row. After 2007 Serena dealt Henin the worst whuppin

a No 1 ever recieved to send her to her 1st retirement. 6-2 6-0


:weirdo:

bandabou
Sep 20th, 2012, 01:39 PM
Jerry and in what era are we living in then on the women's side?! Serena still the queen..wimby and u.s. open back to back, olympic gold.

You seem to have an issue with the thought that Serena might surpass Federer's total?!

Raiden
Sep 20th, 2012, 02:43 PM
Jerry and in what era are we living in then on the women's side?! Serena still the queen..wimby and u.s. open back to back, olympic gold.

You seem to have an issue with the thought that Serena might surpass Federer's total?!No, my issue was only with one aspect (a few hatas who are still stuck in last year's mindset and casually pretended as if Fed's current total is his final total). I was snapping them out of their deflated old bubble and reminding them who's the boss at this very moment.

justineheninfan
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:08 PM
Federer's period of dominance is 2004-2007, not 2003-2012. In no way has he ever been the dominant player since early 2008 and he only very rarely (second half of 2009, and maybe the summer this year) been considered the best player in the World since then. Saying Federer dominated all those years is about as accurate as saying Serena dominated 2002-2012. Nadal has achieved much more from the start of 2008 to now than Federer in every sense, slam wins, tournament wins, usually being ranked higher, you name it, so if one wants to lump that whole period as an era it would be the Nadals era but it really is more like the Nadal era from 2008-2010 and now in the Djokovic era starting beginning last year and still going as we speak (and btw Djokovic leads the race points for 2012 by a healthy margin at the moment, and far outperformed Federer in the slams this year even with both only winning 1).

bandabou
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:13 PM
No, my issue was only with one aspect (a few hatas who are still stuck in last year's mindset and casually pretended as if Fed's current total is his final total). I was snapping them out of their deflated old bubble and reminding them who's the boss at this very moment.

Is he still boss? wimbledon was good..but still at the majors was a bit :shrug: no?! QF loss at the Open, earliest loss in like 9 years, etc...we'll see what next year.

Jajaloo
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:17 PM
I don't agree that Serena and Federer should be compared. How can the argument be made that "Serena won't ever accomplish what Federer has on the men's side", when she isn't expected to. She's a woman, on the womens side.

UpChuckSerious
Sep 20th, 2012, 03:58 PM
Bullshit.

Your Nadaltard invented argument is garbage on many levels. First of all it's false (there was also Marat Safin as a rival, and let's not forget Agassi was still there (older in age but not in mileage (since he did not play that much tennis in early/mid part of his career). Second of all even Andy Roddick was not some limited scrub the way you portray him. He owns Djokovic since forever. Third of all you can't define two years (2003-2005) as the only times when Fed dominated. That is absurd. Fed dominated most of his era, which is 2003-2012. And his rivals were/are ALL of the following: Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and (hell yeah) Juan Martin Del Potro.

So yours and Nadaltards' (and ay other copycat haters) stupid attempt to split Federer's time is futile. Why do you think Federer is refusing to retire? He is in the process of demilishing that phoney hate-based idea that keeps rearing it's ugly head that the post Federer era has began - guess what, it has not! We're still in his era - he is dominating RIGHT NOW - 10 glorious years and COUNTING - STILL top of the world - STILL ruling the roost - suck on that, hata :nerner:

http://i.minus.com/iCBJ6pFstEpy9.png

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31400000/Wimbledon-Championships-2012-Winners-Ball-roger-federer-31413951-391-594.jpg

I assume you are being sarcastic? Because there is no way you could believe what you just wrote.

My initial point stands. As competition to Federer goes, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin and the successful clay-courters who were mentioned pale in comparison to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Not only do these three have the achievements to back this assertion up, but in terms of acclaim, they have been much more highly praised for their qualitative abilities than were Hewitt and co. They are widely seen by experts and pundits to be better players than Federer's previous rivals and perhaps a part of this new breed of players that are faster, fitter and more complete than most of those who came before them.

And you know, I'd take Juan Martin Del Porto and David Ferrer-- afterthoughts in this special era--over Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. when it comes to quality of play; poor guys simply came up at the wrong time.

Yes. If you're the best, you're the best. It's not Fed's responsibility to find players who could challenge him. The thing is though, as soon as Nadal and Djokovic and even Murray got going, one realized Fed got a little bit of a break during his early years of dominance because the competition he faced wasn't as formidable during that time.

I mean, look at what will be written about Nadal (in comparison to what will be written of Fed from 2004-2006/7): to rise and win, Nadal had to contend with the most inspiring player the world had ever seen in Roger Federer, the man he took the number 1 ranking from; he had to contend with the gifted Andy Murray and he had to contend with one of the most complete players of all time in Novak Djokovic.
Fed looked forward to playing Roddick. Good player, but come on. As for Fed's era not ending--I agree. But you could still split his era in two categories: before 2008 and after 2007.

But I'm not turning this into an ATP weak era debate. The argument I'm presenting is that both Federer and Serena know what it's like to face steep competition for a period of time AND competition that was not as potent for a period of time. Although, of course, with Serena, potent might be a strong word. Even when her competition was what we feel to have been greater, she, in her best years, was still decisively above the field.

Matt01
Sep 20th, 2012, 06:13 PM
Federer's period of dominance is 2004-2007, not 2003-2012. In no way has he ever been the dominant player since early 2008 and he only very rarely (second half of 2009, and maybe the summer this year) been considered the best player in the World since then. Saying Federer dominated all those years is about as accurate as saying Serena dominated 2002-2012. Nadal has achieved much more from the start of 2008 to now than Federer in every sense, slam wins, tournament wins, usually being ranked higher, you name it, so if one wants to lump that whole period as an era it would be the Nadals era but it really is more like the Nadal era from 2008-2010 and now in the Djokovic era starting beginning last year and still going as we speak (and btw Djokovic leads the race points for 2012 by a healthy margin at the moment, and far outperformed Federer in the slams this year even with both only winning 1).


It doesn't happen very often but I agree with you.

AcesHigh
Sep 20th, 2012, 06:53 PM
Federer's period of dominance is 2004-2007, not 2003-2012. In no way has he ever been the dominant player since early 2008 and he only very rarely (second half of 2009, and maybe the summer this year) been considered the best player in the World since then. Saying Federer dominated all those years is about as accurate as saying Serena dominated 2002-2012. Nadal has achieved much more from the start of 2008 to now than Federer in every sense, slam wins, tournament wins, usually being ranked higher, you name it, so if one wants to lump that whole period as an era it would be the Nadals era but it really is more like the Nadal era from 2008-2010 and now in the Djokovic era starting beginning last year and still going as we speak (and btw Djokovic leads the race points for 2012 by a healthy margin at the moment, and far outperformed Federer in the slams this year even with both only winning 1).

Sort of right. 2004-early 2010 is Fed's dominance. 2008 he wasn't the best player but his slam results were SF, F, F and W. If there was a dropoff after 2008, your point would make sense but he was still in the middle of a dominant period where he made 16 or 17 slam finals.
His hold on the tour was not gone...yet. 2009 was his last year as best player in the world but as of Spring 2010, he was holding 3 out of 4 slam titles.

TennisPhan
Apr 28th, 2013, 07:07 PM
For all I care Serena can win 22 slams, she' be the greatest woman then but still not greater than Roger.

Roger in his prime had the most complete game for a tennis player ever, and he was playing week after week showing amazing work ethic and dedication to the sport (in fact he has never retired from a match), he was not a part time player like Serena

you think Serena chose to get injured? She almost died cuz of blood clots. Explain to me how to get good work ethics when you are in a hospital dying..

Are you retarded? lool

TennisPhan
Apr 28th, 2013, 07:13 PM
I assume you are being sarcastic? Because there is no way you could believe what you just wrote.

My initial point stands. As competition to Federer goes, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin and the successful clay-courters who were mentioned pale in comparison to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Not only do these three have the achievements to back this assertion up, but in terms of acclaim, they have been much more highly praised for their qualitative abilities than were Hewitt and co. They are widely seen by experts and pundits to be better players than Federer's previous rivals and perhaps a part of this new breed of players that are faster, fitter and more complete than most of those who came before them.

And you know, I'd take Juan Martin Del Porto and David Ferrer-- afterthoughts in this special era--over Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. when it comes to quality of play; poor guys simply came up at the wrong time.

Yes. If you're the best, you're the best. It's not Fed's responsibility to find players who could challenge him. The thing is though, as soon as Nadal and Djokovic and even Murray got going, one realized Fed got a little bit of a break during his early years of dominance because the competition he faced wasn't as formidable during that time.

I mean, look at what will be written about Nadal (in comparison to what will be written of Fed from 2004-2006/7): to rise and win, Nadal had to contend with the most inspiring player the world had ever seen in Roger Federer, the man he took the number 1 ranking from; he had to contend with the gifted Andy Murray and he had to contend with one of the most complete players of all time in Novak Djokovic.
Fed looked forward to playing Roddick. Good player, but come on. As for Fed's era not ending--I agree. But you could still split his era in two categories: before 2008 and after 2007.

But I'm not turning this into an ATP weak era debate. The argument I'm presenting is that both Federer and Serena know what it's like to face steep competition for a period of time AND competition that was not as potent for a period of time. Although, of course, with Serena, potent might be a strong word. Even when her competition was what we feel to have been greater, she, in her best years, was still decisively above the field.

good post.

it is sad to see Fed getting pwned by Nadalovicurray, but we mustn't forget that they are 6 years younger and very lucky for that reason. Even Nadal who has a stylistical advantage against Fed lost in a bunch of GS finals in his prime.

NashaMasha
Apr 28th, 2013, 07:42 PM
And you know, I'd take Juan Martin Del Porto and David Ferrer-- afterthoughts in this special era--over Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. when it comes to quality of play; poor guys simply came up at the wrong time.



just noticed this smelly B.S. You should know nothing about mens tennis to pick Ferrer over Safin , Roddick and Hewitt , when these guys were at their peak they would have beaten this mug as Tursunov did not long ago

Sammo
Apr 28th, 2013, 08:28 PM
She's just better mentally. You'd never see her lose to anyone 5 or 6 times in a row.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/8e1900e70bcd5a3e01d2decbc055767e/tumblr_mjiyyvxUzB1ql5yr7o1_400.gif

spencercarlos
Apr 29th, 2013, 12:39 AM
Sort of right. 2004-early 2010 is Fed's dominance. 2008 he wasn't the best player but his slam results were SF, F, F and W. If there was a dropoff after 2008, your point would make sense but he was still in the middle of a dominant period where he made 16 or 17 slam finals.
His hold on the tour was not gone...yet. 2009 was his last year as best player in the world but as of Spring 2010, he was holding 3 out of 4 slam titles.
He reached the top briefly last year (like for 3 months).

Plus Serena may be winning more slams, that does not make her better than Roger IMO, Federer is the winningest slam among the mens, Serena is actually far from it just now... But she can do it with the current talent in the top of the womens game :tape:

crescentmoon
Apr 29th, 2013, 12:53 AM
Of course Serena can and she will IMO. She is by far the most talented player past or present in the WTA. From a historic standpoint Serena will be GOAT some day, IMO.

winone23
Apr 29th, 2013, 12:55 AM
She's close she can do it.

spencercarlos
Apr 29th, 2013, 01:55 AM
Of course Serena can and she will IMO. She is by far the most talented player past or present in the WTA. From a historic standpoint Serena will be GOAT some day, IMO.
Not if she does not win more slams than Graf or Court :rolleyes:, she is way behind in the other stats so slam count is the only one that Serena can dream of challenging them :wavey:

dencod16
Apr 29th, 2013, 02:54 AM
Not if she does not win more slams than Graf or Court :rolleyes:, she is way behind in the other stats so slam count is the only one that Serena can dream of challenging them :wavey:

Stop placing Court in the equation then if you are going to say this

But she can do it with the current talent in the top of the womens game

Because Court's competition are like toddler's compare to the players today. And as far as I know Graf had no competition, what a mental midget Seles and an old hag Navratilova. There was no competition for Graf as well. If she was playing in a latter era her weak backhand would be exposed. The best competition was 1998-2004.

VeeJJ
Apr 29th, 2013, 03:40 AM
I don't agree that Serena and Federer should be compared. How can the argument be made that "Serena won't ever accomplish what Federer has on the men's side", when she isn't expected to. She's a woman, on the womens side.

Done and done. Check please.

spencercarlos
Apr 29th, 2013, 04:47 AM
Stop placing Court in the equation then if you are going to say this



Because Court's competition are like toddler's compare to the players today. And as far as I know Graf had no competition, what a mental midget Seles and an old hag Navratilova. There was no competition for Graf as well. If she was playing in a latter era her weak backhand would be exposed. The best competition was 1998-2004.
If she does match and surpass Court's numbers there would be no discussion, weak era or not, but i think (and for a lot of people) its not even debatible how weak womens tennis is today.

My point is that right now for Federer is quite improbable to win a slam these days while Serena pretty much has anything she wants in the bag with their respective competition.

JRena
Apr 29th, 2013, 06:43 AM
If she does match and surpass Court's numbers there would be no discussion, weak era or not, but i think (and for a lot of people) its not even debatible how weak womens tennis is today.

My point is that right now for Federer is quite improbable to win a slam these days while Serena pretty much has anything she wants in the bag with their respective competition.

Funny, when Federer was winning left and right his critics were calling the competition weak when he had to contend in finals with the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzales, and Roddick.

Same goes for Serena, with the current generation.

Maybe the only thing here that is weak your argument. :kiss:

bandabou
Apr 29th, 2013, 06:44 AM
She's having too many odd losses at majors these days, but she still has a shot.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:39 PM
Two more to go..

Sam L
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:48 PM
Two more to go..
She'll get them. But I'm positive he is done. That Wimbledon last year was the swansong.

metamorpha
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:50 PM
From 1999-2003:

Serena: 5
Federer: 1

From 2004-2009:
Serena: 5
Federer: 14 :eek:

From 2010-now:
Serena: 5
Federer: 2

Lucemferre
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:52 PM
From 1999-2003:

Serena: 5
Federer: 1

From 2004-2009:
Serena: 5
Federer: 14 :eek:

From 2010-now:
Serena: 5
Federer: 2

I don't blame her for living her life but if Serena had been as dedicated to tennis her entire career as she is now, Graf's inflated wig would be in danger.

metamorpha
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:52 PM
But I'm positive he is done.

You wish. Just like those who wished he should close his career by winning Wimbledon (his first slam) just like Sampras winning USO (his first slam).

Sam L
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:56 PM
I don't blame her for living her life but if Serena had been as dedicated to tennis her entire career as she is now, Graf's inflated wig would be in danger.

And damn she loves to blonde wigs. :drool:

You wish. Just like those who wished he should close his career by winning Wimbledon (his first slam) just like Sampras winning USO (his first slam).

I'm not wishing, I'm observing. I just can't see how he's going to win with the competition right now with Murray having broken through as well. But we will see.

T-rex
Jun 8th, 2013, 03:58 PM
I would say this is a lock now. Federer still has a chance at Wimbledon where he is the defending champion. But even there, does he go into Wimbledon the favorite?

On the flip side, Serena only trails by 1, and is the defending champion at Wimby and the USO.

metamorpha
Jun 8th, 2013, 04:00 PM
I don't blame her for living her life but if Serena had been as dedicated to tennis her entire career as she is now, Graf's inflated wig would be in danger.

Everyone has their time... and luck. Serena won her first slam in 1999 and her career is going uphill more than a decade later. Graf won her first slam in 1987, ten years later, she's on surgery table.

iWill
Jun 8th, 2013, 04:01 PM
Original poster though :o

Tennisation
Jun 8th, 2013, 04:02 PM
Fed is done winning slams as far as I'm concerned.

Horizon
Jun 8th, 2013, 04:06 PM
From 1999-2003:

Serena: 5
Federer: 1

From 2004-2009:
Serena: 5
Federer: 14 :eek:

From 2010-now:
Serena: 5
Federer: 2
She has 16 majors, no?:confused::confused:

There were 6 from 99-03.

metamorpha
Jun 8th, 2013, 04:07 PM
I'm not wishing, I'm observing. I just can't see how he's going to win with the competition right now with Murray having broken through as well. But we will see.

Oh well, even if he could win one more, it's not that big difference. :lol:

metamorpha
Jun 8th, 2013, 04:08 PM
She has 16 majors, no?:confused::confused:

There were 6 from 99-03.

Oops, yes. I counted USO 1999 + Serena Slam. How can I forget Wimby 2003!