Tennis Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

SI: BEST EVER: Serena Gaining On Federer In Debate

92K views 2K replies 175 participants last post by  Dominic 
#1 · (Edited)
Serena RG triumph, the needle for best ever has kept moving and has now entered new territory.
She has earned a comparison to Federer in their race to achieve the honor in their respective "league"

This debate, which was unthinkable to non-Serena fan just a year ago, is now ripe in the public and among sport writers.

Serena Williams gaining on Federer in best-ever debate



After a win at Roland Garros, Serena Williams is now within six titles of Steffi Graf's record 22 majors.




"Best ever" arguments generally hit a roadblock in tennis, usually about the refined modern equipment that makes wooden rackets and gut strings so dramatically obsolete. So let's stay in the present and ask this question: Is Serena Williams challenging Roger Federer as the best player of this generation? And could she soon own that distinction all by herself?



It has reached the point where even the most cynical insiders view Williams with reverence, at once startled and blown away by her utter dominance on court. That's how it was with Federer at his best, a time when so many sporting legends -- from Rod Laver to Tiger Woods -- sat courtside to grasp the full measure of his greatness.



Recent memory tends to be the sharpest, focusing on Williams' 91-4 record over the past 14 months and another astounding performance from Rafael Nadal at the French Open. Federer appears to be in gradual retreat -- certainly no shock, by any reasonable standard -- while Williams might be playing the best tennis of her life. In that sense, these two 31-year-old players seem to be headed in opposite directions. But let's take a measured, long-view approach to the argument. I think a strong case could be made for either.



Breaking it down by categories:
The numbers. Before you start wondering if Nadal should be the man in this conversation, remember that between the 2003 Wimbledon and the 2010 Australian Open, Federer won 16 of the 27 majors. That's astounding, especially considering the ever-burgeoning globalization that has brought such depth to the men's tour. Federer is also working on a streak of 36 consecutive quarterfinals in the majors, and as colleague Jon Wertheim noted, only five other players even competed in all of those tournaments. Federer's numbers require a separate book, something to last through the ages, ideally crafted by fountain pen on seasoned parchment paper.



Williams can't match that brand of consistency, and, in fact, became known (often scorned) for missing tournaments over the years. Some felt she was too easily lured by distractions, but in retrospect, her multifaceted life kept her fresh and motivated. Her decisions were vital to her longevity. She has won each of the majors at least twice -- no other active player can make that claim, man or woman -- and with a total of 16, she looks like a cinch to pass Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova (18 each) and perhaps even make a run at Steffi Graf's 22.


The competition.
Scanning the list of Federer's final victims in majors over the years, names such as Lleyton Hewitt, Mark Philippoussis, Robin Soderling, Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando Gonzalez and Andy Roddick appear -- each an exceptional player, but falling short of the caliber Federer faces today in Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. Still, it's worth recalling Federer's absolute mastery in those days, fashioning a set of tools that would have dismantled anyone. Roddick's game fairly screamed "Wimbledon champion," yet he could never get past Federer. The purity of Andre Agassi's ball-striking was the stuff of legend, but I'll never forget his reaction after the 2005 U.S. Open final, when Federer won a tense third-set tiebreaker and then closed out Agassi with a 6-1 fourth set.



"There's nowhere to go," Agassi said. "Every shot you make has a sort of urgency to it. With other guys there's a safety zone, there's a way, even with Pete [Sampras]. But anything you do, Roger potentially has an answer for. He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before. It's crazy."
For Williams, the toughest challenges came early -- starting with the formidable Martina Hingis, outclassed by the 17-year-old Serena in the 1999 U.S. Open final. Serena had to deal with Jennifer Capriati, Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters, Hingis, Justine Henin, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and her own sister Venus, each of whom held the No. 1 ranking and did so fiercely, as opposed to the flighty Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic Ana Ivanovic and Caroline Wozniacki in contemporary times.



While Federer confronts the frightening proposition of easing toward retirement against Nadal, Djokovic and maybe a half-dozen big hitters capable of taking him down at any time, Serena has no rivals, no worthy challengers. If she won the next four majors without losing a set, no one would be the slightest bit surprised.



Technique.
While everyone takes note of Serena's serve, universally acclaimed as the best ever, has any female player been so devastatingly effective with the two-handed backhand? Evert could match her for accuracy (particularly impressive in the wooden-racket days), but Serena's power is a modern-day marvel. She can be a bit erratic with the forehand, but seldom alarmingly so, and she has great feel around the net. Other players might be quicker around the court, but Serena has kept herself remarkably fit and agile. In short: She has no weakness.



Then there's Federer, and let's face it, he's a cut above everyone -- maybe ever. What Agassi, Laver, Sampras and Bjorn Borg (among others) have admired so greatly was Federer's elegance, grace and anticipation, especially on points absolutely crucial to his survival in a match. It all seemed so effortless for him, and I'm sure he would resent that past-tense reference. He still brings the A-game on his best days


Intangibles.

In terms of what to expect at any given time, they couldn't be more opposite. Federer was a force at every major, guaranteed, never losing his temper beyond a snarl or a growl, quite properly aloof as the master of all he surveyed. Williams could be hurt, dealing with personal issues, absent altogether or playing in an unbridled fury, to the point of inexcusable meltdowns at the U.S. Opens of 2009 (against Kim Clijsters) and 2011 (Samantha Stosur).



On the other hand, Serena's doubles record sends her even farther into the historical stratosphere. It could be argued that she and Venus formed the greatest women's team of all time, and they've got the Grand Slam trophies to prove it. Federer has a magical touch around the net and could have reached the heights (I'd love to see Federer and a chosen partner take on Bob and Mike Bryan), but he simply didn't care that much about doubles -- not enough to routinely pack it into his schedule.



Here, perhaps, is the most significant intangible of all: Serena grew up with a big sister who was making tremendous inroads in the sport, a worldwide role model and all-conquering player at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Serena always described herself as the more temperamental, unreliable sister, given to wild flights of fancy, all of which could have undermined her talent, not to mention the fact that she unconditionally loved Venus and savored the many years they lived together. For Serena to rise to such heights, in the sport so many felt would pass her by, is one of the great athletic feats of our time.



Conclusion.

Not a clear call. If pressed, I'd go with Federer's 16 majors in 27 tries as the essential piece of information. Serena just reached 16, and she played her first Grand Slam tournament 15 years ago. But it feels as if Serena has reached Federer's level, just in terms of how she is viewed by the other players. And by all accounts, there is much more to come. Let "best of their generation" have a men's and women's division, and see how it looks five years from now.


Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/te...er-federer-serena-williams-best-players-ever/
 
#536 ·
The press always loves to play these games. They tried to push Pete Sampras as the GOAT, and he never even won the French-LOL.

"Career slams" are great of course, but winning THE Grand Slam trumps it IMO.

And Rod Laver did it twice and Don Budge once among the men. Margaret Court and Steffi Graf once as well. None of that automatically makes them GOAT either of course, but anyone seeking to trumpet Fed or Rena as undisputed all-time #1 can't ignore that neither won THE Grand Slam.

I love Roger to death, but he's no automatic anointed "greatest ever" of all time. Nor is Serena. They are the greatest of their eras, no doubt.
they are GOAT worthy, no doubt.

All discussions past that point are just fun debating points:)
 
#559 ·
The fact that this thread has gone on this long, sort of implies the writer/media are successful in their aims IMO. To me, this is just an exercise in making Serena a target of negativity and pressure.

I have never once heard any other female great be spoken of as a GOAT over the male greats (e.g. Federer automatically considered the best ever, even though several women have statistically achieved more). And yet here we are, entertaining this topic even though there are women who have statistically achieved more than Serena. This is just illogical.

Overlooking briefly the fact that Serena is now being spoken of widely and publically with disdain because of the absurdity of this article (her game insulted and ridiculed), or the sinister undertones with these joint references of Serena Williams and ATP (it's rude to keep implying she ought to challenge men, because you must all know it's largely a shadey way of referencing her as masculine) - doesn't this sort of talk just pile the pressure on Serena. She IS chasing history but she is also just trying to fulfil her potential and doesn't need any more pressurizing contexts which may only hinder her. As I said before, there are several women with better numbers than she. Speaking of Serena is GOAT needs to be put off, certainly until she catches Martina and Chrissie. And even then, her numbers will still be lacking. Evert made some 30 something slam finals. But whatever.
 
#560 ·
Haters can hate on. They have been at it for the past 15 years so why stop now. They said she'll never win RG. She won 2. They said she is a part-timer who doesn't take tennis seriously. At 31 she is #1 and still playing top level tennis while her "full-timer" contemporaries have long gone into retirement at 25 or thereabout. I'm sure Williams will be fine. Haters though...
 
#568 ·
A lot of Federer's records are just untouchable really, but then again, he was healthy throughout his career, while Serena missed out on a lot.

I hope Serena can catch up and eventually eclipse Federer in the Slam count department. It's all about the Slams really.
What does that mean?

Untouchable in the sense that Serena can't match or surpass them?
Untouchable in the sense that another ATP can't match or surpass them?

If it's the former, then of course she can't match or surpass them.
Because she plays for the WTA.

If it's the latter, then that's ridiculous because a human being set the record. And that being the case, another will eventually come along and match or surpass his records.

Federer isn't a God people.
You can build your alters, but he won't be visiting you in your dreams and granting your wishes.
 
#569 ·
More interesting stats:

Years where a player won 90%+ of their matches:
Serena: 2002, 2003, 2012, 2013*
Federer: 2004, 2005, 2006

Years where a player won 70% or less of their matches:
Serena: 1995, 1997
Federer: 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001

Years where a player played 70+ matches:
Serena: NEVER (most matches in a season was 62 in 2009 and 2012)
Federer: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Titles Won/Tournaments Played:
Serena: 52/170 or 31%
Federer: 76/272 or 28%

Career Final W/L:
Serena: 52-16 or 76.4%
Federer: 76-36 or 67.8%

Career Wins/Matches Played:
Serena: 597/707 or 84.4%
Federer: 903/1108 or 81.4%


Which further substantiates that Roger has better numbers than Serena CLEARLY AND EXCLUSIVELY on the basis that he's played WAY more tennis than her.


Fed played more matches from 2003-2011 (742), than Serena has in her WHOLE career (707) :haha:
 
#576 ·
This debate, which was unthinkable to non-Serena fan just a year ago, is now ripe in the public and among sport writers.
"Best ever" arguments generally hit a roadblock in tennis, usually about the refined modern equipment that makes wooden rackets and gut strings so dramatically obsolete. So let's stay in the present and ask this question: Is Serena Williams challenging Roger Federer as the best player of this generation? And could she soon own that distinction all by herself?



It has reached the point where even the most cynical insiders view Williams with reverence, at once startled and blown away by her utter dominance on court. That's how it was with Federer at his best, a time when so many sporting legends -- from Rod Laver to Tiger Woods -- sat courtside to grasp the full measure of his greatness.
Sounds ridiculous and unnecessary. :facepalm:
 
#578 ·
difficult to compare WTA to ATP tho as far as tournaments played go as the ATP does force players to play more events. I mean the slams and the masters events (now called Masters events 1000) are mandatory and they have to count a minimum of 4 500 events or 0 pointers apply and 1 must be after the US Open or a 0 pointer applies.
 
#590 ·
6: 2002 FO - 2003 Wimbledon.

She didn't play the 2002 AO, but she made the F of the 2001 USO.
She missed the next 2 majors, but made the QF of the next major she played.
 
#589 ·
Looks like it's the USA's last hurrah before the lean period comes in. After Serena retires USA won't get a sniff at winning a major. They've already got nobody in ATP and WTA will follow suit. Everyone who dares to compare Serena with Federer knows what's the one and only inevitable conclussion.
 
#596 ·
I was talking about matches she lost to them in Slam Quarters

Martina AO 2001
Capriati RG 2001
Capriati WIm 2001
Capriati RG 2004
Capriati USO 2004

;)

What I was implying is that her Streak of SF at slam events she contested could of been greater ;)
 
#598 ·
I was talking about matches she lost to them in Slam Quarters

Martina AO 2001
Capriati RG 2001
Capriati WIm 2001
Capriati RG 2004
Capriati USO 2004

;)
I don't get what point you're trying to make with bringing up these QF losses.


I've already stated that Fed's QF streak is remarkable and that Serena (or any other player...EVER) is not gonna get close to that mark.

Fed spent his mid-20s dominating tennis, while Serena spent hers nursing injuries and burying her sister.

And yes, Serena's best QF streak in contested majors (16: 2000 USO - 2005 AO) doesn't come close to Fed's streak of 30+, but you have to look at more than just the raw numbers when making analyses of those stats.
 
#599 ·
What I was saying is that Serena could of contested a pretty decent streak of SF performances at slams as the Quarters she lost she definately could of won... Ah well no good dwelling on the past just think its interesting that she could of had a streak that may of rivaled Federers :(
 
#615 ·
I don't subscribe to the belief that the ENTIRE establishment hates her, but I do think there is a lot of resentment towards her (personally). I just think she's playing so well that people would be idiots not to acknowledge/admire what she's doing.

But you can hear when people like Cliff Drysdale say things like, "Well, she's not squawking as much anymore," there's a patronizing undertone to their comments or when Patrick McEnroe said, "Well now, she's just unplayable," there's an air of resignation, but I don't think they've ever fully Serena or ever will.

There are people who do heap praise on her (Evert, McEnroe, Wertheim, etc.) but again, the way she's playing now, there's NO WAY NOT to acknowledge it without making yourself look stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top