Jump to content

Tennis thread 10: Federer's emotional goodbye


Calibandar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah the argument that Serena isn't one of the greatest tennis players of all time is the argument that Dillian Whyte is a better boxer than Vasiliy Lomachenko and I don't know you'd persuade many people to agree with that. 

Edited by polishgenius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's definitely 'one' of the greatest players of all time. But there is a decent argument she's not the greatest (female).

She benefits massively from longevity, I'd have Steffi over her all day long.

Is she better than Steffi? Sure, but that's an irrelevant argument as in 20 years Serena will have been surpassed by 20-30 players, and Nicholson wouldn't be in the top 500 golfers now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

We're most likely not going to have another Big Three plus Serena. 

 

Well we can actually. I agree with Baxus that there is really zero reason to bring a female player into it though, feels like you do that because you're American, she's American, but its incredibly hamfisted to lump her into a discussion with the Big 3. Let her be by far the best in the women's field, as a Big 1, which she was in her prime. Also, why would we need "a Big 3 and Serena" :D That feels incredibly artificial , to just add that in there, and you know it. Whats next, we need a Big 3 and Nascar? We need a big 3 and Peyton Manning? 

And can we have another big 3? I doubt with the charm that got the first time, but I can hope. Getting another Federer would be a dream. But I do think Sinner, Alcaraz, and an as yet upcoming youngser could make a new Big 3, or Big 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Oh, I almost forgot... you can fuck right off with that holier than thou science-ignoring bullshit. 

Read what you wrote there. That is sexism. It's not science ignorant bullshit to point out that a woman before she got pregnant and her career declined had more slam titles than any of the big three. She belongs with them if we're making a modern Mount Rushmore of all-time tennis greats. Arguing otherwise is silly. 

23 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah the argument that Selina isn't one of the greatest tennis players of all time is the argument that Dillian Whyte is a better boxer than Vasiliy Lomachenko and I don't know you'd persuade many people to agree with that. 

Selina? :P

12 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

She's definitely 'one' of the greatest players of all time. But there is a decent argument she's not the greatest (female).

She benefits massively from longevity, I'd have Steffi over her all day long.

Is she better than Steffi? Sure, but that's an irrelevant argument as in 20 years Serena will have been surpassed by 20-30 players, and Nicholson wouldn't be in the top 500 golfers now. 

Every great player on the women's side I've ever heard talk about her as said they're glad they played in a different era. Could they beat her? Sure. Would she use usually beat them? Yes. 

10 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

 

Well we can actually. I agree with Baxus that there is really zero reason to bring a female player into it though, feels like you do that because you're American, she's American, but its incredibly hamfisted to lump her into a discussion with the Big 3. Let her be by far the best in the women's field, as a Big 1, which she was in her prime. Also, why would we need "a Big 3 and Serena" :D That feels incredibly artificial , to just add that in there, and you know it. Whats next, we need a Big 3 and Nascar? We need a big 3 and Peyton Manning? 

This is just weird. For your sake don't let Ionescu beat Curry in the 3 point contest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

 

Every great player on the women's side I've ever heard talk about her as said they're glad they played in a different era. Could they beat her? Sure. Would she use usually beat them? Yes. 

 

Justine Henin, who isnt even an all time great played in the same era. And for her peak years she wiped the floor with her. For 5 years 03-07 she won 7 slams to 3. 

Venus was also much better than her for a long time and she isn't an all time great either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I agree Serena is probably a GOAT, or at least a close contender, I also agree there is no point talking about Big Three AND Serena, because the whole point of the Big Three is the rivalry between them, and there wasn't and couldn't be any rivalry between them and her, simple as that.

Edited by 3CityApache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women's tennis clearly has a historical big 5. I'd have her 2nd, just ahead of Martina. 

Wills Moody gets excluded because of the era. Court should be excluded for being a twat but that wouldn't be right. 

 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we really in the same breath bringing up someone Serena lost to and then talking about Steffi? First every great has a player who is lesser that they don’t do well against. Styles make fights. Brady lost twice to Eli for example. Second Steffi’s numbers would look worse if her deranged fan hadn’t stabbed Seles.

Edited by Arakasi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

 

Justine Henin, who isnt even an all time great played in the same era. And for her peak years she wiped the floor with her. For 5 years 03-07 she won 7 slams to 3. 

Venus was also much better than her for a long time and she isn't an all time great either. 

And if you include the years before that Serena had won less than half her slams. Plus she was constantly getting injured. 

I don't think you can argue that if the best players battled each other at their peaks that anyone would be better than her. Like I just said, a lot of all time greats have commented that they were happy to not have to deal with her in her prime. 

37 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

As much as I agree Serena is probably a GOAT, or at least a close contender, I also agree there is no point talking about Big Three AND Serena, because the whole point of the Big Three is the rivalry between them, and there wasn't and couldn't be any rivalry between them and her, simple as that.

The four players defined an era and honestly Serena changed the game more than Feds, Nadal and Joker, that's why they should be discussed together. 

Edited by Mr. Chatywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree that if you talk about the greatest tennis players of the 21st century the list is that four with either Serena or Joker at top. Ideally it would be two from each tour but the women side has had more fractured success than the men’s who really for a long time other than a one of it’s just been those three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And if you include the years before that Serena had won less than half her slams. Plus she was constantly getting injured. 

I don't think you can argue that if the best players battled each other at their peaks that anyone would be better than her. Like I just said, a lot of all time greats have commented that they were happy to not have to deal with her in her prime. 

 

And if you include the years after that she was beaten to year end number 1 by such luminaries as Jankovic, Wozniaki, Kerber and Halep when she was in her 'prime'. 

You keep using this 'nobody wanted to play her' but little waifs like Clisters and Henin used to give it to her all the time, its a terrible argument. Players get better over time due to training and medical advances. Of course she is better than people from the 80s, just as she will be worse than people from the 40s.

Are you telling me the worlds 100th best golfer is 'greater' than Jack because he would beat him head to head at their best? 

 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arakasi said:

Eeek yeah that would be sexism. Serena is definitely one of the greatest if not the greatest player of all time. Doesn’t matter that she wouldn’t crack the top fifty of men. It’s like saying that Floyd Mayweather is not one of the greatest boxers ever because if you put him up against heavyweights he wouldn’t win a match. In the category she’s in she is clearly the best all time.

Eeek yeah, that would be not reading what I wrote. She's definitely one of the greatest if not the greatest player of all time. When it comes to women.

She still couldn't play against men. That is not sexism, that's a fact. Not even Serena ever claimed she could hold her ground against top male players. And here's what happened when she and her sister played a man ranker 203rd.

Very successful athlete, one of the all time greats but shouldn't be put up with the Big 3. That's it. There's a reason why there's men's tennis and women's tennis. Just like there's separate competitions for men and women in swimming, athletics, football, basketball, ice hockey, rugby... Let's keep an open mind and say that it goes for ALMOST every sport, since there's bound to be some exception or exceptions.

1 hour ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Read what you wrote there. That is sexism. It's not science ignorant bullshit to point out that a woman before she got pregnant and her career declined had more slam titles than any of the big three. She belongs with them if we're making a modern Mount Rushmore of all-time tennis greats. Arguing otherwise is silly.

She hasn't played any of them ever, and that's why she doesn't belong with the three of them. Plain and simple. Had she been forced to play against men in GS tournaments, she wouldn't ever even make it to play the Big 3, let alone beat them. It is science-ignoring bullshit to claim otherwise.

She belongs on Mount Rushmore of all time greats, but with Graff, Navratilova etc., not Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. There's no way she belongs on Mount Rushmore with men ahead of Sampras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, baxus said:

She still couldn't play against men. That is not sexism, that's a fact. Not even Serena ever claimed she could hold her ground against top male players. And here's what happened when she and her sister played a man ranker 203rd.

 

 

Literally no-one's argument is that she would win against men. You appear to be using a different definition of 'greatest' to everyone else. 

 

 

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

She benefits massively from longevity, I'd have Steffi over her all day long.

 

 

Isn't longevity part of it though? Like how Ronaldo at his best was probably a better player than Ronaldo, but Ronaldo is fairly undisputably the second-greatest player of all time and Ronaldo, for all the love he gets, definitely is not. 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

 

Selina? :P

 

You saw nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Isn't longevity part of it though? Like how Ronaldo at his best was probably a better player than Ronaldo, but Ronaldo is fairly undisputably the second-greatest player of all time and Ronaldo, for all the love he gets, definitely is not. 
 

PMSL

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Literally no-one's argument is that she would win against men. You appear to be using a different definition of 'greatest' to everyone else.

Literally my first argument was that Andy Murray would wipe the floor with her and that because he can't be put with the Big 3, neither should she. That seems to have put some people's panties in a twist. You can't put her in the same category as men because they didn't play in the same category. It is that simple.

That doesn't mean she's not an all time great, and maybe even the greatest woman to ever play tennis. It's just that comparing her to men tennis players is comparing apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Are you telling me the worlds 100th best golfer is 'greater' than Jack because he would beat him head to head at their best? 

Most golfers today would destroy Jack. Tiger didn't lap him because he made a lot of mistakes, and I'm not even addressing the personal stuff.

1 hour ago, baxus said:

She hasn't played any of them ever, and that's why she doesn't belong with the three of them. Plain and simple. Had she been forced to play against men in GS tournaments, she wouldn't ever even make it to play the Big 3, let alone beat them. It is science-ignoring bullshit to claim otherwise.

She belongs on Mount Rushmore of all time greats, but with Graff, Navratilova etc., not Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. There's no way she belongs on Mount Rushmore with men ahead of Sampras.

Weird take, especially considering like I said she's had a greater impact on the game, both because of diversity and because she changed how women approached the sport. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

Literally my first argument was that Andy Murray would wipe the floor with her and that because he can't be put with the Big 3, neither should she.

 

Yes, I know that that's your argument. No-one else is making her claim to greatness on that basis though, so I'm not sure what you're actually arguing with.  Like, if you think the only way to compare greatness is who'd directly win and that's why you don't want to compare them, fine, but you appear to be disagreeing with everyone else as if they were doing that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floyd would never beat Wilder or Evander or any other random heavyweight, yet he’s indisputably a better boxer than they are. The best boxer of all time is not necessarily a heavyweight (Sugar Ray), same with lifters, MMA fighters and lots of other sports. It doesn’t matter at all that Serena can’t beat Andy Murray or Nadal, she’s still a greater tennis player than them. 

Edited by Arakasi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Arakasi said:

Floyd would never beat Wilder or Evander or any other random heavyweight, yet he’s indisputably a better boxer than they are. The best boxer of all time is not necessarily a heavyweight (Sugar Ray), same with lifters, MMA fighters and lots of other sports. It doesn’t matter at all that Serena can’t beat Andy Murray or Nadal, she’s still a greater tennis player than them. 

How is she greater than Nadal?  Utter nonsense. She hoovered up most of her slams in a weak era, Nadal his during the strongest era in tennis history, in any normal era he'd have about 35-40. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...