honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The Colossus' Championship Collection keeps growing. What a MAN!!!!
Well that was crap.
I like Fed, but I'm a person who prefers WTA over ATP, and it's hard for me not to notice the double-standard, Roger wins at 35 "oh it's amazing he's the greatest ever this is truly the golden era of ATP with the Goatest of goats, better than every person that ever existed, oh I've just wet my pants with more than one liquid".
Serena wins at 35 when pregnant "oh this is a weak era, terrible to watch"
Tbf, people said this about Serena when she won too.Well that was crap.
I like Fed, but I'm a person who prefers WTA over ATP, and it's hard for me not to notice the double-standard, Roger wins at 35 "oh it's amazing he's the greatest ever this is truly the golden era of ATP with the Goatest of goats, better than every person that ever existed, oh I've just wet my pants with more than one liquid".
Serena wins at 35 when pregnant "oh this is a weak era, terrible to watch"
Well that was crap.
I like Fed, but I'm a person who prefers WTA over ATP, and it's hard for me not to notice the double-standard, Roger wins at 35 "oh it's amazing he's the greatest ever this is truly the golden era of ATP with the Goatest of goats, better than every person that ever existed, oh I've just wet my pants with more than one liquid".
Serena wins at 35 when pregnant "oh this is a weak era, terrible to watch"
Gotta agree with that. That was as stress-free a final as possible for a Federer fan, though.I think the fact that Nadal cruised The French while Roger did the same with Wimbly, doesn't really sit well. Good for them obviously but a very underwhelming ending to these Slams.
Aussie Open was pretty fun at least.
nah, they were some places that were effusive about Serena, but none that called womens tennis a golden era. I actually rejigged a post I did elsewhere from the Oz Open, and added the pregnant thing.Tbf, people said this about Serena when she won too.
Ah I get your point. There's definitely a bit of a double standard there. Probably because Serena's too great for her own good tbh.nah, they were some places that were effusive about Serena, but none that called womens tennis a golden era. I actually rejigged a post I did elsewhere from the Oz Open, and added the pregnant thing.
Personally I feel both tours have their problems now, but one isn't being highlighted.
Isn't that partially because the Men's tour has the big 4 + wawrinka, while the ladies basically have Serena and then an enormous gap in level between her and a number of #2s?nah, they were some places that were effusive about Serena, but none that called womens tennis a golden era. I actually rejigged a post I did elsewhere from the Oz Open, and added the pregnant thing.
The post Djokovic-Murray era have made the infamous "Weak Era" () of 2005-2007 when Federer piled up 3 Slams a year look like the pinnacle of competitiveness. At least it's blown that stupid argument right away.nah, they were some places that were effusive about Serena, but none that called womens tennis a golden era. I actually rejigged a post I did elsewhere from the Oz Open, and added the pregnant thing.
Personally I feel both tours have their problems now, but one isn't being highlighted.
Roger was restricted from slams for many years simply because people were better, so it's possible, why have the younger ones not done the same, when Murray, and Novak have faltered? It's like they're really a terrible tennis generation.
Well basically stan only started winning when he was close to his 30s, which rather illustrates my point of a lost generation. Serena creating an huge gap between her and others seems a really odd reason to do her down, the fact is in the WTA all generations are competing. No-one born in the 90s has won a male GS, only two have made finals, that's ridiculous in 2017, in the womens 3 have won and a fair few others have made finals. Oh and Murray has three slams, less than henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, venus who all competed in Serena's time. How was the gap in level for Fed before about 2008?Isn't that partially because the Men's tour has the big 4 + wawrinka, while the ladies basically have Serena and then an enormous gap in level between her and a number of #2s?
Precisely my point, if you go on about how great this mens era was, then every win is magnificent. It's just a multiple circle-jerk of congratulation.How does it make sense to compare Grand Slam counts to judge how good someone was, if the very reason they were not winning was the greatness of the guy who was beating them and winning said slams.
Why are you talking about the 90's when talking about Fed?I really do not follow the WTA these days. And I am a very casual tennis fan except when Roger is playing these days as well. But I did watch it back in the 90s and the noughties and I can tell you there is no way in hell was that era not competitive. Its just the genius of the man that he kept finding ways to defeat the multitude of challenges those very talented players threw at him. I dont know about the WTA since the Williams sisters' came in but in the 90s, the ATP seemed so much more competitive than the WTA.
Mauresmo had a couple of great years in there tooWTA's peak was around 2000-2005 IMO, when the Williams Sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, Hingis, Capriati etc. were at or close to their best, with new stars in Sharapova and the other Russians coming up as well.
I commented on Fed in the earlier part of the post. You mentioned being more of a WTA fan earlier, so I just said that I dont follow WTA these days and posted what I remembered from the time I did follow them.Why are you talking about the 90's when talking about Fed?