If these two had a match , who would win? If serena (sorry if name spelt wrong) was in the mens tour , where would she be in the world? I reckon top 10 easy . What do you think?
The thing is Serenas serve and shots look powerul in the womens game but IIRC Tim’s serve is a lot faster (his serve is much underated), also he has one of the, if not the best volley in the game. I’d say that Serena would probably be seeded about 15th or 16th in a tournament like Wimbledon, the difference between the men’s game and the women’s game is vast (especailly in terms of speed and power)and players like Rusedski, Roddick and Philippoussis would serve most women off the court.
It would be a good match tho’.
Serena and tennis is not quite like Annika and golf.
If we say golf drive = tennis serve, Annika’s avg driving distance is not that much worse than some of the real good players (like Freddie Funk or Rocco Mediate). IIRC, Serena’s avg serve is still not much over 100 mph, which would not be competitive in the men’s game. And there’s a lot of finess in golf (as Annika found out) around the greens that doesn’t quite have an analog in tennis.
I’d love to see Serena play one of the men in a 5 set match, but I’d be surprised if she wasn’t beat in straight sets.
Serena’s top serve is 112mph which would be a medium serve in a mens match and not a very good top serve at all(Tim’s best is about 135mph). Her sister Venus’s top serve is 125mph which would be far off the the big hitters of the game but better than some male pros.
I am sure this will be viewed as sexist, but I doubt she would be ranked in the top 100. It is silly and fruitless to play this game with male vs. female athletes. I heard this discussion on sports radio the other day with three tennis pros and ex pros. They all came to the consensus that they would be beaten pretty badly. Her serve is not fast enough and the women’s game just doesn’t see the power in the volleys that the men’s game does.
My guess is it would be much like Sorenstam’s attempt on the PGA tour. She is the best female golfer in the world, but on the men’s game she would hover around the hundredth best in the world.
Depends. Are they using pistols, or are they using broadswords?
But seriously, folks, I think this discussion ought to be moved to IMHO.
If Serena Williams played any of the top 50 male players, she’d lose in straight sets for sure, and might not win a single game.
I say that because she and her sister DID play one set each against against Karsten Braasch, a German male who was, at the time, ranked #203 in the world. Braasch beat each of the Williams sisters handily.
Serena Williams would not win more than the odd game on serve against any male professional. Have a look at a highlights package of Wimbledon where you get to see a few shots from various matches and the obvious power difference becomes evident. Martin Navratilova, when at her absolute peak, said that from her experience playing doubles and hitting with men she thought she would rank about 600 in the world.
Trust my luck to have posted in the thread that didn’t survive.
Here is what I posted before:
Women’s tennis is now played at a higher standard than ever before. Serena, being the best female player in the world right now, is probably the best woman tennis player ever.
Having said all that, if she played Tim Henman or any other player in the Men’s top 50, she would be lucky to win a game.
Back when Chris Evert was the number 1 tennis palyer in the world, she couldn’t beat her brother who was a club player. In 1973, a 55 year old former Wimbledon Champion, Bobby Riggs beat Margaret Smith Court (the 1970 winner of the Grand Slam) 6-2, 6-1 and was subsequently beaten in straight sets by top women’s player Billy Jean King later that year. I know that women’s tennis has advanced considerable since that era but, in many ways, so has men’s. The level of athleticism and the speed and power displayed in tennis today is unmatched. I find no reason to believe that the gulf between the men’s game and the women’s is any smaller.
IMHO, Serena Williams, as great as she is, would struggle win a set against any men in the top 100. In fact, I would be surprised if she could beat some of the guys on the men’s Masters tour like McEnroe or Cash.
Top 10 easy? Sorry, but not in a million years. She’s way more attractive than Henman, but I’m sorry to say that’s her only edge. 
Actually, tennis observers and commentators agree with you. (And so do I, as a fan.) Conventional wisdom is that any man in the top 100 could beat any woman. I like Serena a lot, but there’s too much difference in strength.
Both sisters are better than when Braasch beat them, which was early in their careers. Both have now won several majors (5 for Serena, 4 for Venus), and still neither could compete with one of the top men.
Serena has never seen a serve like that of Wayne Arthurs (unless you’re a big tennis fan, feel free to say “who??”), let alone Greg Rusedski or Mark Philipoussis - neither of whom is even CLOSE to being the best player in the world, and never will be.
Did anyone here see the guy who beat Lleyton Hewitt last Monday? He’d never even played a major tournament before, but he was SIX-FOOT-TEN and served upwards of 130 miles per hour. Hewitt has been #1 in the world for the past two years, and he was helpless once the guy got rolling. You think Serena could handle that? And this is a guy was a qualifier. Nobody had ever even heard of him. He’s not even in the top 200.
Even Serena and Venus’s best serves look pretty paltry next to that. Some guys can top 140 miles per hour. [The current men’s record is 149.]
Serena is probably the best returner on the women’s tour, but there are men - Agassi, Hewitt - who are much better, and have to face the harder serves and bigger players.
Her groundstrokes are good too, but don’t compare to either of the aforementioned players, or sluggers like Safin, Fernando Gonzalez, or Paradorn Srichapan. And again, some of these aren’t even among the top-ranked players. But they are better than Serena at her strong suits. The best men are more complete players and could probably take her apart.
Her speed wouldn’t compare to many of the top men, and her court coverage wouldn’t match that of many men.
Well, there’s net play. She’s improved at that, too, but still doesn’t go in as much as she could. But Henman would kill her in this category. Even Agassi, a baseliner, won 27 of 30 points at net against Younes El Aynaoui a few days ago. No way Serena could do that. She doesn’t need to do it to beat most of the other women, and it would hurt her against a man, especially at Wimbledon.
Another thing - at 5’10", Serena is one of the biggest women on tour in terms of height (6’1" Venus is probably still #1). Against a man of comparable height, she wouldn’t have a size or strength advantage. And said man would be average height for the tour at most. Probably a bit below average. Against 6’5" Max Mirnyi, to name one guy I happen to like, she’d be lost.
At the risk of belaboring the point, there’s a reason Serena is adamant she’s not interested in playing a man again.
Just thought I’d point out that, while Venus & Serena have definitely improved since losing to Braasch, the link I r provided says that Braasch was taking it easy on them, and was only serving at half his normal power.
So, while the Williams sisters are better than they were then, they STILL wouldn’t do any better against Braasch, if he chose to give his all.
What about with the old wooden rackets where vollying was more important than power? I think tennis was much more fun to watch back in the days of Jimmy and John because of the exciting skill involved rather than a display of who can hit the ball the hardest.
For that reason alone I prefer to watch Women’s Tennis. I like the volleys with few aces.
Most players would be screwed. You have any idea how hard it is to play with one of those tiny, heavy freaking things when you’re used to a normal racquet? Yick. The men would probably still win, but it’d be pretty ugly.
The women mostly try to out-hit each other too, they just don’t hit as hard.
I didn’t say they’d win now, I’m just saying they’ve improved. I think it’s possible they would do better. Especially considering that I have no idea what Braasch is doing these days.
Oh, one other things about the wooden racquets - players and others realize the hard servers would still serve really hard with them. It’s the returners who’d be screwed. So it’d still be about power.
On one hand, I happen to agree that, today, women’s tennis is far more fun to watch than men’s. I’d much rather watch two women engaged in some sustained volleying than two men firing aces at each other. So, I could almost get behind a movement to make the men play with wooden rackets again.
Except…
Folks, if you don’t know what a disaster it would be to have women playing with wooden rackets, well… during the next rain delay at Wimbledon, NBC usually re-brodcasts a “classic” early Seventies match between Margaret Court & Billie Jean King. Watch it, and see for yourself how BORING women’s tennis was in the wooden racket days. I swear, despite the “fast” grass surface, the play was mind-numbingly slow. Slower than any men’s game I’ve ever seen on clay.
Lord, but women’s tennis is usually bad to watch anyway. The top players are all baseliners, and they got to the top by overpowering the weaker girls. But against someone of equivalent power, some of these “top players” show lack of control or finesse. Did you see Capriati lose to Serena the other day? The girl kept hitting the ball the same direction: to Serena’s forehand. It was sad.
You mean, tennis is actually good to watch sometimes?
The wittiest remark I’ve heard recently regarding women’s tennis is this…
“Depth in women’s tennis? What depth? It’s pathetic. 128 women start out at the beginning of a major Open, and if truth be told, at least 95 of 'em should be shopping…”
My point is this… it’s irrelevant as to how either of the Williams sisters would perform against men… the answer to that is a no brainer if you know anything about the game. What really counts is this… the Williams sisters are yet AGAIN facing off against one another in a major final - this time it’s Wimbledon… and it’s fucking boring. It’s mind numbingly boring. Neither of those women are particularly endearing, or witty, or captivating, or gracious, or magnanimous. They’re just fucking boring.
Consider the “classic” match mentioned above between Margaret Court and Billie Jean King - two giants of the woman’s game. There was real interest in such a match. The Aussie vs the American. The contrasting styles and temperaments. Both had stellar records and different lifestyles.
Same ball game during the Navratilova vs Evert era, or the Graf vs Navratilova era.
The only female player I’ve seen since Steffi Graf who even comes close to the guile and craftsmanship of McEnroe for example was Martina Hingis. And she’s just crumbled within herself at a spritual level now. I doubt we’ll see her again.
Nope, there’s no way you can say the women’s game is currently going through a golden era - it’s processional and formulaic.
The very fact that an abject failure in the game like Anna Kournikova remains the drawcard that she is reflects how much the women’s game is lacking some outstanding champions - that is, champions who are champions both playing wise, AND personality wise.
The Williams sisters in yet another major final represent a black hole for me. And a shitload of people agree. It’s part of the reason the crowd turned against one of 'em so voraciously at the French Open. It was the crowds way of saying “fuck off will you? Give us someone interesting for once…”
Although I understand your point BBF, I can’t say that I agree with it. Watching the Williams sisters play in a final beats the hell out of watching most match ups in womean’s tennis now or in the past.
I say this because they are playing the game at a standard which is unprecedented in the women’s game and for me, the better the tennis, the more interesting it is to watch. Women’s tennis was so incredibly slow and unathletic before, it was like watching women’s soccer or women’s basketball is now. The standard of play was like a parody of what it could be, what it should be, what it was, in the equivalent men’s games. At least now, I can watch the Williams sisters play and think, these girls are actually pretty good players.
Hey, not a problem Johnny. It’s a very subjective thing to be debating, I’ll gladly concede such a thing.
For mine, and this is just a personal preference, but in the abscence of personality, tennis is a bit like watching a famous horse race. They all kinda look the same after a while, and it’s all kinda relative too.
What sets the champions apart from the rest are the personalities involved. Borg beating McEnroe in 1980. But McEnroe coming back the next year to beat Borg as the final word.
The thought of watching the Williams sisters, in that context, is deflating for me. They are, effectively, one and the same as far as I’m concerned and the thought of wathcing them is akin to watching a Formula One race where the front row of the grid takes off at the start of a Grand Prix and there’s never a lead change for the rest of the race. Inarguably, it’s technically marvellous, but the sporting contest itself is rather dull.
But equally dull is motor racing which stimulates artificial lead changes as well. NASCAR is dull for me for that reason as well.
Now, I only mentioned the lead changing aspects of motor racing as an analogy here. TO get back to women’s tennis - the single greatest problem watching the two Williams sisters play is that they’re just one and the same. Very similar power games etc.
But a thorough abscence of personality. No bite. No history of open animosity. No sense of drama. It’s just like some stage managed exercise in political correctness where people feel compelled to politely marvel at their relatively superior athleticism for fear of being labelled inappropriate if one points out how boring their dominance is for the game.