PDA

View Full Version : Wozniacki the Next Great Female Champ?


Enlightened Coelacanth
04-11-2010, 12:01 PM
Caroline Wozniacki seems to be the cream of the crop among all the younger WTA players and her mental command is outstanding. Is she the leader of the next generation of woman's tennis?

pmerk34
04-11-2010, 12:09 PM
Caroline Wozniacki seems to be the cream of the crop among all the younger WTA players and her mental command is outstanding. Is she the leader of the next generation of woman's tennis?

Hard to say. she moves very well, keep her composure and has an elite level of consistency. She seems to be more aggressive as of late.

OKUSA
04-11-2010, 12:46 PM
She has the best mental game in the women's game, I know that isn't saying much since every woman on the tour today is mentally weak but it's a great advantage

Just needs to get a bigger forehand so it doesn't drop in the service box every time, and possibly a better serve and second serve

TheTruth
04-11-2010, 01:22 PM
She's definitely a fighter and very mentally strong. Hope she gets a major(s) out of her career.

PED
04-11-2010, 01:27 PM
Caroline Wozniacki seems to be the cream of the crop among all the younger WTA players and her mental command is outstanding. Is she the leader of the next generation of woman's tennis?

I'll be watching her down in Charleston this week.
I still think her first serve could use some work but it's hard to compare any woman's serve to Serena's. She moves pretty well but I wish she'd be a bit more aggressive at times, but it's gotten her to number 2 in the world so what do I know ;)

jones101
04-11-2010, 01:41 PM
I dont know, I like her and all and think she will be top 8 for a good few years, but as of right now, she is still vulnerable to the bigger hitters who play well on the day.

Semi-Pro
04-11-2010, 01:42 PM
I'd count her in, but only if she starts hitting more baseline winners.

Plus she's kinda hot!

Mr_Shiver
04-11-2010, 02:26 PM
She is a crafty player with great athleticism. With that said she needs to improve her fh, her net game and learn how and when to be aggressive. She has had great success by being consistent and letting her opponents lose. To take the next step i think she needs to learn how to take a match and put it on her racquet when her opponent is just as consistent as she is. It is going to be a sometimes difficult process with ups and downs. It takes time to develop a complete game. The key is if she is willing to take the ratings hit required to expand her game and not retreat to what she has always done.

rudester
04-11-2010, 02:44 PM
it is probably too much to ask in todays womens game, but if Wozniacki would develop an agressive net game to supplement her already awesome steady retrieving, she would be tough to beat by anybody. This, however would be a huge leap in someone who has already acquired a certain very successful type of game, could be a nearly impossible and distracting learning curve, since her game is not broken now. This would definitely take her to an elite level.

P_Agony
04-11-2010, 02:54 PM
She's strong mentally but her strokes are kinda meh.

Tshooter
04-11-2010, 03:19 PM
No big weapons. So I don't see "great champ" in her future.

Same problem as Jankovic or Chakvetadze or Myskina or the list goes on and on.

Love Game
04-11-2010, 04:14 PM
Caroline Defends Title in Ponte Vedra
April 11, 2010

Top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki (DEN) d Olga Govortsova (BLR) to repeat as Champion of the MPS Group Championships on clay in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, winning the final 6-2, 7-5 today.

http://i42.tinypic.com/25kkc50.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/azap1z.png

halalula1234
04-12-2010, 04:34 AM
i like wozzy, azarenka and rezai

as the new generation players, i think aza and wozzy are the top 2 of the new gen players.

PED
04-12-2010, 04:35 AM
Azarenka especially, I like her style of play.

eagle
04-12-2010, 04:56 AM
Reminds me a little of Jelena being a backboard.

She has the potential to win tourneys and maybe even a major or two but she has to play her best and the planets have to align just at the right time. :)

r,
eagle

forzamilan90
04-12-2010, 05:13 AM
she be like hewitt

forehandshanker
04-12-2010, 05:52 AM
As everyone mentioned, Caro has a very strong mental game, moves well and is very consistent. By strong mentally, I mean that she doesn't give up, doesn't let bad calls/hits/etc. bother her too much, plays smart tennis and works hard. As a package deal, this is a big advantage.

She has been working on flattening out her forehand and upping the pace on her serve. Projecting out a couple years (when the Williams and the Belgians are less likely to contend), if she adds an offensive slice backhand and volleys (especially on the BH), I don't see any reason why she can't win a GS.

On top of that, she's hot. ;)

Ocean Drive
04-12-2010, 05:52 AM
She is so ridiculously bland and boring.

egn
04-12-2010, 06:13 AM
at least she hits more winners than errors as of late when she is playing good she sometimes is actually playing good and not just having an error festival with her opponent.

OKUSA
04-12-2010, 07:43 AM
She is so ridiculously bland and boring.

not everyone can be a headcase like safin

fantom
04-12-2010, 08:00 AM
I can see her winning between 0 to 2 majors if she can take advantage of the current state of the women's game. That's if she can dodge bullets like Serena, Henin, or Clijsters by early losses or bad days on the court.

tacou
04-12-2010, 08:41 AM
more aggression as of late is good, painful to see her win matches with 4 winners...but in a year or two I could see her being a multi GS champ, she has the ability to hit very hard and flat

sondraj
04-12-2010, 08:50 AM
How is she not the female Andy Murray. I don't get it. The only weapon she has is a tough mind. Outside of that her game is soo mediocre. Has she even beat any one in the top 10 in a major tournament. She always has the easiest cake draws. Until she beats the elite in female tennis she can't possible be in the elite. Isn't this exactly what we criticized Jelena and Dinara for. She'll be the next number one player to never win a grand slam

plum556
04-12-2010, 09:12 AM
Wozniacki does remind me a little of Jelena. Imo,if Serena did not come back when she did,Jelena would have at the very least,one slam. Wozniacki is young and still has time to improve and add weapons to her game. I think she has great potential and should have a successful career. Having said that, I still believe Azaranka will be more of a threat to the top players in the near future.

pmerk34
04-12-2010, 09:16 AM
How is she not the female Andy Murray. I don't get it. The only weapon she has is a tough mind. Outside of that her game is soo mediocre. Has she even beat any one in the top 10 in a major tournament. She always has the easiest cake draws. Until she beats the elite in female tennis she can't possible be in the elite. Isn't this exactly what we criticized Jelena and Dinara for. She'll be the next number one player to never win a grand slam

She rarely misses, that is far from mediocre and she hits with some power. Everyone can't be Serena

sondraj
04-12-2010, 12:11 PM
She rarely misses, that is far from mediocre and she hits with some power. Everyone can't be Serena


She is a professional tennis player and you're giving her credit for being able to keep the ball in play, stop playing with my emotions LoL. And she hits with SOME power, Ok. Like I said Andy Murray with pig tails. And again who in the top ten has she beat convincingly in a major tournament?

I think Caroline highlights the biggest difference between men's and woman's tennis with the fact that being able to keep the ball in courts warrants you a top position in the game. If every male player was guaranteed a number 2 position in this sport just for keeping the ball in play we would have the same issue with men's ranking as we do with women's.

boredone3456
04-12-2010, 01:58 PM
She has promise. She is steady, but she needs to develop some kind of actual offensive weapon instead of being purely a defensive player. The fact that in some of her wins she barely hits more than 10 winners if she hits that number at all is a red flag for me. She has no real big shot, her forehand and backhand get the job done, keep the ball in play, and so on. Today that is a great asset because so many women today pile on the unforced errors and she, when she keeps her UE count low, does well. But if she can't hit the winners to go with that than her chances are lower. She can outsteady opponents at times, but if her opponents aren't making the UE's, than she gets in trouble. The defense is great, but she needs to work on the offense. In terms of raw potential I would tap Azarenka more so than her, Vika has all the raw elements, and just needs to fine tune them and up her confidence. Both could be great champions, but both could also end up like the Serbs and many of the Russian contingent seem to be going.....down fast.

phoenicks
04-12-2010, 02:26 PM
it is probably too much to ask in todays womens game, but if Wozniacki would develop an agressive net game to supplement her already awesome steady retrieving, she would be tough to beat by anybody. This, however would be a huge leap in someone who has already acquired a certain very successful type of game, could be a nearly impossible and distracting learning curve, since her game is not broken now. This would definitely take her to an elite level.

How can Wozniacki win with net game when Wozniacki can't even hit agrresive FH and Serve, remember Roddick in 05-08 before wimbly??? hitting some lame approach then close in to the net only to get passed again and again.

phoenicks
04-12-2010, 02:33 PM
more aggression as of late is good, painful to see her win matches with 4 winners...but in a year or two I could see her being a multi GS champ, she has the ability to hit very hard and flat

hit very hard and flat??? where???? she should count herself as extremely lucky if she ever ever manages to win 1, and that falls into the realm of miracles as well.

antoaneta71
04-12-2010, 02:38 PM
more aggression as of late is good, painful to see her win matches with 4 winners...but in a year or two I could see her being a multi GS champ, she has the ability to hit very hard and flat
true ,she is female Murray ,she 's not hitting ,she pushes the ball,if you can see clearly that for Murray ,how can you not notice that for Wozniacki:shock:

phoenicks
04-12-2010, 02:41 PM
I think slamless no.1 is the farthest she can go. She may look like the "most promising" among the younger generation, but she will soon be overtaken. after all, a tiger without tooth and paws can only scare ppl for that long, ppl will figure out her soon enough, just like JJ.

halalula1234
04-12-2010, 11:51 PM
sorry i forgot to say..

Azarenka and Wickmayer seems to be the real deal.

Ocean Drive
04-13-2010, 01:03 AM
not everyone can be a headcase like safin

What? Who mentioned Marat Safin?

Ummm, do you have to be a headcase to be watchable? She can barely hit a winner in a match, her game style is ridiculously boring as well as her personality.

Marat Safin had the game and the personality.

plum556
04-13-2010, 04:19 AM
sorry i forgot to say..

Azarenka and Wickmayer seems to be the real deal.

I agree with this.

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-13-2010, 07:18 AM
it is probably too much to ask in todays womens game, but if Wozniacki would develop an agressive net game to supplement her already awesome steady retrieving....

Yes, that is too much to ask in an era populated by a large number of players still inhaling the fumes of Seles' baseliner myopia. Aside from that, her movement and hands are not exactly the kind which would be receptive to such a game.

Love Game
04-13-2010, 01:27 PM
She is a professional tennis player and you're giving her credit for being able to keep the ball in play, stop playing with my emotions LoL. And she hits with SOME power, Ok. Like I said Andy Murray with pig tails. And again who in the top ten has she beat convincingly in a major tournament?

...

Who in the top 10 is 19 years old? hmmmmmm?

MotherMarjorie
04-13-2010, 04:55 PM
No big weapons. So I don't see "great champ" in her future.

Same problem as Jankovic or Chakvetadze or Myskina or the list goes on and on.
Mother Marjorie agrees with this assessment whole-heartedly.

Oh, and Mother Marjorie also thinks that no one should even begin to mention players in this category until they've been able to break through with a major win.

MM (melts in your mouth, not in your hands)

sondraj
04-13-2010, 05:18 PM
Who in the top 10 is 19 years old? hmmmmmm?

That just says very little about the depth of women's tennis again. Sad for the wta really

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-13-2010, 05:25 PM
sorry i forgot to say..

Azarenka and Wickmayer seems to be the real deal.I also admire Wickmeyer greatly but I don't see the mental/emotional element in her that Wozniacki seems to have.
Perhaps it will develop later, as other champions have seemed like hopeless losers at one point (Sampras, Lendl to name just two who suddenly caught fire after winning their first slam) and changed things around.

But right now, Wozniacki has all the elements in place and a slam in the next year or two seems very likely.

Love Game
04-13-2010, 09:19 PM
Originally Posted by sondraj
She is a professional tennis player and you're giving her credit for being able to keep the ball in play, stop playing with my emotions LoL. And she hits with SOME power, Ok. Like I said Andy Murray with pig tails. And again who in the top ten has she beat convincingly in a major tournament?

...

Who in the top 10 is 19 years old? hmmmmmm?

That just says very little about the depth of women's tennis again. Sad for the wta really

Stop trying to change the subject, K? ;)

You asked "who in the top ten has she beat convincingly in a major tournament"

What my question shows is that Caroline is 19 years old. And the other 9 in the top ten are between 19 and 30. The point is that it takes years for a champion to develop, so it's not surprising that a 19-year-old (same as 19-year-olds in the ATP) has not "beat convincingly in a major tournament" the other 9 in the top ten.

IOW, your point about Caroline not beating "convincingly in a major tournament" is not a function of Caro's ability, talent or tournament activity. Instead, it's a function of her youth and the fact that she has not yet lived long enough to "beat convincingly in a major tournament" the other nine in the top ten, and the fact that she has not yet done so does NOT indicate whether or not she will be a "champion."

QUESTION: So now apply your same standard to the ATP: Which 19-year-old in the ATP has "beat convincingly in a major tournament" at least one of the other nine. :confused:

davey25
04-14-2010, 04:18 AM
I like Wozniacki but I think she has to adapt her playing style and develop atleast one big point finishing weapon if she is to win any slams, never mind be the next great one.

Underhand
04-14-2010, 04:21 AM
Moonballer girl next door.

sondraj
04-14-2010, 07:13 AM
Stop trying to change the subject, K? ;)

You asked "who in the top ten has she beat convincingly in a major tournament"

What my question shows is that Caroline is 19 years old. And the other 9 in the top ten are between 19 and 30. The point is that it takes years for a champion to develop, so it's not surprising that a 19-year-old (same as 19-year-olds in the ATP) has not "beat convincingly in a major tournament" the other 9 in the top ten.

IOW, your point about Caroline not beating "convincingly in a major tournament" is not a function of Caro's ability, talent or tournament activity. Instead, it's a function of her youth and the fact that she has not yet lived long enough to "beat convincingly in a major tournament" the other nine in the top ten, and the fact that she has not yet done so does NOT indicate whether or not she will be a "champion."

QUESTION: So now apply your same standard to the ATP: Which 19-year-old in the ATP has "beat convincingly in a major tournament" at least one of the other nine. :confused:

That doesn't make any sense. No body here is a gifted with psychic ability so who knows if she will change her game to be the next great female champ. The question is if from what we are seeing today in her game does she have the ability to be. And the answer is NOOO

So the fact that she is 19 says what about her game. That if she continues to play like she is currently and she ages a little more than she'll be able to beat the top 10. How does that make sense.

As far as what we are seeing right now from Caroline she is nothing but a pusher. There is a difference from having a great defensive game I.E Jelena and being a pusher like Caroline. every once and a while she will flatten out her shot and fire off a winner and that truly shocks me but then she can't continue it.

Now the fact that she is 19 and has never beaten a top ten player convincingly has to do with the fact that she is the number 2 player in the world. Now that either says something terrible about the WTA or is a testament to the fact that she is extremely lucky with all her cake walk draws to every final she's been in.

Right now she plays like a top 15 player but her ranking reflects something a lot higher. It's a fact. will she change her game in the future to be a better player who know will Jelena, will Demetieva, will Dinara. The same can be said about the whole lot of em. So if you want to be a fan of Caroline then by all means be it. But I'll hold off until she actually beats a top tenner or wins a grand slam,

PED
04-14-2010, 12:53 PM
I watched her play this am and was really impressed-especially after last year. She went down an early break, but kept on pressing. Her opponent was really aggressive but Woz kept the pressure on, got the break back and her opponent went away in a hurry.

She seems to be serving much better (consistently in the low 100's), moved better and was just much more aggressive overall.

After watching her last year, I was kind of wondering what all the fuss was about; she's not "there" yet but she likely will be. She'll likely face Petrova on Friday which should be fun to watch. Petrova is really hammering the ball this week (nothing new there). Woz dodged a bullet when Azarenka pulled out of her match-they wouldn't have met until the semis anyway.

Love Game
04-14-2010, 04:31 PM
Originally Posted by Love Game
Stop trying to change the subject, K?

You asked "who in the top ten has she beat convincingly in a major tournament"

What my question shows is that Caroline is 19 years old. And the other 9 in the top ten are between 19 and 30. The point is that it takes years for a champion to develop, so it's not surprising that a 19-year-old (same as 19-year-olds in the ATP) has not "beat convincingly in a major tournament" the other 9 in the top ten.

IOW, your point about Caroline not beating "convincingly in a major tournament" is not a function of Caro's ability, talent or tournament activity. Instead, it's a function of her youth and the fact that she has not yet lived long enough to "beat convincingly in a major tournament" the other nine in the top ten, and the fact that she has not yet done so does NOT indicate whether or not she will be a "champion."

QUESTION: So now apply your same standard to the ATP: Which 19-year-old in the ATP has "beat convincingly in a major tournament" at least one of the other nine.

That doesn't make any sense. No body here is a gifted with psychic ability so who knows if she will change her game to be the next great female champ. The question is if from what we are seeing today in her game does she have the ability to be. And the answer is NOOO

So the fact that she is 19 says what about her game. That if she continues to play like she is currently and she ages a little more than she'll be able to beat the top 10. How does that make sense.

As far as what we are seeing right now from Caroline she is nothing but a pusher. There is a difference from having a great defensive game I.E Jelena and being a pusher like Caroline. every once and a while she will flatten out her shot and fire off a winner and that truly shocks me but then she can't continue it.

Now the fact that she is 19 and has never beaten a top ten player convincingly has to do with the fact that she is the number 2 player in the world. Now that either says something terrible about the WTA or is a testament to the fact that she is extremely lucky with all her cake walk draws to every final she's been in.

Right now she plays like a top 15 player but her ranking reflects something a lot higher. It's a fact. will she change her game in the future to be a better player who know will Jelena, will Demetieva, will Dinara. The same can be said about the whole lot of em. So if you want to be a fan of Caroline then by all means be it. But I'll hold off until she actually beats a top tenner or wins a grand slam,

Huh? What doesn't make sense? Your question about 19-year-olds beating top ten players who are multiple years older with multiple years more miles on them? That's my point exactly. As you say, it doesn't make sense. Yet apparently you thought it did make sense when you originally asked the question about 19-year-old Caroline! :shock:

LoL ... I rest my case! :mrgreen:

If you want to rag some more on the WTA, start a thread about it. This thread is about Caroline Wozniacki. Stop spamming and trolling with anti-WTA crap ;)

OddJack
04-14-2010, 04:36 PM
I hope not. Wozniaki is a WTA's top pusher. Nothing interesting about her game. I hope Justine teach her a lesson or two in FO.

Love Game
04-14-2010, 04:58 PM
Caroline won a clay court tournament last week. And this week she continues her due diligence for the FO in another clay court tournament. She's still just 19 years old. Justine is what? 27 years old? That's 8 years of tennis experience/clay experience more on clay ... She really should be better, shouldnt she? When Justine was 19, Caroline was 11 :shock: So what if she does beat her? That's fine because Caroline will learn whatever it is she still needs to learn about clay. Where will Justine be 8 years from now? :D

PED
04-14-2010, 05:02 PM
I would still give the edge on clay to Justine but I was quite impressed with Woz today on the green stuff. Looking forward to her dealing out some pain today.

Watching her last year, she often reminded me of a female Andy Murray and I would tend to change the channel but in this tourney at least, she's being far more aggressive to the naked eye.

In the Charleston final last year, she was blown off the court by Lisecki, I doubt that would happen this time around but it will be interesting over the next few days as she runs into better and better opposition. Would love to see her and Stosur square off: her groundies are simply massive :)

OddJack
04-14-2010, 05:02 PM
By the time Justine retires also has Rodge and I have stopped watching tennis. Then the broad can get to wherever she wants.

OKUSA
04-14-2010, 05:08 PM
By the time Justine retires also has Rodge and I have stopped watching tennis. Then the broad can get to wherever she wants.

great tennis fan you are! can't handle a new generation of players once the old ones quit? At least the women's game has a few potential number 1's, while the men's game has nadal, and a slew of others who are either injured for months or have no mental stability

OddJack
04-14-2010, 05:14 PM
great tennis fan you are! can't handle a new generation of players once the old ones quit? At least the women's game has a few potential number 1's, while the men's game has nadal, and a slew of others who are either injured for months or have no mental stability

Heh..you say old generation like Justine is playing with a wooden racket.
What does Woz do that makes her new generation?
I watch tennis and admire players for the way they play, aesthetics of their games. You like Woz for her face or her age that's your choice and I have no problem with that just dont tell me who's a tennis fan or not.

sondraj
04-14-2010, 05:46 PM
Huh? What doesn't make sense? Your question about 19-year-olds beating top ten players who are multiple years older with multiple years more miles on them? That's my point exactly. As you say, it doesn't make sense. Yet apparently you thought it did make sense when you originally asked the question about 19-year-old Caroline! :shock:

LoL ... I rest my case! :mrgreen:

If you want to rag some more on the WTA, start a thread about it. This thread is about Caroline Wozniacki. Stop spamming and trolling with anti-WTA crap ;)

Your silly, I love how people take one thing and make a whole argument around it. The question was about a 19 year old Caroline being the number 2 player in the world without beating a top tenner. That has nothing to do with her age. You brought up her age. Get it...ok let me break it down more for you

Caroline has made it to the number 2 position in women's tennis without beating her better peers that doesn't make sense. Her age doesn't have anything to do with it.

If your excuse for her is that she needs more time to develop her game to be able to beat them then her ranking should reflect her talent. And right now it doesn't, is that clear enough for you eh

And you really need to rest your case because everything you say about this subject doesn't make sense.

OKUSA
04-14-2010, 06:44 PM
Heh..you say old generation like Justine is playing with a wooden racket.
What does Woz do that makes her new generation?
I watch tennis and admire players for the way they play, aesthetics of their games. You like Woz for her face or her age that's your choice and I have no problem with that just dont tell me who's a tennis fan or not.

i meant old ones as old champions, i wouldn't consider them old champions yet but in 3-4 years they will be.

new generation doesn't have to do anything different just the next batch of champions. sampras and agassi were the last generation, now it's federer and nadal, etc.

why would a tennis fan stop watching when players quit? if you're a tennis fan you love watching the game not the players imo

i like Wozniacki for her toughness, which is rare in men's or women's tennis today. my favorite player of all-time was Bjorn Borg, I love watching his matches. Wozniacki is similar to Borg in many aspects, she never gives up, and she never let's her emotions get the best of her. She gets outplayed but she never loses a game due to mental instability. I can understand if a lot of people don't like watching her because she doesn't hit winners on every point or go for one, but there's more to tennis than mindless ball bashing and fist pumps. Which is why I do not like watching Del Potro/Tsonga/Berdych/Soderling play, my favorite men's players today to watch are Davydenko and Ferrero

Juges8932
04-14-2010, 07:02 PM
I hope so. I've become a big fan over the last year and a half. She's definitely been making strides in her game since the US Open alone. I felt she lacked the aggressive/killer instinct to go and get the win rather than trying to wait for the opponent to beat themselves. She's not a killer, yet, but she is certainly becoming more aggressive and I look forward to her progress and hopefully eventual rise to the top and win some slams. I like her personality, looks, and how she's improving and trying to become a well-rounded player. She's already good on defense and if she adds some offensive weapons to her arsenal (Particularly a strong/accurate forehand), she will be even more of a force to be reckoned with and hopefully start dominating folks on the offensive end.

Love Game
04-14-2010, 07:16 PM
Your silly, I love how people take one thing and make a whole argument around it. The question was about a 19 year old Caroline being the number 2 player in the world without beating a top tenner. That has nothing to do with her age. You brought up her age. Get it...ok let me break it down more for you

Caroline has made it to the number 2 position in women's tennis without beating her better peers that doesn't make sense. Her age doesn't have anything to do with it.

If your excuse for her is that she needs more time to develop her game to be able to beat them then her ranking should reflect her talent. And right now it doesn't, is that clear enough for you eh

And you really need to rest your case because everything you say about this subject doesn't make sense.

FYI ... both the ATP and WTA have the same ranking systems in which he or she who wins the most matches earns the most ranking points, and the ranking levels depend on those points in both the wta and atp.

Do the math. It's the math that determines the rankings.

That's the way it is. Sure, you'd do it differently if you were king of the tennis world .... but until that time ... deal with it. K?

Bottom line: Caroline Wozniacki is world no. 2 because she earned it. All players are treated equally (unfortunately, according to you).

Plain and simple. boo hoo for you.

sondraj
04-14-2010, 07:19 PM
FYI ... both the ATP and WTA have the same ranking systems in which he or she who wins the most matches earns the most ranking points, and the ranking levels depend on those points in both the wta and atp.

Do the math. It's the math that determines the rankings.

That's the way it is. Sure, you'd do it differently if you were king of the tennis world .... but until that time ... deal with it. K?

Bottom line: Caroline Wozniacki is world no. 2 because she earned it. All players are treated equally (unfortunately, according to you).

Plain and simple. boo hoo for you.

How come it always seems to happen more where wta players make it to the top of the rankings without having to do much I.E Caroline. Don't know, don't care really, I know what I see. And I see that Caroline doesn't have much to offer in the realm of talent and she has managed to get to the top of the game. Now how far will see get IDK. But based on her game it tells me not very far

sondraj
04-14-2010, 07:23 PM
i meant old ones as old champions, i wouldn't consider them old champions yet but in 3-4 years they will be.

new generation doesn't have to do anything different just the next batch of champions. sampras and agassi were the last generation, now it's federer and nadal, etc.

why would a tennis fan stop watching when players quit? if you're a tennis fan you love watching the game not the players imo

i like Wozniacki for her toughness, which is rare in men's or women's tennis today. my favorite player of all-time was Bjorn Borg, I love watching his matches. Wozniacki is similar to Borg in many aspects, she never gives up, and she never let's her emotions get the best of her. She gets outplayed but she never loses a game due to mental instability. I can understand if a lot of people don't like watching her because she doesn't hit winners on every point or go for one, but there's more to tennis than mindless ball bashing and fist pumps. Which is why I do not like watching Del Potro/Tsonga/Berdych/Soderling play, my favorite men's players today to watch are Davydenko and Ferrero

Serious questions, have you not noticed how extremely loud Caroline is with the fist pumping and come ons when she's playing. People really see what they want about their fav players. Where with all those players you mentioned it doesn't bother me to hear them do it but with Caroline it does, so it's a double standard. And I also love Davydenko and Ferrero for the fact that they don't do it

OKUSA
04-14-2010, 07:25 PM
hmm, she does do it yes. not that often though. i don't think she did it once at ponte verda this past week, she did though smash her racquet on the ground which was odd (against vesnina), but she came back from a set and a break down to win (vintage caro)

she also screams sometimes when she has an unforced error, i mean she's not exactly silent like IceBorg. but her emotional outbursts are so few and far in between that i don't really remember them (except that racquet smashing, the commentators also commented on it)

devila
04-14-2010, 07:30 PM
She may be inconsistent, but you don't get disgusted like when you watch Serena & Federer's smug, fake-intellectual propaganda. Serena & Federer get handed free tickets to finals & easy draws in a joke tennis era.

OddJack
04-14-2010, 07:48 PM
i meant old ones as old champions, i wouldn't consider them old champions yet but in 3-4 years they will be.

new generation doesn't have to do anything different just the next batch of champions. sampras and agassi were the last generation, now it's federer and nadal, etc.

why would a tennis fan stop watching when players quit? if you're a tennis fan you love watching the game not the players imo

i like Wozniacki for her toughness, which is rare in men's or women's tennis today. my favorite player of all-time was Bjorn Borg, I love watching his matches. Wozniacki is similar to Borg in many aspects, she never gives up, and she never let's her emotions get the best of her. She gets outplayed but she never loses a game due to mental instability. I can understand if a lot of people don't like watching her because she doesn't hit winners on every point or go for one, but there's more to tennis than mindless ball bashing and fist pumps. Which is why I do not like watching Del Potro/Tsonga/Berdych/Soderling play, my favorite men's players today to watch are Davydenko and Ferrero

Justine becomes old in 4 years, Woz gets old in 8 years. Everyone gets old.
I just dont consider Justine old genertion she quit because for some reasons but age was not one of them.

People have different taste and watch tennis for different reasons. Whether I am a tennis fan or a player fan is my own preference. There is no reason for you to defend woz and I am not trying to make you like Justine. You like woz? Thats cool. You dont like Justine? that's cool too.

Talking about toughness...I was there when woz played Zheng at IW. She has half the size of woz , maybe, but she fought it to her bones. I enjoy watching her play 3 times over. Wozniaki reminded me of Murray, she screamed COMON and fist plumped every point she won so dont give me that " tennis is not ball bashing and fist pump" story. Everyone around me was admiring Zheng even though she lost a respectful match. Wozniacki is not the toughest on tour.

Polaris
04-14-2010, 07:51 PM
Caroline Wozniacki seems to be the cream of the crop among all the younger WTA players and her mental command is outstanding. Is she the leader of the next generation of woman's tennis?
No. I like Wozniacki. She is extremely consistent but has no big weapons.

David123
04-14-2010, 07:52 PM
umm i think she does have the potential. Shes young, she plays beautiful tennis and will succeed.

OKUSA
04-14-2010, 07:56 PM
Justine becomes old in 4 years, Woz gets old in 8 years. Everyone gets old.
I just dont consider Justine old genertion she quit because for some reasons but age was not one of them.

People have different taste and watch tennis for different reasons. Whether I am a tennis fan or a player fan is my own preference. There is no reason for you to defend woz and I am not trying to make you like Justine. You like woz? Thats cool. You dont like Justine? that's cool too.

Talking about toughness...I was there when woz played Zheng at IW. She has half the size of woz , maybe, but she fought it to her bones. I enjoy watching her play 3 times over. Wozniaki reminded me of Murray, she screamed COMON and fist plumped every point she won so dont give me that " tennis is not ball bashing and fist pump" story. Everyone around me was admiring Zheng even though she lost a respectful match. Wozniacki is not the toughest on tour.

i like Justine, which is why I voted for her to win Roland Garros. I like every player, even if I don't like watching them play I still respect them as professionals. Although I will make fun of Nadal for taking forever between serves, I still like him. The only player I honestly dislike is Serena only because she is crazy.

I watched that IW on TV and I was impressed by both competitors, Zheng for trying even though she was clearly fatigued and Wozniacki for not giving into Zheng's incredible pressure she was putting on her serve. Wozniacki had many returns blown past her but she kept her cool and didn't let it falter her, unlike someone like Sharapova would serve 25 double faults because of it

OddJack
04-14-2010, 08:10 PM
i like Justine, which is why I voted for her to win Roland Garros. I like every player, even if I don't like watching them play I still respect them as professionals. Although I will make fun of Nadal for taking forever between serves, I still like him. The only player I honestly dislike is Serena only because she is crazy.

I watched that IW on TV and I was impressed by both competitors, Zheng for trying even though she was clearly fatigued and Wozniacki for not giving into Zheng's incredible pressure she was putting on her serve. Wozniacki had many returns blown past her but she kept her cool and didn't let it falter her, unlike someone like Sharapova would serve 25 double faults because of it

I enjoy watching Shara. She is a fighter. Any of the female commentators will tell you that. Navratilova thinks so.
The double faults are new, serve used to be one of her stronger points. It has changed since shoulder surgery.

boredone3456
04-14-2010, 10:32 PM
I enjoy watching Shara. She is a fighter. Any of the female commentators will tell you that. Navratilova thinks so.
The double faults are new, serve used to be one of her stronger points. It has changed since shoulder surgery.

Her shoulder injury destroyed her serve, her motion and angles just aren't the same anymore. Her game used to be built around it, when it was on she was deadly (2008 Aussie). Granted I don't like her personality all that much, but I hope she figures it out soon, because if she did this could honestly have been her time this last year and a half.

anointedone
04-14-2010, 10:44 PM
Her shoulder injury destroyed her serve, her motion and angles just aren't the same anymore. Her game used to be built around it, when it was on she was deadly (2008 Aussie). Granted I don't like her personality all that much, but I hope she figures it out soon, because if she did this could honestly have been her time this last year and a half.

I dont think she ever would have dominated. She couldnt have won the French no matter how well she were playing and how bad the clay court field is. Serena is a bad matchup for her, and so Serena does not need to be Serena of 02-03 to regularly beat Maria especialy in the big matches. Maria did well against her at first but Serena figured her out and Maria has had no answers of late when they play. Venus on grass is too good for her. So that doesnt leave much or anything.

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-15-2010, 03:52 AM
She's still just 19 years old.

Some women already won their 1st slam at 19, so considering how others managed to attle their way to a slam at that age, she's not as green as your post implies.

dlk
04-15-2010, 04:00 AM
Yeah no big weapons, but combine the vanilla competiton & her consistency, means she'll be a solid player with a slam or two.

davey25
04-15-2010, 05:15 AM
Some women already won their 1st slam at 19, so considering how others managed to attle their way to a slam at that age, she's not as green as your post implies.

So true. Although Henin won her first slam less than a month before turning 21 and has gone on to win 7 despite a 2 year retirement at 25, so there are exceptions. Navratilova is an even more classic case, winning her first slam at 21, her third slam at 25, then going on to become arguably the greatest women player ever. However those women already had weapons or standout qualities even as teenagers not collecting trophies. Navratilova's enormous talent and athletic ability were in evidence imparticular, but she had alot of personal things to deal with. Defecting to the U.S at a young age, the anger towards her from some circles close to her back home for doing that, having to get used to a whole new life away from family and in a new country, keeping her sexuality closeted for awhile and her parents not being totally accepting of that at first. It really had little to do with talent why it took her so long to mature and get it together. Henin's biggest problem was she was undersized so it took a few more years of rigorous fitness training and getting stronger, and she also wasnt mentally strong enough as a teenager so had to do some major pyschology training to take the next step. Even in her case her signature one handed backhand was already widely recognized. Wozniacki has no real standout weapons though. Just consistency and good retrieving. She could improve of course, but you dont look at her and say that is someone who could win a whole bunch of slams once she gets it together.

boredone3456
04-15-2010, 08:44 AM
I dont think she ever would have dominated. She couldnt have won the French no matter how well she were playing and how bad the clay court field is. Serena is a bad matchup for her, and so Serena does not need to be Serena of 02-03 to regularly beat Maria especialy in the big matches. Maria did well against her at first but Serena figured her out and Maria has had no answers of late when they play. Venus on grass is too good for her. So that doesnt leave much or anything.

While she may not have been dominating (and no I do not believe she would have what-so-ever), a healthy Maria if she kept up her early 2008 form could have done at least as well as/probably better than Jankovic and Safina did, and I would have rather seen a strong Maria being a regular finalist/semi-finalist than the flukey Safina. She would have definitely had oppurtunities, the 2009 Australian Open Serena got plenty lucky to win, granted Serena may know Maria's game but Maria would not simply roll over and die like Kuzzy, Dementieva and Safina all did. The 2009 French...well I dunno if she would have won, but seeing as Cibulkova and Stosur were semifinalists and Stosur almost beat the eventual champion again, Maria could have done at least as well, seeing as she made the SF in 07. Wimbledon would have been tough last year, true I do not see her winning, but she is better on grass than both Dementieva and Safina, so I find it hard to believe she couldn't have done at least as well. The US Opens of both 2008 and 2009 without the shoulder issue would have both been good chances. Serena played good tennis, and so did Jankovic, and Venus to a degree, but other than that no one else was playing convincingly well. She could have taken out either Dementieva or Safina there, and if healthy probably Jankovic, and maybe even won. Serena did not play all that well in the final as it was. 2009 Would have been a good chance to, Clijsters and Serena if she were healthy would have been her only problems I think, and maybe Woz if Sharapova let her get in her head. But she would have at least been a contender. Not to mention all the non slam titles, the players who could have given her the biggest hassle (mainly the williams), didn't do much anywhere not a slam, she could have definitely won a few decent titles.

phoenicks
04-15-2010, 09:19 AM
Yeah no big weapons, but combine the vanilla competiton & her consistency, means she'll be a solid player with a slam or two.

Consistency is merely a necessary condition, definitely not a sufficient, she's bound to run into player who doesn't miss as well as firing winner every now and then in the later stage of slam. Checking back into the past winners of slam in recent years when the field is weak., tell me which player pushes her way into a champion???

soyizgood
04-15-2010, 09:36 AM
Consistency is merely a necessary condition, definitely not a sufficient, she's bound to run into player who doesn't miss as well as firing winner every now and then in the later stage of slam. Checking back into the past winners of slam in recent years when the field is weak., tell me which player pushes her way into a champion???

Even with her consistent play, Wozniacki won a little over 70% of her matches last year. Serena, for all of her injuries and tanking, has a 83% career win percentage.

She's good, but hardly the next great thing. If it wasn't for the fact that many WTA-bashers and Serena haters have been longing (for an eternity) for a successor to Serena, Wozniacki wouldn't be getting so much attention on this board.

IMO no guts = no slams. Until she has the ability to take matters into her hands and can up her game a notch in big moments (0-15 vs active former #1's), she'll be giving her fans hope but little else.

OJ ROD
04-15-2010, 09:40 AM
Even with her consistent play, Wozniacki won a little over 70% of her matches last year. Serena, for all of her injuries and tanking, has a 83% career win percentage.

She's good, but hardly the next great thing. If it wasn't for the fact that many WTA-bashers and Serena haters have been longing (for an eternity) for a successor to Serena, Wozniacki wouldn't be getting so much attention on this board.

IMO no guts = no slams. Until she has the ability to take matters into her hands and can up her game a notch in big moments (0-15 vs active former #1's), she'll be giving her fans hope but little else.

Henin is a little more than a succesor.

soyizgood
04-15-2010, 10:03 AM
Henin is a little more than a succesor.

Henin is a rival and could have shared or taken the top, but chose to skip out for a good chunk of her peak years. Henin is only 1 year younger than Serena and given her form it will take her some time to adjust to her new game.

Miami Tiburon
04-15-2010, 11:12 AM
I hope so , she is very good for the game. Has a wonderful personality and is very gracious with the kids and fans.

pmerk34
04-15-2010, 11:50 AM
umm i think she does have the potential. Shes young, she plays beautiful tennis and will succeed.

There we go! Most of this board hates woman's tennis yet cannot refrain from posting anyway. Everyone is either a mindless ball basher or ha "no power".

bluetrain4
04-15-2010, 12:07 PM
She's got a good head, beautiful strokes, more power than she did before, and is very consistent.

It's not that she can't hit winners, it's that she often doesn't when she should. She lets the point go on too long sometimes and that will hurt her against the best players. It even hurt her against someone like Schnyder today.

If she can take control of more points and go for more on some points, while still playing her consistent backboard game on other points, I think she could win a Slam or two. But, I don't see her entering the pantheon of "greats."

It's hard to say. She's got a solid foundation, but she needs just a little "more" of something.

Love Game
04-15-2010, 12:39 PM
Justine becomes old in 4 years, Woz gets old in 8 years. Everyone gets old.
I just dont consider Justine old genertion she quit because for some reasons but age was not one of them.
. . .


double standard much? :???:
.justine is 27. 27+4 = 31
caroline is 19. 19+8 = 27

Inner Game
04-15-2010, 05:52 PM
Caroline Wozniacki seems to be the cream of the crop among all the younger WTA players and her mental command is outstanding. Is she the leader of the next generation of woman's tennis?

She better lay off the donuts....if she keeps it up she'll be the next Serena....it just shows you how bad the women's game is....

OddJack
04-15-2010, 06:21 PM
double standard much? :???:
.justine is 27. 27+4 = 31
caroline is 19. 19+8 = 27

I bet you Woz is not going to last as long as Justine did.

C++ Primer
04-15-2010, 06:55 PM
boring tenis

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-15-2010, 06:59 PM
No. I like Wozniacki. She is extremely consistent but has no big weapons.I wonder if you ever saw Chris Evert or Mats Wilander or Bjorn Borg play?

They based their entire stellar careers on the weapons that Wozniacki already possesses (not that I put her in their company). It's a different age now, but the strengths of Wozniacki (her movement, consistency and mental superiority) still translate to a winning game. But you act as though these things are not huge incredible weapons as is.

I will take Wozniacki, as a player, over someone with "big weapons" (but little else) like Dinara Safina or Anna Ivanovic any day!
Sometimes the tennis "experts" around here can analyze a player to death and not see the tennis forest for the trees.
Caroline Wozniacki has a great deal going for her, as is. Her innate strengths more than compensate for any stroke weaknesses, that can be added as time goes on.

decades
04-15-2010, 07:30 PM
no venus and serena are. they will be winning slams in their 50s....

hugobosstachini
04-15-2010, 08:09 PM
I don't get why Caroline gets all the praises... I've read most of the posts and I must agree on some points with Sondraj because effectively Caro's ranking is no way representative of her so said talent. Caro just has the art to profit of a very weak WTA since middle-end 2009 and the injuries of the major players too. Unfortunatly her style of play wich is pushing suits very well the mood in wich the WTA is right now : ball bashing, excess UE and choking. She intellegently lets the players she faces autodestruct to capitalize if that so said player can't wipe her off the court.

The big bones of the WTA Masha, Serena, Kim, Justine and/or Ana aren't where they should actually be in the rankings and/or level of play so people like Caro wisely profits of that and that includes Radwanska !

The compariso Caro/Murray for me is little excessive since Murray has that intelligence of play that Caro doesn't have. Murray changes the rythm slice, short ball, high ball, cross court purposively etc... but in all that just forgets to be aggressive and waits for the opponents errors. Secondly and contrary to Caro Murray HAS the means to hit the ball powerfully and be aggressive but just doesn't seem to want to do that unless against Rafa:)

Even Caro/Jelena is a worthless comparison since Jelena is soooooo much more intellegent on a court than the Dane that the tactical display of Jelena in IW final made me love her game even more. Jelena barely hits the ball as hard as Serena or Masha but she just ouplayed the pusher and the pusher just didn't seem to have no clue what to do.

Caroline + win + RG ? :shock: I didn't know thoses 3 words could be side by side in a phrase and as Sondraj said Caroline hasn't even firmly beaten a top 10 in a GS unless that headcase of Kuznetsova who doesn't even counnt and the other Caroline bis in 100 000 times worst by the name of Radwanska.
Then second of all Caroline hasn't even won a big event yet in her career so how in the freaking world does she have the ability to win a GS ?

Caroline is sooooo overated commpared to the real (headcased) talents, Vika, Sabine and/or Yanina just pure nonesens... Some say Caro's game will evoluate with time on that no one can tell we'll see but to the question the NGFC is definitively Vika at her very best level she seems unbeatable and can rip anybody of the court but unfortunalty she only, for now, can do that for 1 set and a half, anyway she's not far from beeing great but she really needs to stop headcasing but otherwise she's not far.

davey25
04-15-2010, 08:17 PM
I wonder if you ever saw Chris Evert or Mats Wilander or Bjorn Borg play?

They based their entire stellar careers on the weapons that Wozniacki already possesses (not that I put her in their company). It's a different age now, but the strengths of Wozniacki (her movement, consistency and mental superiority) still translate to a winning game. But you act as though these things are not huge incredible weapons as is.

I find it completely inaccurate to compare Borg as a male version of Wozniacki. He had a very good serve which became a weapon, he came to the net much more than the supposed all courter Federer does today, and he had precision, fitness, movement, consistency, and mental strength that were all inhuman, not merely excellent.

Even Evert I would disagree on. She hit the ball harder with a wood racquet in the 70s than Wozniacki does today with a graphite. While Wozniacki is very consistent and very smart, she right now still doesnt even come close to prime Evert in either area. The same goes for mental toughness. Wozniacki might be quicker, but Evert's anticipation makes up for it and brings them about on par there. Evert's precision, placements, directional control, and use of angles, were exceptional, clearly superior to Wozniacki. Evert in her prime would potentially struggle alot with the big hitters like a Serena, or even Henin or Venus in A+ form today, but would beat Wozniacki of today quite easily. Even though it would be by virtue of alot of long rallies and long games probably, not Evert blowing Wozniacki off the court with quick winners but simply outclassing her bit by bit overall.

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-15-2010, 08:26 PM
You must have glossed over the part where I said I was not claiming that Wozniacki was in the class of Evert, Wilander, Borg, etc. Hardly surprising.

But the point remains that Wozniacki wins the same way Evert and Wilander did.
I'm stunned, as the thread creator, that this has gone on so long and created so many negative comments. I don't think it's debatable though that Caroline is the best of the young WTA players as claimed.

davey25
04-15-2010, 08:32 PM
Evert looked to win matches by hitting winners. She did not look to wait for her opponents to lose matches. Even against the most agressive players like Navratilova and Mandlikova she was looking to hit alot of winners. Yes it wasnt sheer sheer power blasting a winner on the first shot of a rally, but it was looking to create opening for herself then end the point. Wozniacki is looking how to cause her opponents to make errors. That is the biggest difference between the playing style of the two.

Borg also looked to win his matches by hitting alot of winners.

Maybe only Wilander is somewhat similar to Wozniacki in this regard.

soyizgood
04-15-2010, 08:49 PM
Sanchez-Vicario is a better comparison for Wozniacki. Even then that's a stretch as Sanchez-Vicario was terrific at the net and proved she could beat the top players at any given event. Maybe Conchita Martinez is better to compare Wozniacki with.

Time will time with Wozniacki. But I still stand by my original position that Azarenka will have a better career than any of the 89-91 group.

OKUSA
04-15-2010, 09:02 PM
Caro still has a lot of time to improve her serve, which she has done. She also has time to improve her net game if they choose to go that route. You guys act as if nobody in the history of tennis improved anything after age 20, and if you aren't winning slams with your current game by 20 then you are hopeless

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-15-2010, 09:42 PM
Evert looked to win matches by hitting winners. She did not look to wait for her opponents to lose matches. Even against the most agressive players like Navratilova and Mandlikova she was looking to hit alot of winners. Yes it wasnt sheer sheer power blasting a winner on the first shot of a rally, but it was looking to create opening for herself then end the point. Wozniacki is looking how to cause her opponents to make errors. That is the biggest difference between the playing style of the two.

Borg also looked to win his matches by hitting alot of winners.

Maybe only Wilander is somewhat similar to Wozniacki in this regard.You must have seen a different Chris Evert than I watched for years and years. Evert was extremely patient and just didn't miss much at all.

This is why I rarely post here. Too many experts with too little expertise.

PED
04-16-2010, 06:07 AM
I will add that in yesterday's match against Schynder, she was back to pushing a bit. It tended to happen more in the 2nd set as Patty pushed her but she froze up hard in the last game and even though she won, the frustration was etched on her face. I was lucky enough to be sitting about 20ft away so I had a good look ;)

The rest of the weekend in charleston should be interesting.

davey25
04-16-2010, 06:55 AM
You must have seen a different Chris Evert than I watched for years and years. Evert was extremely patient and just didn't miss much at all.

This is why I rarely post here. Too many experts with too little expertise.

I have seen many matches where Evert played Navratilova, Mandlikova, Shriver, and Austin and other than the few matches she was destroyed by a top Martina she always hit alot of winners. In many of her losses vs Martina she hit 40+ winners. She was patient but she was still looking to win points.

OKUSA
04-16-2010, 06:57 AM
Most of those winners were probably passing shots

davey25
04-16-2010, 07:05 AM
Most of those winners were probably passing shots

Maybe but if Wozniacki played a serve and volleyer she still wouldnt have nearly that many winners.

OKUSA
04-16-2010, 09:37 AM
maybe because she never has to face anyone who plays the net. aside from venus and justine nobody on the women's tour even thinks about approaching the net

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-16-2010, 12:58 PM
Most of those winners were probably passing shotsPrecisely. Wozniacki doesn't play anyone who comes to net even a fraction of the amount that Navratilova did. And she likely never will.

Therefore passing shots, lobs, service returns, etc. will all show up as winners for Evert.

But as a rule, she (Evert) won through consistency and placement (as revealed by all her French Open titles) and winners were an absolute secondary thought. Are you sure you ever saw her play with your own two eyes?

I can't explain your comments otherwise.

MotherMarjorie
04-16-2010, 02:23 PM
I don't think it's debatable though that Caroline is the best of the young WTA players as claimed.
Mother Marjorie thinks anything regarding Wozniacki is debatable, especially those calling her "the next great female Champ" without her having won a major title.

How many others over the past five years have we had similar discussions about whose game never translated into grand slam victory? Dozens. Many of them now are no longer in the top ten and strive for modeling jobs.

Let's keep this discussion real. The only reason Wozniacki is number two in the world is because she plays TONS of tournaments while having mediocre success at the majors. Wozniacki will not be able to "Hingis" her way into grand slam victory. Without a demonstrative weapon that can put the power players of this generation on their heels, she'll always be playing defensively and from behind against those players which will wear her down psychologically during matches. We've seen this happen already. Many times over.

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-16-2010, 03:32 PM
Mother Marjorie thinks anything regarding Wozniacki is debatable, especially those calling her "the next great female Champ" without her having won a major title.

How many others over the past five years have we had similar discussions about whose game never translated into grand slam victory? Dozens. Many of them now are no longer in the top ten and strive for modeling jobs.

Let's keep this discussion real. The only reason Wozniacki is number two in the world is because she plays TONS of tournaments while having mediocre success at the majors. Wozniacki will not be able to "Hingis" her way into grand slam victory. Without a demonstrative weapon that can put the power players of this generation on their heels, she'll always be playing defensively and from behind against those players which will wear her down psychologically during matches. We've seen this happen already. Many times over.I've only called Caroline Wozniacki the best of the young upcoming crop of WTA pros and any claims that she is the next big champion among the women is not something I've put out there (though she well could be).

I think also, it's interesting to note that she reached the finals of the US Open at age eighteen, and to read many of the comments I've seen from the "experts" here, you would think she is fortunate to win anything (short of a challenger event in Spokane).

"Pusher", "no weapons", "praying on weak players", etc. Somehow she made the finals in New York against Clijsters.
Some of the more honest here have to admit that she has something going for her.



If you can find a player of her age and experience who has done better, I'd like to hear of her. Otherwise I don't know why this was aimed at me. I merely made an innocent undeniable claim at the start of this thread and am amazed at all the negative comments that have followed (though I guess I shouldn't be at TT).

hugobosstachini
04-16-2010, 03:38 PM
Mother Marjorie thinks anything regarding Wozniacki is debatable, especially those calling her "the next great female Champ" without her having won a major title.

Let's keep this discussion real. The only reason Wozniacki is number two in the world is because she plays TONS of tournaments while having mediocre success at the majors. Wozniacki will not be able to "Hingis" her way into grand slam victory. Without a demonstrative weapon that can put the power players of this generation on their heels, she'll always be playing defensively and from behind against those players which will wear her down psychologically during matches.
100% true.

egn
04-16-2010, 04:20 PM
I've only called Caroline Wozniacki the best of the young upcoming crop of WTA pros and any claims that she is the next big champion among the women is not something I've put out there (though she well could be).

I think also, it's interesting to note that she reached the finals of the US Open at age eighteen, and to read many of the comments I've seen from the "experts" here, you would think she is fortunate to win anything (short of a challenger event in Spokane).

"Pusher", "no weapons", "praying on weak players", etc. Somehow she made the finals in New York against Clijsters.
Some of the more honest here have to admit that she has something going for her.

If you can find a player of her age and experience who has done better, I'd like to hear of her. Otherwise I don't know why this was aimed at me. I merely made an innocent undeniable claim at the start of this thread and am amazed at all the negative comments that have followed (though I guess I shouldn't be at TT).

I agree with you she has done the most for her age group but at the same time I disagree on her being the leader of the next generation. What impressive win has she had? Outside of a win in the 4th round against Kuzzy I don't seem to see it yet. Lets be realistic though it is hard to disagree that 2009 US Open was a failure for women's tennis and the actual final was the semifinals or possibly the third round when Venus actually ran Clijsters to three sets. I watched 2009 US Open final and was disgusted with its decline of quality from the semifinal match sure the scoreline was similar but it was obvious Clijsters was doing simply what she needed to win and Woz was letting her do it. I like Woz alot though and I do agree she has a lot of potential however I'm not buying it yet. Frankly neither her or Azarenka are impressing me yet and I don't really want to say either are the next female champ. Last year Azarenka definitely looked like she could do it scoring a huge win over Serena and playing top notch but she flamed out and I'm afraid Woz is going to do the same soon. She can't score up the wins against JJ yet let alone Clijsters, Henin and either of the Williams.

So here is my problem with women's tennis right now the top 10 is not really at all reflective of any of the players and I don't see it coming to a settle anytime soon. Henin and Clijsters are going to show up at some tournaments and tank others just like the Williams do now a days. So basically one tournament looks like it will have a Woz, JJ, Kuzzy, Azarenka final 4 and the next will have a Henin, Clijsters Williams final four yet when the slams roll up we all know which players are going to show up. Its safe bet right now to pick Serena to make at least the quarters of every slam she enters, same for Henin and hell even the early upset of CLijsters it is unreasonable not to pick her as well. Until one of the others girls Woz, Azarenka, Radaswakna (sp?) actually step it up and beat them in a slam I'm just not going to but it. They only seem to get the deep runs when the big names get upsetted or are MIA. They can't bank on them losing early forever cause eventually a new generation will show up and start playing good and if the current doesn't step up and beat the old how can the beat the new.

If we want a quick example look at Indian Wells, Henin and CLijsters showed up a bit rusty after long gaps of no play and both get upset by low ranks. You see Woz and Radaswanka strive and go deep. Just a week or two later at Miami Henin and Clijsters are more sharp and Venus is back in action..who is now in the semis and who is not. Whats the difference though Woz and Radaswanka are not losing to low ranks or being upset they are getting beat by Henin and Williams and not mention Clijsters took out both Azarenka and then Stosour a semifinalist in Indian Wells. It is coming to the point where if they want to win Henin, Clijsters and the Williams Sisters basically just need to come out and play 100 percent.

PED
04-16-2010, 04:40 PM
^^Great summary, it's hard to see who the next break through player will be. After 3 days down at the family circle, the WTA (or at least the field at this event) could use an infusion of some star power. The drop out of Serena and Sharapova right before the tourney didn't help.

There just weren't that many players who were compelling to watch. Stosur was impressive and has a great vibe and energy: she's got a big game and appears to be a good deal more consistent lately than some of the other big hitters like Petrova. Hanchucova and JJ both seem to have similar games in that they both lack a weapon like Serena's serve.

Azarenka was impressive before dropping out and I like the run she gave Serena at the AO in 09 but she seems to have dropped a level or 2 this year.

I enjoyed my time there ( I go every year) but I find myself questioning if I'll go back next year.

hugobosstachini
04-16-2010, 09:09 PM
I don't think Azarenka has dropped the level its just the difference between the Azarenka start 2009 and the Azarenka end 2009 is just that like all young fresh new players she was care free, pressure free, obligation free, just free... and she was just spraying winners all around and looking very impressive. Once the other players knew her a little bit more and fans or medias started watching her more closely and wanting better results she couldn't cope with it and headcased a lot of matches.

I watched the Caro/Jelena final with a lot of interest because a lot of people compare the 2 and Jelena just showed despite having not a killer shot how intellegent she was on a court and how clueless she could put little Caro. It just showed how Caro had no form of tactics or plan B when her eternal left to right game doesn't work and the difference between a "counter puncher" and a pusher.

Caro needs to change coach to my mind if she wants to progress because I don't think her father knows anything about tactics in tennis and technic and I think he's the prinicipal break to her progress.

soyizgood
04-16-2010, 10:05 PM
Woz has the most titles of the young crowd, but in those 7 title wins how many top 10 players did she beat to win them: 1.

How many wins against active former #1s does Wozniacki have: 0. Her peers Azarenka (4), Kleybanova (3), Pavlyuchenkova (3), Oudin (2) have been able to do at least that much.. How come Wozniacki hasn't? After all Wozniacki has had 15 chances to pull it off and failed all 15 times. Radwanska has at least 4 as well.

CMM
04-17-2010, 12:21 AM
Maybe...................

Joe Pike
04-17-2010, 01:04 AM
Mother Marjorie thinks anything regarding Wozniacki is debatable, especially those calling her "the next great female Champ" without her having won a major title.

How many others over the past five years have we had similar discussions about whose game never translated into grand slam victory? Dozens. Many of them now are no longer in the top ten and strive for modeling jobs.

Let's keep this discussion real. The only reason Wozniacki is number two in the world is because she plays TONS of tournaments while having mediocre success at the majors. Wozniacki will not be able to "Hingis" her way into grand slam victory. Without a demonstrative weapon that can put the power players of this generation on their heels, she'll always be playing defensively and from behind against those players which will wear her down psychologically during matches. We've seen this happen already. Many times over.


Good offensive wins games.
Good defensive championships.

David_Is_Right
04-17-2010, 03:14 AM
In football, perhaps. Not so sure that holds for tennis.

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-17-2010, 04:51 AM
Good offensive wins games.
Good defensive championships.

Hm. Since you separate the tactics, take (for example) V. Williams' back to back USO & Wimbledon titles; do you think they were won playing good defensive or offensive tennis?

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-17-2010, 04:59 AM
Woz has the most titles of the young crowd, but in those 7 title wins how many top 10 players did she beat to win them: 1.

How many wins against active former #1s does Wozniacki have: 0. Her peers Azarenka (4), Kleybanova (3), Pavlyuchenkova (3), Oudin (2) have been able to do at least that much.. How come Wozniacki hasn't? After all Wozniacki has had 15 chances to pull it off and failed all 15 times. Radwanska has done it as well but I don't her exact total (at least 4).

This is a good point. If anything, it illustrates Wozniacki not having weapons--she simply hangs in there which is not enough if one desires slams. Granted, if we look at Oudin's USO success over allegedly greater players, in the end, it did not turn into a slam win, but she must have possessed something to do the rather shocking damage seen at the USO.

What is preventing Wozniacki from doing the same, considering the near-Safina-like hype surrounding her?

davey25
04-17-2010, 05:01 AM
Hm. Since you separate the tactics, take (for example) V. Williams' back to back USO & Wimbledon titles; do you think they were won playing good defensive or offensive tennis?

I would say in her case they were won with both. The former was a big part of it, but I still think without the latter to go with it she wouldnt have won no more than 1 of those 4. The 2001 U.S Open is the one she most heavily won with incredible defense, frusterating a young Clijsters, Capriati, and a hot Serena into a flock of errors through getting all their big shots back and back, and her offense was somewhat subdued for her standards that tourney as she didnt hit nearly as many winners as she often does on faster surfaces. Even so without her powerful serves and groundies to go with that it is quite possible 1 of Capriati or especialy Serena would have hit through her to win. The 2000 and 2001 Wimbledon titles, and 2000 U.S Open, she won as much through devastating offense and wonderful shotmaking as her formidable defense, though the defense was undoubtably a big part too especialy a big edge in her meetings with Davenport.

I would say an example how far you can go with only great defense in the modern game would be Sanchez Vicario. She was arguably the greatest defensive player ever other than possibly Venus at her best, and she could win only 4 slams, and might have won only 1 or 2 without the Seles stabbing. I cant imagine Wozniacki ever reaching Sanchez Vicario's caliber of defensive game, and there are even more power hitters today than there was back then. I also cant imagine her ever being as mentally tough as a prime Sanchez Vicario. Wozniacki atleast has a much steadier and technically better forehand than Sanchez, a shot that hurt Sanchez Vicario alot, but still you get my point I am sure. Lastly while Sanchez Vicario was mostly all about defense, her backhand was a bigger offensive weapon than anything Wozniacki currently has, and she was actually quite a good volleyer who was willing to finish points at the net given the opportunity too.

MotherMarjorie
04-17-2010, 05:33 AM
I've only called Caroline Wozniacki the best of the young upcoming crop of WTA pros and any claims that she is the next big champion among the women is not something I've put out there (though she well could be).

I think also, it's interesting to note that she reached the finals of the US Open at age eighteen, and to read many of the comments I've seen from the "experts" here, you would think she is fortunate to win anything (short of a challenger event in Spokane).

"Pusher", "no weapons", "praying on weak players", etc. Somehow she made the finals in New York against Clijsters.
Some of the more honest here have to admit that she has something going for her.



If you can find a player of her age and experience who has done better, I'd like to hear of her. Otherwise I don't know why this was aimed at me. I merely made an innocent undeniable claim at the start of this thread and am amazed at all the negative comments that have followed (though I guess I shouldn't be at TT).
Mother Marjorie thinks you shouldn't take this discussion about Wozniacki so personal.

At the present, Mother Marjorie doesn't see any young hopeful player who is ready to usher in a new generation of tennis the way a 17 year old Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, Serena Williams or Maureen Connolly. The results just aren't there.

There will a change of guard in the next five years, with V and S Williams, Clijsters, Henin, and Kuznetsova all retiring. Given the prospects of today's young players, it would appear that a healthy Maria Sharapova would be the next one to rise. I mean, Maria has actually won major championships and knows what it takes to win them.

Joe Pike
04-17-2010, 05:36 AM
..., if we look at Oudin's USO success over allegedly greater players, in the end, it did not turn into a slam win, but she must have possessed something to do the rather shocking damage seen at the USO.

What is preventing Wozniacki from doing the same, considering the near-Safina-like hype surrounding her?


Yes, Oudin's run to the USO final while Wozzy failed earlier!

Oops ...

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-17-2010, 06:05 AM
Yes, Oudin's run to the USO final while Wozzy failed earlier!

Oops ...

What are you talking about? I did not say Oudin made the finals, and you know that. The question is why Wozniacki cannot do what a completely unheralded Oudin did to allegedly greater players considering all of the hype surrounding her?

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-17-2010, 10:05 AM
Mother Marjorie thinks you shouldn't take this discussion about Wozniacki so personal.Enlightened Coelacanth doesn't feel he is taking this personally, as he really doesn't have much emotional investment in the subject, and just thinks his position is being mischaracterized.

At the present, Mother Marjorie doesn't see any young hopeful player who is ready to usher in a new generation of tennis the way a 17 year old Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, Serena Williams or Maureen Connolly. The results just aren't there.And Enlightened Coelacanth would agree.

There will a change of guard in the next five years, with V and S Williams, Clijsters, Henin, and Kuznetsova all retiring. Given the prospects of today's young players, it would appear that a healthy Maria Sharapova would be the next one to rise. I mean, Maria has actually won major championships and knows what it takes to win them.I am (I mean, EC) is not lumping Sharapova in with the young upcoming pros that Wozniacki is in amongst. She has played for a number of years now and is a veteran to me.
Considering Sharapova's dismal output over the last couple of years however, I wouldn't presumptively hand her any crowns. She has the remarkable ability to self destruct.

hugobosstachini
04-17-2010, 03:20 PM
I think also, it's interesting to note that she reached the finals of the US Open at age eighteen, and to read many of the comments I've seen from the "experts" here, you would think she is fortunate to win anything (short of a challenger event in Spokane).

"Pusher", "no weapons", "praying on weak players", etc. Somehow she made the finals in New York against Clijsters. Some of the more honest here have to admit that she has something going for her.

If you can find a player of her age and experience who has done better, I'd like to hear of her. Otherwise I don't know why this was aimed at me. I merely made an innocent undeniable claim at the start of this thread and am amazed at all the negative comments that have followed (though I guess I shouldn't be at TT).
You personally just watch the final result, I guess, without paying much attention to the "how". And most of the results Wozniacki has accomplished are debatable because she allways seems to make great results in the big tourneys when by magic the bigger seeds are out unjustifying by so her #2 rank, thats what I think. She needs to credit her #2 rank with solid victories against better quality players wich she hasn't done yet.

I'm suprised you're denying the fact that Caro is not a tactical player and her overall tactics depends most of all of how her opponent plays. Thats to me one of the definitions of a pusher wich is not an offense because its a tactic like any other tactics.

Woz has the most titles of the young crowd, but in those 7 title wins how many top 10 players did she beat to win them: [B]1.

How many wins against active former #1s does Wozniacki have: 0. Her peers Azarenka (4), Kleybanova (3), Pavlyuchenkova (3), Oudin (2) have been able to do at least that much.. How come Wozniacki hasn't ? After all Wozniacki has had 15 chances to pull it off and failed all 15 times. Radwanska has at least 4 as well.
And foretime most of thoses players aren't top 5-10 thats why I support people who say that Caro's ranking doesn't reflect the reality of her game or results and performances against the greater players. Caroline plays as a top 10-20 player but not as top 5 and candidate to the #1 spot thats just it.

Mr_Shiver
04-17-2010, 08:08 PM
Given the state of the womens tour, Caroline has a chance at a GS. She isn't flashy nor does she have the game to be a dominant or even semi-dominant but she is consistent. Against the legions of ball bashing grunters that bleed unforced errors, thats enough most of the time. Not always but often enough. Her h2h against top tier opponents isnt great and her game doesnt stack up against what people think a #2 should be. So? That doesnt change the fact that she is there and worked hard to do so. Why blame her for working the current state of wta to her advantage? I'd blame the rest of the field for not doing the same.

devila
04-17-2010, 09:36 PM
Woz is no genius but she's a smart, sweet person. Tennis doesn't destroy her.
In contrast, Serena & Federer had taken advantage of hyperbole & nonsense that
brainwashed their opponents. This led to pushovers calling themselves deserved losers in the "strong era". LOL AT pathetic, choking, weak excuse makers such as Sharapova, Blake, Roddick & Agassi.
I can sympathize if the player doesn't ever improve to beat Serena & Federer, but it's annoying to tank matches & say Serena & Federer are too special & should win every Slam.

Enlightened Coelacanth
04-18-2010, 06:35 AM
You personally just watch the final result, I guess, without paying much attention to the "how".I think most players are judged by their final results. Perhaps that's the point.

And most of the results Wozniacki has accomplished are debatable because she allways seems to make great results in the big tourneys when by magic the bigger seeds are out unjustifying by so her #2 rank, thats what I think. She needs to credit her #2 rank with solid victories against better quality players wich she hasn't done yet.But she is young, improving, and these things may well yet come. My point has always been, who among her peers (WTA pros of her age and experience level) have done better than her?

There are several bright lights there (Oudin, Wickmeyer, Azerenka) but none have done quite as well. It's a modest claim. What's all the fuss about?

I'm suprised you're denying the fact that Caro is not a tactical player:confused: What?

and her overall tactics depends most of all of how her opponent plays. Thats to me one of the definitions of a pusher wich is not an offense because its a tactic like any other tactics.Again...what? I don't like her playing style but then most pros are baseline clones through necessity.
But calling her a "pusher" is just nonsense (and par for the TT course).


And foretime most of thoses players aren't top 5-10 thats why I support people who say that Caro's ranking doesn't reflect the reality of her game or results and performances against the greater players. Caroline plays as a top 10-20 player but not as top 5 and candidate to the #1 spot thats just it.Time will tell. Not speculation.

Enlightened Coelacanth
09-07-2010, 06:36 AM
Just stopped by to say that Caroline Wozniacki is still doing fine, thanks, at the US Open and despite all the detractors and "experts" (who I'm sure she knows nothing of or pays no attention to) she seems to be getting by.
Win the title at the Open or not, her game speaks well for her. And she may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but she's doing just fine.

Bartelby
09-07-2010, 06:38 AM
Sliced bread is disgusting!



Just stopped by to say that Caroline Wozniacki is still doing fine, thanks, at the US Open and despite all the detractors and "experts" (who I'm sure she knows nothing of or pays no attention to) she seems to be getting by.
Win the title at the Open or not, her game speaks well for her. And she may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but she's doing just fine.

bluetrain4
09-07-2010, 07:42 AM
She's coming along nicely, but she hasn't even won 1 slam yet. Even if she does win the USO, it would still be hard to determine if she's going to be the "next great female champ" without a larger amount of results to consider.

PED
09-07-2010, 08:58 AM
I think it would also be fair to say that CW is becoming a bit more aggressive here over the last few months. Glad to see it as the fast hc at the USO rewards that type of play.

Her 2hbh was particularly on fire yesterday :)