Article: Agnieszka Radwanska dreams of being number one in the world

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Amelie Mauresmo, Feb 10, 2013.

  1. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    Tennis / Federation Cup / Brain over brawn

    Israel’s Fed Cup team is about to confront Poland’s Agnieszka Radwanska, one of tennis’ most sophisticated players.

    By Elad Zeevi Feb.07, 2013 | 5:00 AM



    More speed, more strength, more power. It often seems the key word in tennis today is “more.” That’s what makes Agnieszka Radwanska’s success all the more extraordinary.

    Israelis will have the opportunity to watch this unique player in action when she joins the Polish team playing Israel in Eilat on Friday. Radwanska is the odd woman out in today’s tennis scene. At only 56 kilograms and 1.72 meters, she can’t deal powerful serves like Petra Kvitova, or consistently deliver the aggressive winners we often see from Serena Williams. And still, Radwanska is currently ranked fourth in the world.

    “My body isn’t built to produce 200-kilometer-per-hour serves,” she explained at Wimbeldon, “so I must find other ways to win points. Sometimes I feel I was simply born to play the way I do.”

    The Wall Street Journal recently described Radwanska as “the most refined and tactical player in women’s tennis.” Watching the 23-year-old on court, one can hardly disagree. While other players use their physical power to win, Radwanska kills softly. Her awareness allows her to cover the court and reach almost every ball, and she is capable of producing a wide variety of shots.

    Her slices are measured, her lobs precise and her drop shot as accurate as can be. Her forehand is rather well known, since she produces it with a slight bend of the body that resembles sitting down ‏(“I hear people whispering excitedly when I use that shot,” she says.‏). Her misleading moves reflect the fact that her mind works as hard as her legs. Her rivals often produce more winners, but more often than not the final result is in her favor.

    Asked by the website The Tennis Space “How to play intelligent tennis,” Radwanska explained: “For me, it’s always been very important to learn a lot of different shots in practice. For example, I like to use the drop shot; it catches my opponents off guard and forces them to come to the net. And then you have drawn them out of position.”
    “Studying your opponent allows you to play smart high percentage tennis,” she added. “If you understand court positioning and where the ball is going to come from, you will be able to anticipate your opponents shots before they are hit.”

    Playing against Radwanska is therefore much more than an exercise in endurance. It is also a chess game that restarts anew with every point. And she often gives her opponents enough rope to hang themselves.\

    “Everybody knows she’s some player,” Ana Ivanovic said after losing last month to the Pole at the Australia Open last 16. “She may not have too many winners, but she has good hands. She definitely can cause you to feel somewhat embarrassed, or lure you try something special. That’s her forte.”

    Radwanska, already coined “the current generation’s Martina Hingis,” began training with her father when she was four, and her younger sister Ursula is also a pro, ranked 37th in the world. In 2005 she won the Wimbledon youth tournament and repeated the feat in the following year’s Roland Garros.

    Unlike so many players who succeeded at the youth level but failed to make it later on in their careers, Radwanska has almost consistently been ranked in the top 10 since 2008, the same year she became the most successful Polish female player both in terms of rankings and profits. She naturally achieved celebrity status as well, and the iPhone application “Tennis with Radwanska,” which features a game against her avatar-like figure, became a best-selling app in Poland. “I played the game, but I’m not really good at it,” she admitted. “I’m probably much better off on a real court.”
    Last year was Radwanska’s best yet. Her victory over Maria Sharapova in the final in Miami was termed by the Polish press “the victory of finesse over power.”

    Her coach, Tomasz Wiktorowski, who is also the Polish Fed Cup captain, defined it a turning point in her career. “We have been aware of her talent for years, but such a victory was still missing,” he said − probably aware of what the immediate future would hold. At Wimbledon, Radwanska made it to the finals and showed up sick but still managed to stretch Serena Williams to three sets before losing. Williams urged the crowd to give her opponent an extra round of applause: “Aga is really tough,” Williams said. “She has a fantastic career and she’s still so young.”

    After her first Grand Slam Final, the first Polish woman to achieve such a feat in 73 years, she reached her record ranking, second in the world, and was chosen to bear the Polish flag at the London Olympics.

    This year, Radwanska knows what she wants: a No. 1 ranking and a first Grand Slam Title. She arrived at Melbourne undefeated after winning the titles in Oakland and Sydney, but was defeated by Li Na at the quarterfinals. “I’ll just continue and try to achieve my next goals,” she declared afterwards. “The first goal is success at the Fed Cup with the national team.”

    It might be unwise to bet against her − she’ll probably do it using brain over brawn.
     
    #1
  2. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,159
    Location:
    Toronto
    She should dream of being a slam champion....Number 1 is pointless with the WTA ranking....though More achievable for her I bet.
     
    #2
  3. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    Agnieszka wants both and I believe she can win a grand slam and become number one in the world it is only a matter of time. The article points out Agnieszka pushed Serena Williams to three sets in the Wimbledon final which is very good considering it was her first grand slam final. Agnieszka certainly needs to improve her second serve but I believe in her she is very mentally tough and consistent.
     
    #3
  4. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,756
    Radwanska is a clever player but she has losing records vs Serena, Sharapova, Azarenka and Li Na. If she is going to win a slam those other players have to likely be knocked out of the tournament.
     
    #4
  5. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,598
    Location:
    South
    She cant. She is another version of wozniacki. A little smarter but more fragile physically. She will break down just like wozy did. She is a pusher. I dislike her sitting backhands.
     
    #5
  6. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,756
    She is a lot better and has a lot more shots than Wozniacki does but her problem is that she has terrible records against the players she really needs to beat, i.e. Serena, Sharapova, Azarenka and Li Na.
     
    #6
  7. jones101

    jones101 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,282
    Location:
    Wales
    She can, I believe in her - the force is strong in this one.




    [​IMG]
     
    #7
  8. iri10

    iri10 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Radwanska seems to be one of those players who will remain near the top of the ranking for some time, beating almost everybody that she should be beating.

    And yet, I'm not sure she'll be able to get a Slam without some luck in her favor, like not having to face any of Azarenka/Pova/Serena/etc., unless they're walking wounded.

    Of course, some of those will eventually fade away from age, but by then the new generation of young players might be developed enough to beat her too.
     
    #8
  9. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,598
    Location:
    South
    She has terrible record because of her style. And she hasnt prove that she is better than wozniack yet.
     
    #9
  10. iri10

    iri10 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Also, this quote makes me laugh:

    As it turns out, Martina already commented on that in some Eurosport interview. Supposedly she didn't much care for the idea, saying that Radwanska needs to win a slam before you start comparing the two.

    Typical Hingis bluntness, and 100% correct in this case.
     
    #10
  11. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    Martina Hingis is correct agree does need to win a grand slam to be compared to her. I feel this elusive grand slam title is what Agnieszka needs but she's too talented not to win a major. I also would like to see Agnieszka reach more slam finals too.

    Agnieszka does need to start beating the other elite players more consistently. Agnieszka is improving she beat Sharapova to win Miami in straight sets it was a huge win for her.

    Agnieszka probably needs to be more aggressive I feel when she takes on the other top women. She can't expect Serena or Azarenka to give her errors they are too consistent. However, the thing I like about Agnieszka is she is constantly working on her game and improving. I would love to see Agnieszka win a grand slam.
     
    #11
  12. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,967
    Location:
    New York
    She doesn't have a major weapon though. She's just consistent. So that's OK for #1 (see Woz) but winning a slam will be tougher.
     
    #12
  13. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    That is not enough for #1 anymore. Azarenka has raised the bar again for what it takes to be #1. Serena even totally dominating the major events in the last year, and playing more events (and winning some of the small ones) than she has in years hasnt gotten back to #1 yet, although she might the next couple months. Azarenka is super consistent, more consistent than Wozniacki ever was, like Woznaicki plays a heavy schedule, and actually wins some of the major events, and makes it deep in all of them. So it will be alot harder for Radwanska to get to #1 now with Azarenka there than when Wozniacki was.
     
    #13
  14. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    Power trumps shotmaking ability. It's these types of players that spelled the demise of Hingis. Radwanska will never be #1.
     
    #14
  15. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,511
    Correct. Apparently, she never learned anything from the Jankovic / Safina and Wozniacki disasters of being #1 without a major. The first thing out of her mough should have zeroed in on a determination to win majors....unless she's pretty much telling the world she will "play the computer" and get the 31 ranking, knowing full well she is incapable of winning a major. If the latter is the case, that is a shameful mentality for a sports professional.
     
    #15
  16. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    yap, because wining a slam truly cements one's legacy. As proven by:

    Myskina
    Schiavone
    Majoli

    Are you suggesting that these players are/were better than Wozniacki?
     
    #16
  17. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    She'll have to continue to dream, cos it's never gonna happen.
     
    #17
  18. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,792
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    e

    yer crazy. wozzy wishes she had the hands, the variety or the net play of radwanska
     
    #18
  19. Tanya

    Tanya Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Hahahah thank you for this it made my day.


    But really, Radwanska needs to figure out a way to not get hit off the court in later stages of grand slams. That's her problem -- she doesn't beat herself, but if she runs into an on-fire player she has a lot of trouble finding an answer to raw power. Her bag of tricks doesn't have anything to counter it yet....she needs a reliable weapon I'm afraid.
     
    #19
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Myskina and Majoli sure are. Fraudniacki wouldnt even be in the top twenty back when they played, let alone winning a slam. In addition to winning a slam Myskina and Majoli spent several years straight top 10 at a time womens tennis was actually real which for the couple years Fraudniacki was number 1 it was on the verge of bankruptcy.
     
    #20
  21. always_crosscourt

    always_crosscourt Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    496
    When we accept that Murray has not legitimately ever won a slam, Radwanska is the female version of Murray. She is physically weak, small and lightweight, has awkward technique, and thus can never generate any real power.

    She tries to counteract this by being sneaky, but tennis is not a game of strategy. It is a game of always hitting the ball cross-court. If you can hit the ball cross-court with more spin and pace than your opponent, you will beat them.
     
    #21
  22. Tanya

    Tanya Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Come on people. READ the article before commenting

    This year, Radwanska knows what she wants: a No. 1 ranking and a first Grand Slam Title.

    She wants grand slams too. Obviously a player should strive for both so they don't become like Safina OR Myskina. Which is what Aggie is doing.

    Misleading thread title.
     
    #22
  23. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,511
    They won a major. Wozniacki did not. Wozniacki loses.

    What significant advantage does Wozniacki have over the majors winners you cite?
     
    #23
  24. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,681
    Location:
    In The City

    LOL. That is some low quality trolling.
     
    #24
  25. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Beats me. Wozniacki wasnt even a semi legitimate slamless number 1 by being super consistent and strong while not winning a slam for a long period the way Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters, Mauresmo were (during the time Hingis and Davenport spent at number 1 long after their slam days were forever over, and while Clijsters and Mauresmo were there years before their first slam). Contrary to the myth of some she wasnt even that consistent during her time at number 1, didnt do that good a job winning even small events (her highest tournament title count in a year is 5), didnt even produce many reasonably good slam results, and overall had sucky results and was only number 1 due to a combination of a ridiculous ranking system and the worst ever WTA in 2010 and 2011.

    Majoli will be remembered for denying Hingis the Calendar Slam and one of the best clay courters on the planet in the 2nd half of the 90s, culminating in her spectacular RG triumph. Schiavone will be remembered for unlikely late career heroics, especialy at RG with a title and a great attempt that just fell short at a defense (finals) and winning with classic old school tactics at a time that had almost seemed extinct. Myskina will be remembered as the first ever Russian to win a slam, and shredding her way through a difficult draw the last 3 rounds barely losing games. Wozniacki will be remembered as the all time joke number 1, rivalled only perhaps by Safina and Jankovic, in that farce number 1 WTA era.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2013
    #25
  26. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    You'll have to stop right there because nobody except silly little trolls is ever going to accept that, are they?

    Nope, you're going to have stop right there again. Physically weak, small and lightweight...MURRAY??? Have you taken a good look at him lately? He's 6ft.3 ins tall and muscular. He's taller and bigger than Djokovic, Federer or Nadal!
    Are you having trouble with your eyesight? I can recommend a good optician if you are!
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #26
  27. akind

    akind Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Here
    ahahahahahahah she had no idea what to do with the lightsaber sword! i didn't know what was lying underneath the cortex.
     
    #27
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Winning slam is more important but being ranked #1 and end the year #1 makes you more of a complete player. It's better to have both. Federer, Graf have huge numbers in the ranking, that's part of their goat status.
     
    #28
  29. slowfox

    slowfox Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,110
    Um... okay...:roll:
     
    #29
  30. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    well, I don't know :shock: Perhaps let's start with Myskina. How about we compare careers of Myskina vs. Wozniacki. rather than copying stuff here why don't you read this:
    Myskina career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Myskina

    Wozniacki career (and still pending): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Wozniacki_career_statistics

    Look, I like Myskina too, I'm sure she is a wonderful human being. But if you are going to say that she was more accomplished player than Wozniacki than it is nothing more but your personal opinion. Which is fine, just not too objective..

    you can do similar exercise for Majoli. Or Shiavone.
     
    #30
  31. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Saying a slamless player who isnt even close to being the best slamless player is better and has had a better career than a player with a slam isnt a fact either, nor being remotedly objective or in touch with reality. Just your personal and probably biased opinion as well, just as ours that Woznickis career is worth less also is. Also in your case an opinion most would probably disagree with. Just go to the WTA forum and see the polls between people like Na or Schiavone vs Wozniacki and whose career one would rather have and they are all overwhelmingly against Wozniacki. Put a random poll on the internet that thousands vote on and I am sure the outcome would be the same. Years from now people will remember a slam winner more than a slamless number 1 as well. Maybe Wozniacki would have a case if she had atleast won something like the WTA Championships or Olympic Gold, or made more than 1 slam final, but she couldnt even do that. Maybe she would have a case if she ranked number 1 in the days before the ranking system became a total joke, even if she managed it with her current abysmal slam showings, but again that is not the case. I could see saying Shriver (even talking singles only), Sukova, or Dementieva had better careers and are better than the weakish slam winners like Majoli, Myskina, and Schiavone perhaps, but not Wozniacki who overall made nowhere near the impact as even those slamless players did. So any player with a slam apart from possibly O Neil and Barbara Jordan, has had a better career than her, and that is something most would agree with. 2010-2011 will for atleast another hundred years be the all time dark age of the WTA anyway, and if you couldnt even win a slam peaking in THOSE years, then you are basically nothing in the context of tennis history, even up against a typical 1 slam wonder.

    Just for the laughs though which other 1 slam winners do you think Wozniacki is better than. Do you believe she is even better than Kvitova, Stosur and Na too (going a level up from the ones you mentioned), or even heaven fordid Sabatini, Novotna, and Martinez because of all her time spent at number 1. Will you even try and argue Wozniacki is better than Na and Stosur if one wins a 2nd slam, due to all her small tournament wins and time at number 1.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2013
    #31
  32. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, ha ha, what a gif ! :)
     
    #32
  33. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    hey, I do not need to have a poll to tell me who the better player is. It is not a popularity contest. Stats speak for themselves:
    Career record; Myskina 355-192. Wozniacki 352-131
    highest ranking; Myskina 2. Wozniacki 1
    Slams result: Myskina: 1Win + 5Qf. Wozniacki 1F + 3SF + 2QF
    Titles; Myskina 10. Wozniacki 20
    Tier 1 titles; Myskina 2. Wozniacki 5
    WTA championships F: Myskina never qualified. Wozniacki 1 final
    against top 10: Myskina 89-90. Wozniacki 84-66

    if you are saying that a single Slam Win makes Myskina a better player - so be it. Because other than that all other metrics are definitely in Wozniacki favor.


    No, I do not think that Wozniacki is better than Na or Stosur. That is because both Na and Stosur managed to have great results outside a single slam win as well. As far as Kvitove - well, she did not do much since her Slam win so the jury is still out.
    All I'm saying that claiming that Wozniacki career is a disaster because she does not have a Slam is just silly.
    Also - the rankings have been discussed many times here. it is a fair reflection of one's performance over a 52 week period. Womens and Mens ranking system is pretty much the same. Just because you value a Slam win much, much more than any other tour win does not make it more valuable in tennis sense. They decided that Slam win is worth twice as many points as a tier 1 tour win - and i think that is fair. yet even taking this twice-as-important Slam win into ranking consideration wozniacki still managed to be ranked #1. It's not because 'ranking is a total joke' - it's because she played great over 52 week period.

    edited: originally erroneously stated that Myskina's highest ranking was 15. It was in fact #2. Thanks to NadalAgassi for pointing out the error.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
    #33
  34. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,511
    Yes, that makes her a better player. Rankings are irrelevant if one cannot win the most important titles in the sport. This is the reason Safina's infamous preference of the #1 rank over a major made her one of tennis history's most idiotic players, and was and remains deserving of world wide criticism.
     
    #34
  35. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    ok, let's play a trivia game:

    Who is a better player (I've modified the stats to make players more anonymous :):

    player A; win/loss 380-192 (66%), titles 15, highest ranking; top 3, no slam win, 5 master titles

    player B: win/loss 415-247 (63%), titles 10, highest ranking: top 3, one slam win, 1 master title

    player C: win/loss 500-250 (66%), titles 19, highest ranking: top 5, no slam, 1 master title

    player D: win/loss 360-292 (55%), titles 9, highest ranking inside top 10, one slam win, 1 master title

    could you rank them?
     
    #35
  36. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,511
    You are dancing around your original point:

    That was your point--centering on the major-less Wozniacki based on stats which are meaningless compared to the main reason to play pro tennis.

    Any player failing to do that is wasting their time.
     
    #36
  37. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,990
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    I don't follow women's tennis that closely so can someone explain to me why there are so many more slamless #1's on the women's side than the men's? Seriously this is not even an ISSUE on the men's side, is it just that the best women players like Serena and Clijsters don't/didn't have the same dedication to the sport as guys like Federer and Djokovic?
     
    #37
  38. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,925
    Love watching her play. So refreshing and such a contrast to most on the WTA tour.
     
    #38
  39. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    I'm not sure why you say I'm dancing around anything. I have noted that I do not believe that winning a slam is the only thing that makes/breaks one's tennis career (I hope you detected sarcasm in my previous posts). To state my point I have compared stats of few players that indeed did win a slam versus Wozniacki's stats. You keep saying that despite significantly better stats on Wozniacki side the other players are still better - because they won a slam.

    So to remove emotional attachment to names I have asked you to just rate the players based solely on stats - just to see if you indeed would rate slam-less ones below those that did win a slam. I'm still waiting.

    If no-slam results are meaningless - why do we have year round WTA and ATP tour? Let them just play four times a year and call it a day.
     
    #39
  40. sundaypunch

    sundaypunch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,654
    Laughable.

    There isn't a tennis player alive that wouldn't find value in being able to say they were #1 in the world. It is only pointless to some of the teenagers here.
     
    #40
  41. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,511
    No, you're playing a game, as you tried to make a value judgement regarding Wozniacki's stats, but you have yet to prove winning majors--just starting with one--is (by a wild stretch of the imagination) of less value than collecting meaningless events' stats, or a hollow occupation of a ranking.

    It is the historic understanding that winning a major is the key point of playing tennis--no one debates that. If a player cannot do that, there is nothing he or he can do to pad a stat sheet enough to make such a career more significant than one who won the defining prize of the sport.

    If majors were of little value compared to every other title--the argument you make in trying to inflate any major-less number ones' career--then why the historic value of the majors above all other events? Why are the majors the far and away focus of professional players? Why not just treat them like any other random event? Why were/are major-less #1 players such as Safina, Jankovic and Wozniaki routinely criticized at the time they held that ranking?
     
    #41
  42. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    I never said that winning a major is 'of less value than collecting meaningless events' stats, or a hollow occupation of a ranking'. I've said that one's career is judged by a whole body of work:slams, titles, winning percentage, ranking, etc, etc. Main point being that winning a Slam is a part of that body of work. Very important part - but not the only.

    If you feel that - why don't you want to rank the players I have posted stats of couple of posts back? It should be easy - if you feel slams are one and only defining result why don't you just rank those players accordingly to that criteria? You do not need to know names, do you? Why are you hesitant about ranking those players?

    Again, I never said that majors are 'of little value compared to every other title'. In fact I've stated that WTA and ATP tour placed a measurable value of Slam title vs. non-Slam title, and the Slams are worth twice as much (meaning they are twice as important/recognized) as Tier 1 Title. Seems fair to me. Due to historical reasons I can even see that a Slam win 'counts' as more than that. But I do not agree that it is one and only criteria.

    As far as criticizing Safina/Jankovic/Wozniacki - sure, it would definitely help if they won a Slam too. No one debates that. So? That doesn't mean that non-winning a Slam makes one's career a disaster. plus I make no argument for Safina or Jankovic here. This is about Wozniacki.
     
    #42
  43. single_handed_champion

    single_handed_champion Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    LOL well done.
     
    #43
  44. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Before Murray won the USO, in early 2012 Murray said his goal was to be rank #1 in the world. While some of you think ranking means nothing, but ranking is important to the players. Murray, Radwanska is just an example.
     
    #44
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Winning a slam doesn't necessary mean he/she's a better player than a player who only reach #1. Korda won the slam and never reach #1, while Rios never won a slam but he was #1. However everyone knows Rios is a better player than Korda.
     
    #45
  46. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    1. That is not at all true. Many would say Korda was the better player.

    2. The only reason some would say Rios is the better player is he was an incredible talent, one of the most talented players of his whole era, and a huge underachiever, and people seem to love those ubertalented underachievers and inflate them. Obviously people like Wozniacki and Radwanska who have marginal talent and overachieve to even do what they have do not fall into this category.
     
    #46
  47. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Myskina`s highest ranking was #15!?!?!? Myskina's highest ranking was number 2 in the World, and she was solidly in the top ten for numerous years. She reached that ranking of number 2 during a period you had prime Henin, prime Sharapova, Serena Williams coming back from injury but very strong and near the top, Venus close to her best, Davenport still right up there, Mauresmo at her best. Imagine Wozniacki ever reaching #2 in such a field. Thus one can already conclude barely into your long winded post you dont have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to such players.

    Furthermore you foolishly convince yourself reaching number 1 in womens tennis in 2010 and 2011 gets the same value attached to it as reaching a certain rank in another era. This is far from the case, as everyone knows that was an all time low point for the womens game. People just look at that period and laugh that is when the womens game hit a crisis for a few years when clowns like Safina, Jankovic, Ivanovic (although with a slam title, and 3 slam finals, she far exceeds the other 3), Wozniacki all reached #1, and that is that. Would Wozniacki have had a hope in hell of exceeding Myskina`s highest ever rank (number 2) or Majoli`s highest ever rank (number 4) when those women played. Would she have ever fpr a moment been ranked number 1 in place of Graf, Hingis, Serena, or Henin who were the only number 1s when those players were in their primes. Something below 0% chance. Thus that in no way makes Wozniacki better, but her failure to win a slam, even make more than 1 slam final, or even win an event a level below the slams like the Olympics or WTA Championships, all makes her worse. As for the career W-L record, well that for Wozniacki will only get worse as she keeps playing, that much is obvous already.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2013
    #47
  48. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The only reason Serena is considered inferior to players like Graf and Martina (if she is), is because she still doesnt have as many slam titles, and because she has only 1 French Open. That plus she doesnt have a year to match Graf's 88-89 or Martina's 83-84. If she wins a few more slams many more will have her at the same level. Nobody cares about weeks at #1 in the post divisor ranking era on the WTA, when rankings became a joke long before the farcial #1s of Wozniacki, Jankovic, and Safina.
     
    #48
  49. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Well you would be better off trying to make an argument for them before Wozniacki. Safina has 3 slam finals and an Olympic final. Jankovic has won the prestigious Miami event, a bigger event than any Wozniacki has won, twice. Thus both had better careers than Wozniacki. Wozniacki is the bottom of the rung of awful #1s, widely regarded as the worst ever, so why you would use the very bottom run of the totem poll to try and make your point is beyond me, other than you liking a challenge apparently.
     
    #49
  50. klu375

    klu375 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    503
    Radwanska is an example of pure talent. All her strengths - cool head, court awareness, read of the opponent cannot be taught, they are natural.
    She has pretty flowed technique, average athleticism and not much power. But she still wins. If she is not a talent then who is? Sharapova?
     
    #50

Share This Page