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. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    He seems like he's scrambling to give a loser such as Wozniacki some sort of credit she never deserved. She failed to win a major, so she's inferior to any so-called "one major wonder."
     
    #51
  2. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    So technique, athleticsm, and power are no part of talent at all?!? Radwanska has more talent than Wozniacki I agree, but no I would not say she is more talented than Sharapova, as much as I dislike Maria and her playing style. Marias overall firepower, groundstroke ability, overall shotmaking ability, serve and return of serve skills, and deep rooted intense will to win already make her a more talented player than Radwanska.
     
    #52
  3. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,290
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    Wozniacki did win Indian Wells in 2011. I agree with the rest of your post.
     
    #53
  4. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Maybe I am a bit outdated in my thinking but Miami for the longest time was called the unofficial 5th major (really more like the 6th as the ATP or WTA World Championships was probably always bigger). Indian Wells was never called that by anyone. I think it is a level above Indian Wells in prestige, or atleast previously was, maybe not as much anymore.
     
    #54
  5. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    yes, you are correct here. I've made a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

    By 'numerous' you mean two, right? She was year-end top ten in 2003 (7), and 2004 (3).

    You are suggesting that is better than Wozniacki? Ended Top ten 2009 (4), 2010 (1), 2011 (1), and 2012 (10), plus she is in the top ten right now as well.

    sure I can imagine that. But since we will never know - what's the point?

    If my post are too hard to understand for you please let me know. I'll reword them to make them easier for you.

    You keep repeating 'everybody knows', '#1 does not matter', and so on. You fail to see that the entire body of work counts.

    I certainly do not think that Wozniacki is better than Graf/Hingis/Serena/Henin/Davenport - but that is not what the argument is. The crux of the discussion is that it is certainly possible to have a great career and not win a Slam.

    To support that I have provided examples of pretty good players that did win a Slam yet, based on stats rather than personal bias, it would be hard to argue those players are better than slam-less Wozniacki. But you remain unconvinced - which is fine with me.
     
    #55
  6. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to quote your post here so I can refer to it later if needed.

    you know - to remind someone that if even if you achieved #1 ranking, reached Slam and Year-End finals, won multiple Tier 1 titles, and are consistent top ten player you are still just a loser.
     
    #56
  7. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Well you just keep imagining that. Look what happened to Wozniacki once the womens field simply got a bit less dire (still very weak, but slightly above the all time low of 2010-2011). She dropped from #1 to year end #10, and is continuing to drop. This only suggests that in a truly strong field, the like which both Myskina and Majoli played in, Wozniacki would be lucky to be in the top 20.

    Myskina at her best had wins over people like prime Henin, prime Hingis, prime Davenport, prime Venus Williams, prime Capriati, the kind of players it is hard to imagine Wozniacki ever beating even a single time other than maybe an odd win over Capriati or a prime Venus on a really bad day on a clay court only, but definitely never a win over prime Henin or Hingis who she would have nothing to hurt even on a bad day. Majoli likewise in her prime could beat anyone on clay atleast, something that cant be said about Wozniacki on any surface.


    Yes you posted some stats Wozniacki is superior in, but that alone is not foolproof evidence those particular stats are worth more than the pivotal stat that is a slam title. I have already said there are some slamless players I consider better than Myskina, Majoli, and Schiavone. Someone like Sukova who reached 4 slam finals, Dementieva who won Olympic Gold, numerous tier 1s at a strong time for the womens game, 2 slam finals in the same year, and someone like Shriver who sat behind Martina and Chris in singles and was part of the all time greatest doubles team. I also noted if Wozniacki even had won something like the WTA Championships, Olympics, or even maybe Miami, events clearly behind the caliber of a slam but clearly above anything she ever managed, or made more than 1 slam final, I could see the case for her. However not only was she too weak to ever win a slam, she was too weak to even win any of the tournaments the level below a slam. So as it is her stats, which are mostly based upon quite small tournament wins and time at #1 at a time of a hugely controversial ranking system and a historical all time worst field, and saw her drop hard and quickly almost/right out of the top 10 after that, are atleast for me insufficient to place her above any slam winner, unless possibly it is of the most fraudelent and bottom barrel variety of all like Chris O Neill or Barbara Jordan.
     
    #57
  8. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,409
    Location:
    USA
    #58
  9. Magnetite

    Magnetite Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    907
    She needs to add power to her game if she's going to win a major. She always does well, and then gets blown off the court by a more powerful opponent who is in form.

    That or she gets lucky, and her opponents (Serena, Na, Azarenka, Kvitova, Stosur, Sharapova) are all having a bad day when/if they play her in a major.
     
    #59
  10. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    Refer to it all you like, run around this as much as you like, but the number one job of a pro tennis player is to win majors. Ranking and minor events do not count, which is why above all else, history measures players not by minor events, but by the majors. The only thing to top winning one major or multiple random majors is winning the Grand Slam.

    Whether one is talking about players on the levels of Myskina, Novotna, Pierce, Capriati, Martina, Serena or Graf, Wozniacki has no place among them, as she fails to do her one job. There's no getting around that, and if you have not noticed, history does not reward stat sheets made up minor events, or a hollow ranking sans majors.
     
    #60
  11. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Graf is widely considered the GOAT over Navratilova because of the Grand Slam. After all Navratilova has 60 more tournament titles in singles, over 200 more in singles/doubles/mixed combined, the record at Wimbledon and the WTA Championships whereas Graf doesnt hold one anywhere, and had a fellow GOAT as her biggest rival while Graf's biggest rival was stabbed and thus only had to play her a couple years. Yet despite all that the Grand Slam Graf won has her as the #1 women player of all time, and Court who also won the Grand Slam probably as #2, with Navratilova and her failure to win the Grand Slam no higher than #3. Many have Maureen Connolly top 5 when she won only 9 slams, and had her career cut short by a tragic accident, so would barely be top 10 (if that) if it werent for the fact she also won the holy grail of tennis, the Grand Slam, again showing its importance. Don Budge is another example as many have him top 8 all time, when his career otherwise would be barely worth top 20 all time, all because he won the Grand Slam. Laver though did not only win 1 slam, he won 3, the amateur Grand Slam of 1962, the pro Grand Slam of 1967, and the Open Era Grand Slam of 1969 vs probably the strongest mens field in history, thus making the undisputed GOAT until someone wins atleast 1 Grand Slam, and perhaps even 2, as well as about or more than 20 slams. You can say I am not a Federer fan all you like, but in a hypthetical scenario if say Nadal who I am obviously a big fan of were to win 19 slams, 1 Calendar Grand Slam, atleast 2 of every slam, set the record of most Wimbledon finals (to go along with atleast 4 titles), and win 10 French Opens, I would still say that is probably insufficient to rank over Laver.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 13, 2013
    #61
  12. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Graf is not considered above Martina because of the Grand Slam. It's because she has more slams. Martina won 4 slams in a row.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
    #62
  13. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    first - Wozniacki has finished in top ten 4 years straight. She is going to be in Top ten this year too.

    second - you do realize what the field looked like when Myskina ended #2 (in 2004), don't you? She had to compete against such stalwarts of women's tennis as (from top 20):
    Molik,
    Schnyder,
    Bovina,
    Suarez, Farina and the likes.

    Who are these players?

    Henin hardly played due to the sickness. Serena hasn't played too often due to various injuries. Same with Capriati. I'm pretty sure Wozniacki would manage just fine that year too.

    yap, Myskina did really well - as indicated via her losing record against top ten players. including 0-5 against Serena, and combined 7-27 against Capriati/Davenport/Henin/Mauresmo


    Myskina won two Tier 1 titles (there were no Premier mandatory/Premier and the such at those days). You know which ones? - Kremlin Cup twice. She annihilated such players as: (in 2003) Serna, Daniilidou, Pistolesi, and finally Mauresmo. in 2004 she blew through the field of: Likhovsteva, Zvonareva, Davenport, and Dementieva. Yes, four matches per title. These are her most significant wins apart from French Open.

    By comparison, Wozniacki has two Premier Mandatory titles, and three Premier 5 titles. And just so you know - per WTA points, draw size, and monetary rewards both Indian Wells and China Open are worth as much as Miami. and you need to win six matches.

    Could you also please explain what you mean by 'hugely controversial ranking system'? It has been the same for years, and it is virtually the same for men and women.
     
    #63
  14. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    So you just pick random players out of the top 30!? Today you could name players who make the top 5 (Errani, Kerber, Radwanska) and most of them are a joke, who only a diehard tennis fan 10 years from now will remember existed.

    Henin- won Australian Open, Olympics, 5 tournaments, ranked #1 most of the year.

    Capriati- made semis of French and U.S Open with wins over Serena.

    Serena- won Miami, made finals of Wimbledon and WTA Championships, made quarters or better of the 5 biggest events she played.

    Kuznetsova- won U.S Open, had match point vs eventual champion at the French Open, won Eastborne, won numerous other events.

    Sharapova- won Wimbledon and the WTA Championships. Was named WTA Player of Year.

    Davenport- won about 6 tournaments, came close to winning Wimbledon and the U.S Open

    Mauresmo- won many tier 1 tournaments, and came close in all the big events, usually losing a very close semifinal or quarterfinal she had chances to win. Reached #1 for a few weeks late in the year.

    Dementieva- reached 2 slam finals.

    So as you can see lots of big names, players the level who Wozniacki has never shown the capacity to compete with near their primes, were all fareing very well that year. Wozniacki might reach #9 for a brief spot at best.


    What is Wozniacki's combined record vs Henin, Clijsters, and Serena? Even worse, and she only played those players all really old (Serena) or way past their primes (Henin and Clijsters) and they still always beat her. I dread to imagine her playing such people 5-10 years earlier, but the record would be a whole lot worse than 7-27. Heck she had to wait for Jankovic to be way past her prime to finally get her first wins over her in 2011, even in 2010 she couldnt beat her yet.

    It has not been the same for years. In the early 2000s the WTA changed the old ranking system which was the divisor system, where a player only had to play 12 events to be on par with the others, as if you played 12 or less your ranking points were divided by 12, and anymore you played than that were divided by the exact number you play. They also awarded quality points for beating higher ranked opponents. The new absurd ranking system allows you to count your best 17 results and eliminate the rest, which rewards workhorses like Wozniacki and Radwanska who are willing to play 25-30 tournaments a year, and can simply throw out a string of 1st and 2nd round losses, and also win enough New Haven type events to equal or surpass the value of a slam by method of addition rather than through division like it used to be. Their inability to beat other top players is also now a non factor as bonus points for quality wins have gone out. Given that you are the same one who thought Myskina's career high ranking was #15 (LOL) I would not be at all surprised you are so out of touch with reality to not realize the WTA rankings have been constantly ridiculed by fans, journalists, expets, and former champions themselves, for a number of years now.
     
    #64
  15. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    Exactly; when she won the 1988 USO--and with that the Grand Slam, the talk was that she was already the GOAT, even though she had numerous years of majors yet to win.

    The Grand Slam is the ultimate achievement for the true GOAT--the reason why Graf (and Laver) are held in that special regard.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013
    #65
  16. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    @NadalAgassi - so you are suggesting that right now both WTA and ATP ranking systems are completely useless? Because they are virtually identical....
    So when next week Serena is (most likely) ranked #1 that does not mean a thing either? So she is --not-- going to be considered the best player over past 52 weeks?

    yes, the system is ridiculed. In US. Just wait till next weeks when Serena is ranked #1 under the very same system, let's see how often the system will be criticized. (nothing against Serena, this 'ridiculing the system' is purely commentators bs)
     
    #66
  17. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The ATP and WTA ranking systems are not identical in any way, shape, or form. The ATP requires points to be given to each player for each slam and each Masters event, with a minimum number of small tournaments allowed to count. Wozniacki and Radwanska have many years that 12 of their 17 counting results are events 500 level or lower, but if they played on the ATP that would be 5 maximum. The ATP ranking system is not at all alike to either the current WTA or the former WTA (which btw was better than both the current ATP or current WTA) systems, so your comment makes no sense.

    As for your Serena comment, Serena outside of 2004-early 2008 when Henin was considered the top dog, has been considered the best player on the planet ever since 2002 regardless where she is ranked. That said Azarenka did IMO deserve her number 1 ranking of last year, totally unlike Wozniacki in 2011 who clearly did not, just as Serena deserved her accolades as having the best year and being the best player in the World at the time. Being considered the best player, deserving the number 1 ranking, and being actually ranked number 1, are 3 entirely seperate entities at times in the WTA, and Wozniacki never met more than the last of those three, Azarenka has already progressed further and already met two of the three, and may be set to conquer the third this year. Please dont make me laugh even more than you already have in this thread and suggest Wozniacki was ever considered the best player in the World at any point in time while she was ranked number 1.
     
    #67
  18. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    Most people pick Federer is a goat. The argument that a GS is a must in order to be a goat only applies to a few poster on TT. Even Laver have stated Roger is the greatest, same with Sampras who conceded in 2009.

    BTW, ESPN has teamed up to determine the greatest athlete of all time, and Roger represent tennis, not Laver.
     
    #68
  19. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    ....and without a single major.
     
    #69
  20. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,012
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Do you even understand the WTA ranking system? Only a players 16 best results are allowed to count. A player can play as many tournament as she darn well wants but only the best 16 count. Certain events are required to count (the majors, the premier mandatory and the 2 best results from the premier 5s). If you skip any of these events you get a zero you cannot remove. The rule is different for players not in the top 20 but we are talking top 20 players here. So based on this there are, for top 20 ladies, 10 top events which must this count. After this you have 6 out of 16 to do with what you want
    Only the top 16 count. But ten of those for top 20 players must be from specific tournaments.

    Now if your beef is that you can technically play till you drop to get good results for those remaining 6 spots that count than ok. But you cannot throw out any bad result.
     
    #70
  21. Fiji

    Fiji Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,189
    Or because of 7654 at the 4 slams.

    Certainly more balanced than Navratilova's 9432.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2013
    #71
  22. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    These are all top 20 players from year-end 2004.

    will get back to you on this one in ten years.


    I'm glad you provided those stats. Let's put those in proper context of what transpired in 2004.

    Henin: "At the start of the 2004 spring clay court season, Henin's health was adversely affected by infection with a strain of cytomegalovirus and an immune system problem. She often slept up to 18 hours a day and barely had the strength to brush her teeth, let alone play competitive tennis.
    [...]
    After months of layoff because of a virus, Henin returned to competition in August." - yet she managed to finish in top ten and won few tournaments. Must have been tough competition.

    Capriati: 'Injuries plagued Capriati's 2004 season. A back injury suffered during the 2003 WTA Tour Championships forced Capriati to withdraw from the 2004 Australian Open and the Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo. Capriati advanced beyond the quarterfinals just once in her first four events of the year in Doha, losing to Anastasia Myskina in the semifinals. Her back continued to be an issue, forcing her out of Indian Wells and Miami. Her ranking dropped to number 10 as a result of her injuries.
    [...] A hamstring injury forced her to withdraw from Los Angeles and San Diego, [...] Capriati failed to qualify for the season-ending championships for the first time since 1999. She finished the year World No. 10." - yet she managed to finish in top ten and won few tournaments. Must have been tough competition.

    Serena: "On September 14, 2003, while Williams was still recovering from surgery, her sister Yetunde Price was murdered. Williams withdrew from the Australian Open to continue rehabilitating her left knee. She then withdrew from further tournaments, which generated speculation that she was losing interest in the sport.[24] After eight months away from the tour [...]. " - yet she managed to finish in top ten and won few tournaments. Must have been tough competition.

    these are just few examples of stellar landscape of WTA 2004 season - the season in which Myskina did her best and therefore, according to you, cemented her name in tennis history. Above Wozniacki of course :roll:
     
    #72
  23. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    in addition to excellent response from BOREDONE, you may want to read this:
    http://footfault.net/2012/11/06/how-different-are-the-wta-and-atp-rankings/ which discusses what the womens ranking under ATP system would be (and vice-versa). But than again - why get facts in a way of an argument...

    It's fine to argue your opinion - but if you do not have facts straight than it is pointless...
     
    #73
  24. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    that is only true if your favorite player happens not to be ranked #1. See, tennis, unlike gymnastic or diving, is a measurable sport. We do not go by opinions or feelings. We go by results. By regulations and accepted method of competition of a given sport. Wozniacki ended the year #1 two years in a row which makes her the best player for past 100 or so weeks. Whether it is because other players did not play well, did not play enough, were injured, uninterested, bored, or whatever - the fact remains. Of course she is not better than many players over the course of respective careers - but she was for those two years.

    We do not go by 'like' button. You may argue all you want that Patriots were the best team in 2007 - but they were not, the Giants were.
    you may argue that if not for injuries Greg Oden would be the best center ever - but he is not.
    you may argue that if not for knees Nadal would be the best ever (he still may be) - but right now he is not.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2013
    #74
  25. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    Ahhh! Now you are getting down to it..and history has consistently measured success based on winning majors, with the Grand Slam being the ultimate achievement, not insignificant rankings / winning minor events.

    Yes, and by history's criteria for results, Wozniacki is not to be considered superior to players who won just one major. To argue anything else is the height of emotionalism.
     
    #75
  26. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    Why are people talking about Graf and Serena? This thread is supposed to be about Agnieszka Radwanska and her climb to the top of the women's game.
     
    #76
  27. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    ROTFFLLLLLL this is f-ing hilarious. This will be my sig. You do realize only 0.0001% of people who were aware of tennis felt Wozniacki was ever the best player on the planet I hope, including even most Wozniacki fans. On the WTA forum the Wozniacki fans (except the very famous 2 or 3 most tardish and ridiculed ones) dont dare even try and argue Wozniacki was the "best player" during her stint at #1, merely try and argue she deserved the #1 ranking with the paraphrase "look we all know she isnt the best player, and she didnt have the greatest year, but the ranking system....." (hence hoping she can merely reach the Azarenka level of credability like I said), and failing quite badly to convince others even of that. There wasnt a single expert, writer, or former player who ever said the words "Wozniacki the best player in the World today" or when asked would say she was. Her 2011 year end #1 (not even talking about such absurd Woz fantasies as best player, but even the mere ranking itself) was considered so illegitimate that not a single governing body, including the WTA who made the system, named her as Player of the Year; all unaminously picking the computer #2 who won a slam, the biggest non slam, atleast 4 tournaments bigger than Wozs 2nd biggest of the year, a better W-L record and winning %, and titles across all surfaces, essentialy embarassing the computer #1 to levels never before seen. You are truly a delusional fanboy who lives in their own fantasy World, and I am done with you.

    Lastly your Patriots and Giants example is quite the joke as well. The Giants were the best team in 2007 since they won the big game- the Super Bowl, the only one that really matters, and hence it overcomes even the Patriots nearly perfect and historic great season, which had there been a ranking system in place they would have been ahead by miles and thus by your convulted logic by far the best team. The Giants under an official ranking system with their regular season record probably would have only been ranked about 6th even with the points allocated for winning the Super Bowl. Even your examples never amount to anything, in fact everyone of them only helps prove me right.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2013
    #77
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    The WTA count the best 16 results while the ATP count the best 18. Since the men can play more tennis to rack up points, there isn't any criticism about the ranking system. The notion about players can play endlessly and accumulate all the points they want is INCORRECT. 16 tournaments per year for a full time tennis player is perfectly fine. Any player who play less has no one but herself to blame.
     
    #78
  29. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    i'm still waiting for you to rank those four player's I have posted stats of a while back. Could you kindly explain why yo refuse to do so if winning a single slam makes one automatically a better player than any player that did not win one?
     
    #79
  30. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    i take it as a compliment that you take part of my post as your signature.

    i'm not particularly fan of Wozniacki, Myskina, or Serena, or any other player for that matter. This is just a silly internet discussion no one cares about, no need to get emotional.

    You are presenting arguments about some forum (whether its the players, the writers, or whatever) --picking-- a best player. Which is fine for a poll. You can make a poll or ask players/commentators who was the best player in AO - and most, if not all of them, would say Serena. that does not make her a winner according to the rules.

    Since the ranking system has not changed in almost ten years, I'm going to therefore assume that because it is so flawed it never has, and never will reflect the relative performance of the players. Sure, let's just have writers vote each week on who should be ranked where - that will be way more fair.

    You have nothing left but cling to a Slam win as a single (not the most important but one and only) criteria to judge a tennis player. Indeed, there's not much else to discuss as no matter what stats say you come back to a lack of Slam win. Cool. let me be unconvinced however.

    You are missing the point. In football the only criteria is SuperBowl win. Nothing else matters. There's no official ranking of teams, there are no points awarded for a win, you do not win any other title. thus this is the only thing that matters.

    In tennis Slam is one of many criteria. Very important. Perhaps the most important. But not the only. You can't dismiss other accomplishments because those are part of tennis tour. It can be easily argued that in the past AO, while a Slam, had less prestige than other tournaments. It can be argued that Federer's record of being ranked #1 (and not the Slam count only) is what makes him the greatest ever. The mere fact that it can be (and is) argued means that there's more to tennis career than a Slam.
     
    #80
  31. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    sure - could you point me to an official statement from, ATP or WTA or ITF or historians or other governing body that states that SLAM WINS is the only criteria by which we shall judge one's career?
     
    #81
  32. Xavier G

    Xavier G Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    516
    I like Radwanska, hope she wins a GS or two. If she does, the no.1 ranking may come to her. I thought she might win the AO, then loses to Li Na, who IS a fine player, but Aggie lost in the last 16 of the US to Vinci, I think. She has to find a way to win these matches more consistently. Aggie needs a bit more weight of shot and aggression at times, not just wait for the other player to make an error.
     
    #82
  33. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    Sigh. Now you are just posting for the sake of it. Point to a source where its not used as the criteria by which professional tennis careers are judged. Let's pretend when Federer was judged as superior to Sampras, it was not due to winning majors but by minor events. Let's also pretend that the moment Laver or Graf won their respective Grand Slams, their careers were not judged on that supreme accomplishment, but based on a pile of nowhere events (such as the only kind won by Wozniacki).

    Keep playing this 'lil game of trying to elevate Wozniacki. For every time you criticize any majors winner, it only shines a bright light on Wozniacki's career failing.
     
    #83
  34. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    No it is you who is missing the point. The main point of tennis rankings is a seeding system, a way to make draws. So while they are supposed to roughly indicate who some of the better players are (eg- only someone doing fairly well on tour will be seeded, only someone doing very well on tour will be a top 8 seed) they are in no way some foolproof evidence of who the best players are in exact order. The WTA themselves dont even believe so as they awarded the Player of the Year award to the computer year end #1 only FOUR times in the last 14 years (and pretty much 3 of 14 as Safina spent almost all of 2009 as computer #1):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTA_Awards

    It is also a way to give a tangible reward to those who support the tour. I am sure the tour loves the Wozniackis and Radwanskas of the World, as they help fill tournament draws and give even smallish events most times the truly great players couldnt be bothered to play some drawing power, and they are rewarded with often inflated (per ability and performance level) inflated rankings which aid them by getting easier draws at big events, a bit more fame than they would have otherwise, and all the perks of a higher ranking, but it does not make them the best, and even the WTA make abundantly clear they dont feel it does. Do you notice Wozniacki who was ranked #1 for all but 1 week from a period of time in 2010 to early 2012 picked as the Player of the Year by the WTA, the very creators of the points system that put her at #1 all that time, a single year in the link I posted? Yep I thought so.

    Also telling and contrary to your own logic that the WTA themselves did not name a player who failed to win a slam as Player of the Year ever, and in fact only once in the 36 year history of the award did they award it to a player who won fewer slams than another (1987 Graf who won 1 slam over Navratilova who won 2). In 1987 however Graf won 12 of 14 tournaments she entered vs 4 of 13 for Navratilova, and 11 of 11 non slam events (including victories at the unofficial 5th and 6th majors at the WTA Championships and Miami) vs 2 of 9 for Navratilova, indicating the HUGE difference in non slam achievements it takes to overcome a single slam in even their eyes. The rest of the tour is a tiebreaker for those players who each win the same # of slams or dont win any slams (which is 99.9% of the tour), including of course non winning result of slams. Thus the WTA themselves show, a slam win if managed almost without fail trumps their entire tour and anything else that might happen in it.

    Like I have already stated numerous times there are some slamless players who I would rank over Myskina, Majoli, and Schiavone. Shriver, Dementieva, and Sukova, are three I definitely would. However unlike those players Wozniacki has not even achieved enough outside of her failure to win a slam to merit ranking over any slam winner (outside the fluke fraudelent Australian Open winners O Neill and Jordan, that is it). She was not only too weak to win a slam, she was even too weak to win one of the biggest events outside a slam such as the Olympics, WTA Championships, or even Miami, Rome, or the Federation Cup. She did not reach a 2nd slam final, nor even reach a single slam final during her 2 years as computer year end #1. She also failed to do this while peaking in what almost all agree was the worst womens field in the over 100 year history of the sport, in 2010 and 2011. Thus that is why you are essentialy alone in thinking Wozniacki is better than any slam winner. Keep in mind Wozniacki is not close to being even the best slamless player, and when the topic of best player not to win a slam comes up Wozniacki's name is never discussed. Only the topic of the worst ever #1 along with Safina and Jankovic does her name get reference.

    There are some things that can overcome a slam but reaching only 1 slam final, winning no title bigger than Indian Wells, winning only 2 of the somewhat prestigious regular tour events (Indian Wells and Canada each once), and being the most controversial #1 in history even at the time of the worst womens field in history, is not among them. Even a fluke slam winner (minus the period the Australian Open was a non attended and ilegitimate slam) of the highest degree still trumps that entire career no problem.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2013
    #84
  35. cork_screw

    cork_screw Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,568
    This is the WTA, anything could happen. Datte Krumme could be #1 in the world. If kleybanova is in the top 100 there is a problem. And she isn't the only fatty invading the WTA, there's a few more. But the WTA is in a sorry state.
     
    #85
  36. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    Of course there isn't such source. Why would it be? Who is saying that SLAM Wins are not used as a criteria of one's greatness?
     
    #86
  37. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    yah, I now think you may be right. Today's Serena's post match interview (you can see it here http://www.wtatennis.com/news/article/3077656/title/warrior-serena-makes-history-in-doha) proved your point. She was not at all interested in being ranked #1 again, placed no importance on it, and frankly was not aware she would be #1, and was crying probably because the wind got in her eyes. :roll:
     
    #87
  38. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    I knew you could not post anything proving the majors were not the measure of success/historic importance in professional tennis, or more to your hollow point--that minor events mean anything...like Wozniacki's "career."
     
    #88
  39. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    radwanska can buy the number 1 ranking from 31 year-old Queen Serena on Monday.
     
    #89
  40. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    I'm sorry, I do not get your point. Of course Slams are the measure of one's career - just not the only measure.

    And apparently I again made an unclear post - so let me reword that for you. If, as per you statements, rankings, and being ranked #1 is irrelevant/does not matter/is insignificant due to a flawed system - why was Serena so moved today when she reached #1 ranking again (and deservedly so)? Is she like unstable or something that something such meaningless brings her to tears?
     
    #90
  41. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    jmnk,
    you don't have to prove anything. It's THUNDERVOLLEY who stated that the slam is the only criteria uses to judge one's career, so the burden is on her to provide sources to prove his claim.
     
    #91
  42. cork_screw

    cork_screw Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,568
    Losers can dream too, you know.
     
    #92
  43. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    Try explaining why Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki were all criticized while holding the #1 ranking.

    This is not the Riddle of the Ages.

    The moment you do, then your position:

    Is as hollow as ever, since Myskina, Schiavone, or Majoli were never the subject of controversy like your heroine Wozniacki.

    Again, there is a reason, but given the flow of this thread, i'm not betting you will address the reason in proper fashion.
     
    #93
  44. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,212
    Besides Rios > Korda, but there's Nalbandian > Gaudio. And not only Nalbandian never won a slam, but he never reached #1. Clearly a single slam winner doesn't equate a better player than a non-slam winner(even a non-number one rank).
     
    #94
  45. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Another poor example. Gaudio had no other decent slam showings, heck I dont think he even had another QF, never reached a Masters final, and only won 2 career 500 tournaments. He is considered the poorest player to ever win a slam title, thus he is the Chris O Neil of mens tennis, not the Majoli or Myskina. Majoli and Myskina have won some tier 1 and Premier titles, and Schiavone even has a repeat slam final at the very venue she won at next year. Gaudio is one of the few who reaches the extreme level of incompetence outside of his slam win to possibly be placed below some of the best slamless (which Wozniacki and Radwanska arent even at this point anyway) players. Nalbandian has also won the ATP World Championships, a WAY bigger event than anything Wozniacki was able to manage, has reached atleast the semis of all 4 slams, and was in and around the top 5 for atleast 5 years unlike Wozniacki who will end her career having only had a 2 year stint even in the top 7 or 8, so has had a way better career than the likes of Wozniacki or Radwanska (though Radwanska has a chance to catch up, forget the washed up Wozniacki ever doing so).

    It is you who keeps saying that anyone is saying no slamless player can never ever be above any player with a slam. This is not the case. There are some rare (they are very rare, hence why you were only able to name 2, one of which the Korda vs Rios one is actually quite debateable btw) instances that a slamess player is considered better than a 1 slam player. Wozniacki is not one of those players however. The fact is you are able to use the Nalbandian and Gaudio example as you know it atleast has some significance, but if you used Wozniacki as an example instead people would simply laugh which you even realize hence why you have to resort to other more extreme cases as your example.

    People, well not really people just TMF and jmnk who have trolled thread to death and taken it way off topic, need to be reminded again that Wozniacki is not even considered one of the best slamless players by experts or tennis fans. If you want to argue a slamless women player being considered better than many 1 slam winning women in order to make a case for Radwanskas goal(s) or the value of the #1 rank if she achieves it somehow, then argue Shriver, Dementieva, Sukova, and to a lesser degree perhaps Mary Joe Fernandez, who many people actually do, not Wozniacki who your fandom for her aside practically nobody does. When it comes to Wozniacki argue if she is better than Chris O Neill and Sharon Walsh (by far the worst 2 female slam winners), or try and argue she is better than Jankovic and not the worst ever #1, stick to something she actually might have a chance in.

    BTW TMF is so delusional he even said after 2011 that Wozniacki has had a better career than Petra Kvitova, ROTFL!!!! Presumably he still believes this, and thinks there is anyone else who also does.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2013
    #95
  46. jmnk

    jmnk Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    984
    I'm just going to point out factual errors in your post.
    There was no Premier type tournaments back in the days when Majoli and Myskina were playing.
    The Tier 1 tournament wins you are touting were:
    Myskina - 2x Kremlin Cup. Right now Kremlin Cup is a Premier tournament - which makes it third level tournament, behind Premier Mandatory and Premier 5. You know, the type of tournament that is being referred to as 'mickey -mouse' tournament when Wozniacki wins it (and btw she is indeed current Kremlin Cup title holder.)

    Majoli - Tokyo, Family Circle Cup, and Zurich. Wozniacki won Tokyo as well. Wozniacki won Family Cup as well. Zurich - it is no longer even on a calendar, it was downgraded to Tier II in its final year.

    It is really hard to argue that those wins are in any way, shape, or form better than Wozniacki's titles.

    factually incorrect. Wozniacki ended #4 in 2009, #1 2010, #1 2011. That is already 3 times in top 7.

    no, it was your buddy 'THUNDERVOLLEY' who said that a SLAM win automatically makes a given player better than a non-slam-winner player.

    I'm not arguing that Wozniacki is the best slamless player ever. I'm arguing that being a slamless player, while having a pretty good career by standards of ranking, being ranked #1, having won multiple titles, etc still makes a player a pretty good one. That having won a Slam on it's own does not necessarily make one automatically better than a non-slam winner (as evidenced by Myskina/Majoli/Schiavonne who have done rather poorly in terms of ranking/highest ranking/titles won compared to Wozniacki).
     
    #96
  47. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    BTW note how Myskina won some of those tournaments you mock so much. She won 2003 Moscow by crushing Mauresmo, one of the top 3 or 4 players in the game by far in the mid 2000s, in the final. The week before that she won Leipzig by beating peak Henin (in the midst of one of her 2 most dominant career 8 year stretches) in the final. For someone like Wozniacki that is huge by comparision, as it is something even you have to admit if you have a shread of rationalism and objectivity she would have never, ever managed to do, and certainly the kind of win she never came close to the caliber of en route to any of her tournament wins. That alone makes that, despite it being a tier 2 tournament, a bigger tournament title than any of Wozniackis. She also beat a prime Clijsters in the semis, albeit via retirement, but Wozniacki failed even once to beat a way past her prime granny Clijsters, in numerous tries.

    Then look at her 2004 Roland Garros title. Beating Venus, Capriati, and Dementieva all in straight sets. Again imagine Wozniacki even winning a tournament with a draw like that, never mind a slam. Then winning 2004 Moscow by beating #1 ranked Davenport in the semis on a fast carpet courts where she was a beast in straight sets in the semis, again something that is LOLworthy to even contemplate Wozniacki doing.

    http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/5484
    http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/5484



    As for Majoli, look at her tournament win in Tokyo (back then held at a more logical time and attracting way stronger fields than the injury withdrawal parade it is held in an obscure time of the year today). Beating Monica Seles when Seles had just won the Australian Open, Martina Hingis, and crushing Sanchez Vicario who was at the time up with Graf and Seles at the very top of the game to win it. Again what tournament has Wozniacki won with a draw like that.

    http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/5262/title/iva-majoli#results

    A few weeks later winning Essen, which despite its tier 2 status generally attracted stronger fields than many of the joke Premier Mandatories (or tier 1s) of today by beating Jana Novotna, a phenomenal grass and indoor player who would slaughter anyone not named Serena today on those surfaces, in the final. Also take note of some of her wins for her title wins in late 1995:

    http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/5262/title/iva-majoli#results

    Beating Novotna and Pierce indoors to win Zurich, then beating Pierce and Sabatini indoors to win Filderstadt, all 3 phenomenal indoor and carpet players (beating Rubin in both events who was a hot prospect at the time who would very nearly win the Australian Open months later).

    Of course winning Roland Garros 1997 by crushing the dominant #1 player Martina Hingis, and single handedly denying Hingis the Grand Slam, in the final.

    Then many years after her prime winning the tier 1 event in Charleston, beating Patty Schynder who had herself beaten Serena Williams and Jennifer Capriati back to back to reach the final.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2013
    #97
  48. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,996
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Unfairly so, IMO. It was obvious to any reasonable observer that Murray was the much better player than Del Potro. Del Potro had a great run but was nowhere near the same caliber of player, before or after Murray won his slam.
     
    #98
  49. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I actually agree. I argued in favor of Murray with no success in that case. However the fact most people believed Del Potro had a better career than Murray at that point, means there is no doubt that virtually everyone considers players like Majoli, Myskina, and even Schiavone are better players than Wozniacki.
     
    #99
  50. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,518
    All so amusing.

    You avoided the following before, so I will reiterate:


    Try explaining why Safina, Jankovic and Wozniacki were all criticized while holding the #1 ranking. What other reason posessed Federer to make negative statements about a player holding the #1 ranking who had not claimed a major--that player being Jankovic?



    ^ Since your quote places so much value on anything other than majors victories, it is fair to assume Wozniacki's former #1 status would be a credit in your mind leading to her "better" career (the tournaments you celebrate in part gave her that ranking), but Federer disrespected the idea of such a person (in that case, Jankovic) holding that rank without a major.

    Why?

    There's nowhere to run: no one sees a major-free career as anything significant at present, or in the annals of tennis history.

    Never will you find such an empty career celebrated as anything above someone who lived up to the central task of a professional tennis player.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013

Share This Page