The "What's Wrong With Her?" Thread

[iri10]

Originally Posted by Tanya

I'd say Azarenka is a bit of a stretch for this list... while she may not be as straightforwardly aggressive as someone like Sharapova or Williams she is definitely able to dictate play just as well with her shot consistency, angles, and her ability to play defense AND offense (plus she hits the ball pretty hard--a tier below Maria/Serena/Lisicki/etc but also a tier above Woz/Radwanska/Errani when it comes to power).

I'd go further and say that she's not even remotely a pusher. Azarenka tries to be the aggressor in every point, and against most players she does just that. She loves nothing more than to plant herself in the middle of the court and just tee away at the ball, forcing her opponents to scramble left and right. When Azarenka is forced to be defensive on point after point, she often loses (like her matches against Serena).

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

In response I suggest you look up what a pusher is..look at Woz and then try and tell me sharapova is a pusher because there is no way by any stretch of the imagination that she is a pusher. Sharapova is a poor womens Serena Williams in every way and if Maria is a pusher then you may as well try and call Serena one. Kvitova is a davenport clone and if you think she to is a pusher then you are wrong.

It is clear you really do not watch womens tennis because you lost all credibility by calling Sharapova a pusher.

Alright, I don't tennis religiously in comparison to you and Tanya, I'm guilty of that. Like I said before, there's literally going to be the same players in WTA (especially ATP) that's going to winning matches.

With that, there's not even a reason for me to be correct on any of this because I just don't care.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by JayChu

Please explain wth your definition of a 'pusher' is.

Does it matter? You won't agree with me. You'll just dissect my post like the other two just did.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by Tanya

Overdrive's last post has just confirmed what I believed all along: he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. I see no reason for this discussion to continue -_-

Please try to courteous to other members of the board. This is just a friendly conversation.

Like I said before, I would rather see some one else besides the same people to win matches over and over and over again. Yes, Errani can be called a 'pusher', but I don't care as long if it's some one else.....

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Alright, I don't tennis religiously in comparison to you and Tanya, I'm guilty of that. Like I said before, there's literally going to be the same players in WTA (especially ATP) that's going to winning matches.

With that, there's not even a reason for me to be correct on any of this because I just don't care.

In that case, stop posting.

[JayChu]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Does it matter? You won't agree with me. You'll just dissect my post like the other two just did.

Who said I would? I would like to know how you would define "pusher"

[Doublebounce]

Kiri is now at no. 13 in the rankings. Getting closer!

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by JayChu

Who said I would? I would like to know how you would define "pusher"

Basically a walking backboard.
Inconsistent winners. Usually win points/games/sets from UEs.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Basically a walking backboard.
Inconsistent winners. Usually win points/games/sets from UEs.

Pushers also routinely hit very few winners (like wozniacki). Sharapova is quite capable.of hitting 20-30 winners a match no problem where a true pusher could play and win a 3 set match hitting like 8 winners. Sharapova is in no way a pusher in any sense of what a pusher can be called and neither is Li. Inconsistency does not equal being a pusher.

And if you do not care or do not watch tennis, why are ypu posting on a tennis message board and commenting on players styles?

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by iri10

I'd go further and say that she's not even remotely a pusher. Azarenka tries to be the aggressor in every point, and against most players she does just that. She loves nothing more than to plant herself in the middle of the court and just tee away at the ball, forcing her opponents to scramble left and right. When Azarenka is forced to be defensive on point after point, she often loses (like her matches against Serena).

Azarenka is more a counterpuncher, although even that label seems unfair to her. I can't say she is a straight out offensive player though either.

[PSNELKE]

LOL at calling Sharapova a pusher.
She's either a winner or an Unforced Error machine due to her one dimensional playing style.

I wouldn't call Azarenka a pusher, even though she tends to retrieve like a maniac rather than going for the winner.
SheÄs more of a counter puncher.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Pushers also routinely hit very few winners (like wozniacki). Sharapova is quite capable.of hitting 20-30 winners a match no problem where a true pusher could play and win a 3 set match hitting like 8 winners. Sharapova is in no way a pusher in any sense of what a pusher can be called and neither is Li. Inconsistency does not equal being a pusher.

And if you do not care or do not watch tennis, why are ypu posting on a tennis message board and commenting on players styles?

I didn't say Li was a pusher at all. But besides that, Sharapova's banshee wailing also disrupts the rhythm of the players which can explain her winners to an extent.

I never said that i don't watch tennis. That doesn't make any sense.
Please, if you have reading glasses, use them before you post on here. If you don't have any, try to purchase some.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Tanya

She's extremely fit but has no womanly attributes--flat chest, no curves. Her body is reminiscent of a prepubescent boy. That said, she has a lovely face.

IMO the face is "meh" but the body is killer.

[hugobosstachini]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

Azarenka is more a counterpuncher, although even that label seems unfair to her. I can't say she is a straight out offensive player though either.

I'd call Victoria an aggressive baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies. This is easily verifyable by the fact that Victoria can't and doesn't even defend like a classic counter-puncher/defender which by consequence eliminates her being 100% of the two. She doesn't have the racket tricks/flicks, is often (and still) very uncomfortable in defense (doesn't use confidently other shots than her classic/traditional forehand and backhand swings) and has this typical racket head face position unawareness that better defensive players don't have even in the most complicated defensive situations.

The fact that she's not very comfortable defending with other shots than her classic forehand/backhand is extremely typical of offensive-minded counter-punchers (Li Na etc.). She very often defends with offensive-shots in defensive situations which that alone signals that she's far but light-miles from being a pusher and even counter-puncher IMO.

She's an aggressive-baseliner but it's nevertheless true that she often resorts to a "semi counter-punching" role against more powerfull players but when she has chances actually will never hesitate to actually dictate.

Lastly, her court-positioning is an absolute indication of what she's trying to do -- it's rare almost impossible to find a pusher or counter-puncher play on the baseline which Victoria does 80-90% of the time and she does the same thing against even more powerful players, observe.

Actually this is how I'd classify the 4 first categories on the tour coming from the forecourt to the backcourt:

Serve & volleyer/Server --> All-court -->
Shot-maker
Petra Kvitova

Aggressive-baseliner with shotmaking tendencies
Maria Sharapova, Li Na, Venus Williams

Aggressive-baseliner (classic)
Daniela Hantuchova, (Victoria Azarenka pre-2011/2012)

Aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies
Victoria Azarenka (actual, now)

Shot-maker : player who looks to produce winning shots very quickly, few exchanges
Aggressive-baseliner with Shotmaking tendencies : player who can keep offensive exchanges but will often resort to trying to win points fast. Often pretty bad shotmakers since it isn't their natural asset.
Aggressive-baseliner (classic) : works the exchange, clean stricker, can't defend at all.
Aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies : defends better but still not as good as a classic counter-puncher.
Offensive-minded counter-puncher : can dominate the base-line a little bit but her best asset is counter-punching.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

I didn't say Li was a pusher at all. But besides that, Sharapova's banshee wailing also disrupts the rhythm of the players which can explain her winners to an extent.

I never said that i don't watch tennis. That doesn't make any sense.
Please, if you have reading glasses, use them before you post on here. If you don't have any, try to purchase some.

My mistake I thought I saw Li on your list. Whether Sharapova screams or not has nothing to do with weather she is a pusher and she hits winners because she can smack the daylights out of the ball solid angles.

And yes...you earlier said you do not watch womens tennis anymore back in post #8086. Before you start suggesting I wear reading glasses...I suggest you remember what you type.

[Tanya]

@hugobosstachini: interesting and pretty accurate assessment I must say. Curious as to where you'd put Serena as far as those categories? (or perhaps a different one?)

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

My mistake I thought I saw Li on your list. Whether Sharapova screams or not has nothing to do with weather she is a pusher and she hits winners because she can smack the daylights out of the ball solid angles.

And yes...you earlier said you do not watch womens tennis anymore back in post #8086. Before you start suggesting I wear reading glasses...I suggest you remember what you type.

Yes, Sharapova can, but sometimes, she can be a ballbasher like Serena.

I did say that I did not watch it anymore. However, it doesn't mean that the WTA didn't change their playstyles so I can state my opinions.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

Yes, Sharapova can, but sometimes, she can be a ballbasher like Serena.

I did say that I did not watch it anymore. However, it doesn't mean that the WTA didn't change their playstyles so I can state my opinions.

you may have watched the matches before but you sure werent paying attention to the tennis.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by SLD76

you may have watched the matches before but you sure werent paying attention to the tennis.

I didn't think I did because it was on mute.
And because it's on mute, who wants to watch tennis with no sound? Everyone loves listening to the sound of the ball pop.

[hugobosstachini]

Originally Posted by Tanya

@hugobosstachini: interesting and pretty accurate assessment I must say. Curious as to where you'd put Serena as far as those categories? (or perhaps a different one?)

Yes, I was a little bit busy and kind of rushed the list but here's how I'd classify some other players.

Note : I think the best illustration of an aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching IMo is Djokovic. I've always thought the new Victoria being a much much lesser version of Djokovic. Victoria just doesn't have the natural racket handling skills in difference -- I think she's fast enough to defend well or better but she's just rigid with her racket overall and doesn't have the natural feel to get these one more shots into play : she just looks rigid.

She defends much much better off her forehand side and is able to cut under the ball more effectively when they're are out of her reach but overall her defense isn't really convincing.

Note (Serena) : Serena IMO it depends on her days and on who she plays but also the surface. She's able to do this gymnastic well between most of cat. but I think Serena is an aggressive-baseliner with shot-making tendencies. I don't think she's that good of shotmaker (e.g., like Petra) but playing against certain players or certain surface does make that skill great for her -- her serve is also and mainly the reason why she's able to play great shotmaking.

Petra relies much more on exhanges to make winning shots and thus for me is a greater shot-maker light miles in front of Serena. Serena does a mix of quick shot-making, working the ball around the court effectively, serving well etc., she's more complete when Petra only does one stuff (e.g., hit winners and/or nothing else).

Serve & volleyer/Server --> All-court -->

Shot-maker
Petra Kvitova, Serena (against Maria for example. On Grass)

Aggressive-baseliner with shotmaking tendencies
Maria Sharapova, Li Na, Venus Williams, Serena (pre-2002 - normal), Julia Görges, Mona Barthel, Sabine Lisicki

Aggressive-baseliner (classic)
Daniela Hantuchova, (Victoria Azarenka pre-2011/2012), Laura Robson, Marion Bartoli, Maria Sharapova (?)

Aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies
Victoria Azarenka (actual, now)

Offensive minded-counter puncher
Angelique Kerber, Agnieszka Radwanska, Sara Errani (?), Maria Kirilenko, Christina Mc Hale, Jelena Jankovic

Defensive-minded counter-puncher
Caroline Wozniacki

--> Pusher

Shot-maker : player who looks to produce winning shots very quickly, few exchanges. Tremendous amount of winners or unforced errors but no in between.
Aggressive-baseliner with Shotmaking tendencies : player who can keep high offensive exchanges but will often resort to trying to win points fast. Often pretty bad shotmakers since it isn't their natural asset.
Aggressive-baseliner (classic) : works the exchange, clean stricker, can't defend at all. Fair amount of winners/forced winners, generally equal.
Aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies : defends better but still not as good as a classic counter-puncher.
Offensive-minded counter-puncher : can dominate the base-line a little bit at times (not very good though). Will be quickly pushed to her natural asset agaisnt more powerful players and will never switch even if given the opportunity.
Defensive minded counter-puncher : has a bigger forced winner count than a pusher, does just a little bit more than a pusher offensively.
Pusher : Relies solely on opponent's unforced errors.

I think this classification is fair because it gives account IMO of who is subordonate to whom.

Shot-makers will generally have advantage over anybody under them in their best times, the second after them too, classic aggressive-baseliner's being clean strickers of the ball will pretty much have advantage on base-liners being a little bit more patient/controlled (e.g. Hantuchova vs. Azarenka) but it depends, for example in the Sharapova vs. Azarenka match up.

Another interesting to watch is Bartoli vs. Azarenka between aggressive baseliners. When Bartoli plays her best game she troubles Victoria a lot, Victoria being much more patient.

Etc. etc.