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

[always_crosscourt]

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.

[Tanya]

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.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

They won a major. Wozniacki did not. Wozniacki loses.

What significant advantage does Wozniacki have over the majors winners you cite?

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

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.

LOL. That is some low quality trolling.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

They won a major. Wozniacki did not. Wozniacki loses.

What significant advantage does Wozniacki have over the majors winners you cite?

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.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

When we accept that Murray has not legitimately ever won a slam,

You'll have to stop right there because nobody except silly little trolls is ever going to accept that, are they?

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

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.

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!

[akind]

Originally Posted by jones101

She can, I believe in her - the force is strong in this one.

ahahahahahahah she had no idea what to do with the lightsaber sword! i didn't know what was lying underneath the cortex.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

She should dream of being a slam champion....Number 1 is pointless with the WTA ranking....though More achievable for her I bet.

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.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

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.

Um... okay...

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

They won a major. Wozniacki did not. Wozniacki loses.

What significant advantage does Wozniacki have over the majors winners you cite?

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

well, I don't know 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/Carolin...eer_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.

[NadalAgassi]

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.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by jones101

She can, I believe in her - the force is strong in this one.

lol, ha ha, what a gif !

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

if you are saying that a single Slam Win makes Myskina a better player - so be it.

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.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

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.

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?

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

You are dancing around your original point:

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

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.

[President]

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?

[Paul Murphy]

Love watching her play. So refreshing and such a contrast to most on the WTA tour.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

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.

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.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

She should dream of being a slam champion....Number 1 is pointless with the WTA ranking....though More achievable for her I bet.

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.