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

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

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.

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?

[Xavier G]

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.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

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.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cork_screw]

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.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

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).

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?

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

[...] 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.

[...] and if you have not noticed, history does not reward stat sheets made up minor events, or a hollow ranking sans majors.

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/articl...istory-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.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

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."

[The-Champ]

radwanska can buy the number 1 ranking from 31 year-old Queen Serena on Monday.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

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."

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?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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?

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.

[cork_screw]

Losers can dream too, you know.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

I'm sorry, I do not get your point. Of course Slams are the measure of one's career - just not the only measure.

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:

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?

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.

[TMF]

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).

[NadalAgassi]

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.

[jmnk]

I'm just going to point out factual errors in your post.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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,

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.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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,

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

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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).

[NadalAgassi]

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/pla...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/pla...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.

[President]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The vast majority of people rated Del Potro as having a better career than Murray before Murray won his 1st slam when Murray had 8 Masters titles to 0 for Del Potro.

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.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by President

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.

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.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by jmnk

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

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?

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?

^ 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.