Brian11785
Hall of Fame
And it is totally meaningless. And probably incorrect if you look at actual results (which is the only objective measure, because it is an otherwise apples to oranges comparison.)
2015 WTA Finals
- Thread starter Aussie Darcy
- Start date
And it is totally meaningless. And probably incorrect if you look at actual results (which is the only objective measure, because it is an otherwise apples to oranges comparison.)
Brian11785
Hall of Fame
Fabrice Santoro was undoubtedly one of the craftiest players in the recent history of the game of tennis. Fans loved him. He had some great wins in his career, but he was never a top player. Does the fact that he never won a big tournament invalidate how entertaining of a player he was or what he brought to the sport? A player doesn't have to be a Slam winner to be appealing. Just because Santoro didn't and Aga doesn't have the weapons (in today's game: power) to win slams, that doesn't mean they weren't/aren't among the best in the game at other aspects of it.
Also, you keep criticizing the use of the word "basher" as a pejoritive. However, I see most of the snark, anger and attacks here directed towards Aga's style of play by "you and your ilk."
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
They both made 1 Slam final, both at Wimbledon but at least Radwanska won a set in her's!
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I think the gist of this thread is.....you're never gonna please everybody. People are going to be negative nancies regardless.
#sowhatwhocares
#partyingwiththeGOAT
#soontobe5timefanfavorite
Seriously. She just won the biggest tournament of her life, made over $2 million in prize money and has made more than $20 million in her career. That's over four times what Dimitrov has made thus far. She's not a failure by anybody's standards. Plus she didn't make the rules of the WTA Finals. She did what she had to do and she was the last one standing. I cut up a lot of players who don't win slams but as somebody said in this thread if Pennetta could win a slam, it's possible for Radwanska with two good weeks and a little luck in the draw.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Currently yes. Obviously. But others went on to slams after winning this title. So your original point makes little sense.
And given the ONLY American to qualify was unable to make the trip and all the others are from Europe it's not rocket science to know where the winner will have come from...... maybe next year some Americans can step up........ maybe. Should be an interesting 12 months for American tennis.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Fabrice Santoro was undoubtedly one of the craftiest players in the recent history of the game of tennis. Fans loved him. He had some great wins in his career, but he was never a top player. Does the fact that he never won a big tournament invalidate how entertaining of a player he was or what he brought to the sport? A player doesn't have to be a Slam winner to be appealing. Just because Santoro didn't and Aga doesn't have the weapons (in today's game: power) to win slams, that doesn't mean they weren't/aren't among the best in the game at other aspects of it.
Also, you keep criticizing the use of the word "basher" as a pejoritive. However, I see most of the snark, anger and attacks here directed towards Aga's style of play by "you and your ilk."
But the reason for TVs stance is so transparent that engaging with her is futile.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Didn't know a quarter final loss is a meltdown...um, ok. Besides, exactly how is Sharapova on secure ground at the RG anymore? She played a very erratic final in 2014 and still got through but it wasn't convincing. This year, she lost to Safarova in the 4th. Sharapova is 28. She doesn't really have a lot of time to add to her slams tally and yet she, like the rest of the tour, is counting on Serena not landing up in her draw. There's Serena and then the rest. Of the rest, Kvitova is one of the few multi slam winning players in tour right now. So your attempts to somehow class her below Sharapova seem to be driven more by favouritism. Even if we accept for argument's sake that Sharapova has been better than Kvitova even in 2011-15, it is surely not so much better as to place Kvitova in a different CLASS altogether. That's simply begrudging her credit and nothing more.
And which attacking players exactly did I refer to as ball bashers? Not Serena, not Venus, not Henin nor Clijsters. Yes, I do regard Sharapova's current game as baseline ball bashing. What does it say about her tactical nous if she lost in straights to Kvitova who was behind the eight ball against Radwanksa for all but the second set? Sharapova used to be more adventurous earlier. But maybe in trying to mould her game for clay, she has got stuck on the baseline and her game, save for its power, doesn't pose questions to her rivals. They know what they are going to get against Sharapova. To say nothing of outright ball bashers like Cibulkova. I am not saying do S&V but there is a forecourt and use it some of the time. On the other hand, I have seen the word pusher being grossly misapplied in women's tennis. I don't remember if this was on youtube or tennis forum but somebody actually called Graf a pusher. Yeah, sure, Graf who used to come in behind her second shot on grass. Something most players today don't. If somebody doesn't pound heavy shots from the baseline, she gets called pusher, by this definition (Graf hit a very heavy ball for her time but that's beside the point apparently). So you may consider my pejorative of ball basher which seems to have so greatly affected you as a retort to the word pusher.
Because only one of the majors has conditions that suit the slice and that is Wimbledon where Radwanska's results are more than commendable. She lost to Serena in 3 in 2012 and has lost two other close semi finals. Er, well, yes, top pros in the WTA would use a slice, that's hardly surprising. So that is not what I said, I talked about using the slice regularly. Could you really call Sharapova's slice a WEAPON?
On the other hand, it's her craftiness that got her to a Wimbledon final in spite of lacking the power of most of her rivals. That and Miami and Montreal. Anyway, your silly hashtag makes it obvious why you are so anxious to discredit her YEC win because now you and your ilk can no longer claim she is just an overrated player who lacks big prizes in her cupboard. I did say before the match that I could hardly wait to see the reaction if Aga happened to win and I have not been disappointed.
AngieB
Banned
American tennis historically dominates grand slam events, as the United States is the overwhelming leader in grand slam wins in both mens and womens tennis. It really doesn't matter if the United States has a bad year or few in the tennis because it would take decades for any other country to catch up to the United States. The United States has a reigning, dominant #1 women's singles tennis player who didn't show-up at the YE Championships. You make it appear as though your European counterparts have somehow usurped #Serena's reign by winning a tournament she didn't play. Yet, it takes GB decades between GS champions. #HeatherIssues
...Angie
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
What you said holds true for the women's circuit, yes. But we are talking almost ancient history w.r.t ATP. No slam winner since Roddick in 2003, that's a really, really long time, not just a few bad years. Something is broken in the system or maybe the men would rather play basketball or baseball than tennis. Still a bunch of promising players coming through from America in the WTA.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Your interpretation re Serena is your own.
Fact: she didn't play.
Fact: no other Americans qualified.
Fact: Only Europeans did.
Fact: Your post below is not factually correct.
America has a remarkable history in tennis. I don't dispute that - why would I.
However, European players also have a grand tradition within the sport. And currently outside SW and the Bryan Bothers (all three getting on) there is no one, as yet, really stepping up.
But no doubt you dispute that.
Last edited:
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I don't mind American exceptionalism, I mean, the basis of any nation-based discourse is necessarily the idea that there's something "special" about a certain people/community under certain (mostly imagined or constructed) principles and with certain characteristics (that are obviously becoming more difficult to differentiate in a globalized world). But to buy into it to the point where you need to obsess about intrinsic achievements of one people versus the intrinsic failures of another people (who just happen to be separated by an Ocean and about 250 years of history), in my view, is borderline autistic.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
But in keeping for Angie.
She bangs on about Britain thinking it will wind me up - it really doesn't. Especially given a point on 'history'. I think the irony is lost on her.
Too droll.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I agree.
Probably best she doesn't work for their international tourist board any time soon.
Or NATO!
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Her job is to win majors, but she's not held to the same standard used with other players. I point to the gross hypocrisy of some Radwanska fans who routinely blast Bouchard (and Halep to a lesser degree) for not winning majors (or living up to some imagined hype), but never apply the standard to Radwanska--also the recipient of a certain amount of hype regarding her so-called "crafty" game. It seems clear other players are to be battered for not doing what the profession demands of them, but Radwanska gets a free pass.
Because it is a pejorative; some seem to think another important form of play is somehow "wrong" for women's tennis--or more to her fans' hostility--prevents unqualified players from succeeding. Either one wins majors, or.....
However, I see most of the snark, anger and attacks here directed towards Aga's style of play by "you and your ilk."
There's no anger or anything else--other than honest assessments of her abilities, which are not some wonder of the sport.
Brian11785
Hall of Fame
"Her job is to win majors." That is a really myopic view and, once you put it that way, I now understand we are never going to agree on this. If it is the job of a professional tennis player to win majors, that would mean that 99% of professional tennis players are terrible at their job.
You're right. She isn't held to the same standard. And I am ok with that. No one called Santoro's career a failure. He was entertaining. So is Aga. Maybe you disagree. OK. As I said, win or lose, Aga at least brings something different to the table in the current WTA landscape. There is more to tennis (from a fan's perspective) than always picking a winner.
If you say so. I see the phrase Pushwanska thrown around a lot. Not talking about you necessarily. But the virtriol is here.
* You are welcome to check my post history and find the last time I was negative about any player, even one I root against (Maria, mostly.)
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You criticize Sharapova, yet do not see any issue with Kvitova, when her USO results were more of the same psychological puzzle falling apart:
USO:
2012 -4th RD.
2013 & 2014 - 3rd RD
2015 - QF
To this day, she's never exhibited the kind of tenacity and understanding at the USO which Sharapova did at a major (FO) almost all observes swore she would never capture. What we see are excuses--from the heat to the New York crowd.
Her experience proved too much for Halep, which is as convincing as she needed to be.
Your bias is there for all to see; you close the door on Sharapova due to age, yet your Radwanska is 26--and has yet to win a single major, but you say nothing about her time running out to even win one.
...yeah....
She's in a different class for all of the reasons explained earlier, no matter how much you wish to deny all that it means.
The fact you use "basher" at all is evidence of pushing a myth targeting the last two generations of players--a whip employed by the self-described fans of "tennis as it should be played."
Obviously, that youtube member is just another thoughtless troll piggybacking on a term he or she did not understand, and likely has some foolish hate of one of the only true GOAT players.
Does it get the job done at all? Has it failed her at every attempt?
Where is the major as of this date?
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
So, acknowledging that winning the biggest title(s) in the sport is her job is myopic? Illogical. I guess that dream held by nearly all great players in tennis history was just an example of conning themselves, since winning majors was never the focus of their careers when entering the sport.
I'm sorry, but you are now entering the Safina zone of excuses, and that's not a good position to be in.
Radwanska may not be a pusher, but that's nothing compared to the legion of TW members referring to other players (they despise) as "brainless ball bashers."
Brian11785
Hall of Fame
I've already said that I don't care if Aga wins a major or another match again. My appreciation for her has little to do with her winning percentage. Think me a fool. I am allowed to like who I like.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
The fact that she reached a QF this year after last year's disastrous campaign with that embarrassing loss to Krunic shows otherwise. She's not falling apart as much as you'd perhaps wish that for her. More like she's getting over her possibly pre-conceived dislikes of the venue and starting to find some footing there. Whereas you are still singing from a broken record which was valid up to 2014.
But I never compared Sharapova to Radwanska and nor was asked about Radwanska's chances. My answers are obvious: Sharapova is the better player and Radwanska's chances of winning a major are dim at best. So what? The rush to decry her on this board no sooner than she had qualified for the final was exactly what I'd expect of the people who indiscriminately use the word pusher because they only want to see ball bashers. Sharapova has enough power to overpower most of her opponents. When she cannot, though, she doesn't give herself other tactical options. That's why she loses all the time to Serena and also has problems against Kvitova. Everybody loses to Serena, so that's fair enough, but you don't see the ATP Big Four lose to Kvitova-like hitters, at least not so regularly. This is what makes Sharapova's tennis boring to watch for me; she plays the same game irrespective of the opponent. If she had only adjusted her game and slowed down the pace, she could and would have prevailed over Kvitova because the Singapore courts were not fast at all. Ever since Kvitty's got mono, she makes regular, suicidal net approaches to finish the point early. It is what Radwanska exploited so well but Sharapova failed to. You will not find that the Big Four are in any way tactically lacking compared to the lower ranked players; they have all the answers when push comes to shove. It is disturbing that a CGS winning player on the WTA - a feat that eluded Hingis, Davenport, Sanchez among many other second tier greats, not to mention Venus - relies purely on baseline offence and no other significant weapon.
I can't help it if they all come out playing the same factory specified model of tennis with even the same or nearly the same kind of grunts. I have as much right to express my annoyance towards it as you have towards Radwanska. Yeah, I am gonna let all the 'ageism' hang out here, baby: give me Henin any day!
Not one or two but a few actually. So what is obvious to you is not apparently to some women's tennis watchers.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Old Venus beats youngster Keys, over the hill Ferrer beats younger Dolgopolov with ease. Nothing is new under the sun.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Back to the Future.....
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Wish? Enough with the false charges / deflection. I've posted her USO record, and in that period, she has not revealed any potential for winning the title in the way that Sharapova shattered all doubt at the major she was routinely pushed aside in favor of anyone.
Last time anyone checked, she did not win the 2015 USO, so the only broken record here is Kvitova's Greatest No-Hits, featuring that top 10 song,
You took your shot at Sharapova's chances due to her age. It is perfectly fine to ask you to use the same criteria for a judgement of Radwanska---but you do not do that at all. You hold a 26 year old player to a different standard than the 28 year old you criticized.
Agenda.
Again, you make sweeping generalizations about those who see Radwanska as a weak player. Translated, YOU--and her fans--try to convince yourself that it is inspired by a dislike her "tennis as it should be played." That's a fanbase trying to con themselves that Radwanska is some "smart" player that is just "better" than the myth of the "brainless ball basher."
If she's not captured a single major this late in her career at age 26, it is her fault.
..and? Djokovic is the far and away the best male player in the world, yet his critics claim he's a one-dimensional player, a "pusher," "too defensive," etc. Does it matter when he has the winning record at the majors of 2015? Should his majors be transferred to another player because this phantom player plays "tennis as it should be played?"
I've said Sharapova needs to develop a "B" game (more than its current, thin state), but you judger her based on entertainment factors. Do you not see that many see Radwanska as boring because she's playing like some weekender, and has no visible heart in her matches? BTW, anger/pissy--as in her infamous treatment of Lisicki) is not heart, in case any of her fans believed that.
That feat eluded Hingis because it was her supporters who invested in the self-generated myth of this nonexistent "chess player" in her, and--through no demonstrated ability--win it all, even going so far as to attack GOAT Graf to inflate Hingis during that period. Venus peaked early, and also had the rise of Serena to deal with-- and increasingly lost consistent winning strategies against her. Davenport has to be analyzed not only on her shortcomings (as one will do with any player), but who/what their personal "Kryptonite" happened to be. Davenport's failure at the FO had much to do with her compromised movement, which actually distracted her, often leading to a depressed lumbering around the court. Sanchez really had her chances at Wimbledon (2 time finalist), but come on--who did she face? The GOAT, so I do not question why Sanchez--arguably at her best at the event--still failed to get the job done.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Mirza absolutely played some amazing tennis in the final with Hingis, as she says, backing her up.
I've also seen the reverse on many occasions - when Mirza loses timing it really goes. Rarely can this be said about Hingis.
However, what they both seem to do really well is play the big points and unify as a pair when their backs are really against the wall - 2-5 down, final set Wimbledon Final.
personally I find them a joy to watch and,for me, far greater entertainment than the majority of singles matches in 2015.
I hope their success continues next year.
AngieB
Banned
Don't be mad.
In fact, I'm shocked you aren't shouting with joy from atop Big Ben that a fellow Euro (not the currency type) won a #major women's tournament. Listening to you, most would think they've been winning the majority of them the past few years. #Serena
I don't drive little cars down #minor highway. You should know this by now. #Dust
...Angie
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Not remotely mad
And you keep driving that gas guzzling monster of a car- just a pity it's going round in circles
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And Sharapova also did not win the RG before 2012 after breaking through in 2004. It is patently clear that you insist on deliberately holding Kvitova to different standards just so you can maintain the fiction of a two time slam and YEC winner being B Grade. Kvitova improved upon her showing at the USO this year after miserable campaigns in the previous years, that is the point. Also Sharapova made QFs and semis at RG before 2012. So you cannot argue her improvement on clay is more impressive than a young player breaking through and winning two slams.
Where have I held Radwanska to different standards? I had made the point about Sharapova's age in an entirely different context in comparison to Kvitova (they are three years apart). On being asked about Radwanska's chances, I have promptly said her chances are dim. CAN YOU READ???? Don't make idiotic weasel like arguments. If you don't want a honest debate, please just stop. Speaking of which, it is entirely logical to hold a 26 year old player to a different standard than a 28 year old because 2 years, esp in the mid twenties, is a long time in tennis. Haven't you discovered that yet?
My only agenda is that a player who has won a YEC should be respected for her achievement instead of making pathetic arguments to discredit her. If you don't agree, then I too am fully entitled to bash the ball bashers.
See above. If the lot of you can resort to dissing a player before she's had a chance to play the final that she eventually triumphed in, I am fully entitled to the most sweeping generalisations. Tit for tat, in other words. Keep things honest and I will too.
So what's your point? Those critics are pretty damn brainless too. Calling Nole a pusher would be either the height of derision or of ignorance or possibly both. But it's good you brought up both your pathetic reasons to diss Radwanska as well as critics's views of Nole. In both case, the dislike is driven mostly by superficial reasons that have nothing to do with tennis, in his case the fact that he's a Serb.
Yeah, and she won a YEC without a visible heart. I guess the heart is not visible because it is underneath the skin, duh.
This is just absolutely ridiculous. What on earth do Hingis's supporters have to do with the feat eluding her? Do you realise that Hingis was one service game away from winning the RG....against Graf, no less? So it's pathetic to decry her talent simply because you deride her fans. I presume it is your tennis insight that is non existent.
Last edited:
Hingis really should have and could have won the CYGS in 1997 if she took her tennis a bit more seriously. There was a serious void in women's tennis in that year with the old guard on the way out (Steffi absent with an injury), Davenport not yet ready to truly contend for slams, and the new guard not yet ready to take over.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
On the men's side, how about no Slam winner since 1936 (which is what we beknighted Brits had to endure until Murray's 2012 USO win) or none since 1983 (France),1996 (Germany), 2002 (Sweden and Australia) all former powerhouses of tennis? Put like that, USA (none since 2003) is doing comparatively well no matter how hard it may seem!
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Yes, comparitively well. But whilst the US remains dominant with SW that's not especially good given its size and population. Especially compared to Switzerland, Spain and Serbia. And yes, GB.On the men's side, how about no Slam winner since 1936 (which is what we beknighted Brits had to endure until Murray's 2012 USO win) or none since 1983 (France),1991 (Germany), 2002 (Sweden and Australia) all former powerhouses of tennis? Put like that, USA (none since 2003) is doing comparatively well no matter how hard it may seem!
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Wrong thread!
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
On the men's side, how about no Slam winner since 1936 (which is what we beknighted Brits had to endure until Murray's 2012 USO win) or none since 1983 (France),1996 (Germany), 2002 (Sweden and Australia) all former powerhouses of tennis? Put like that, USA (none since 2003) is doing comparatively well no matter how hard it may seem!
Maybe by those standards but US has so consistently produced champions, indeed all time greats, that it seems odd. There was a brief lull in the mid 80s otherwise this is the longest drought in the open era on the men's side.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
She (and her mother) couldn't possibly have taken her tennis more seriously. Martina was groomed for greatness since childhood. She just crumbled under the expectations, just like Serena, but at a different Slam.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
I don't understand why people say Hingis was in the running for the CYGS in 1997. Once she was out at the French it was done. Noone knew that she would win Wimbledon and the US Open. She wasn't in the running for it. Whereas Serena was. She had won all 3 slams and each match played at the USO was a match closer to the CYGS. Not the same for Hingis.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Well, she wasn't in the running for it (as Serena was) but the achievement is the same in the end. If you can't get over that final hurdle at the US Open, your overall achievement is equal to - not better than - Martina's in 1997. It's arguably inferior because Martina managed to reach all 4 finals to the loss of one.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
The posters that loathe Hingis will now be baying for your blood. But you're probably well prepared given that most of them tend to belittle Radwanska also. Funny that.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
The posters that loathe Hingis will now be baying for your blood. But you're probably well prepared given that most of them tend to belittle Radwanska also. Funny that.
I don't mind that. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with different posters on a variety of subjects. We're all defined by our singularity - by how we don't fully agree or disagree with anyone in particular - although some people sometimes try to turn this board into a turf war, divided into very broad and fundamental dichotomies.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Nope. I'm not talking about the FO final with Steffi Graf. I'm talking about Martina getting injured in 1997 from riding her horse just prior to the FO 1997.
She absolutely would have won the calendar year slam that year had she taken her tennis more seriously and not been fooling around on her horse before that tournament.
She was 16 years old and full of young girl silliness and didn't understand the importance of the opportunity that year presented.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I was also talking about 1997. It couldn't possibly have been the horse-related injury preventing her from winning that Slam. She reached the final quite easily and was an overwhelming favorite to win, the injury couldn't have made its appearance specifically and exclusively in the final. I watched the match and Majoli was clearly superior.
There's two explanations for this: either Majoli played the tournament of her life and Hingis stood no chance (which is possible) or Hingis crumbled under the pressure of being the favorite to win the French Open (which happened again in 1999, confirming her lack of belief in that particular Slam).
My perception of the Molitor-Hingis family and relationship tells me that there's no way they weren't both (mother and daughter) perfectly aware of the opportunity that year presented. She was groomed to be a champion since she was a toddler, was given her Christian name to follow the footsteps of the other Martina, became the youngest ever winner of a Grand Slam title and the youngest number 1 player in the world - everything was meticulously planned for her to become the next double digit Slam winner. Nothing was left to chance. You can see how much it meant to her when she lost in 1999 with a hissy fit that was proof enough of the pressure she was under, the expectations that rested on her young shoulders, and finally the adverse effect it had on her performances at the French Open.
In this context, the horse incident (that ended up not affecting her performance in any noticeable way) is no proof of carelessness, but of the inevitability of bad luck.
I don't think Martina believed that this would be her one and only chance to win the CYGS. She believed she was going to dominate tennis for a long time and I am sure thought she would easily best all of the records.
I will rewatch the final if I can, but the word back then was that her injury hindered her movement. I am not surprised that she easily made the final though...she pretty much was easily beating everyone that year.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Good post. Right from naming her after Martina, Molitor seemed to believe her daughter was destined for greatness and the latter too grew to share the same belief. It was both her strength and weakness. It made her confident but also rather cocky and - to this day - arrogant. We've seen how Bouchard crumbled to pieces after the Kvitova beatdown at Wimbledon. I don't think too much arrogance really helps in dealing with defeat. When one has both feet firmly planted on the ground, it's easier to deal with setbacks and move on. So, yes, Hingis did try too hard to attain greatness ASAP and the 99 RG loss was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. She never really recovered from that defeat. It's not just the tour moving on to a new level of power which denied her chances to win more slams. She was in two slam finals against Capriati and lost both. Certainly the second of those was within her grasp. It's a shame but maybe she wouldn't have soared through the ranks at a precocious age without that same single minded belief that she was to the manor born.
Similar threads
