2016 WTA Rogers Cup.
- Thread starter Aussie Darcy
- Start date
70後
Hall of Fame
In their Wimbledon match, Cibulkova hit 56 winners at Radwanska.
In reality, I believe that Cibulkova's true number of winners in that match must have been at least over 100 if not 150.
Winners are easy to count. What is harder to count is the number of anti or reverse winners Radwanska was also hitting; how many absolute winners did Cibulkova hit, full power, into the corners, at the lines, which Radwanska was able to run down? Not just that, but to recover, AND bring the ball back also JUST within an inch of the lines and the corner so as to completely reverse Cib's winning shot, not just to retrieve it, while you are still on the defensive and the other person still has control of the point, but to completely reset the ball to neutral, so that Cibulkova had to setup another attacking move to find the winner again. This is what I call anti/reverse winners, which although is more subtle skill, is to me is no less impressive than going for the winner. At least, therefore, Radwanska hit 50 or 100 reverse winners.
In reality, I believe that Cibulkova's true number of winners in that match must have been at least over 100 if not 150.
Winners are easy to count. What is harder to count is the number of anti or reverse winners Radwanska was also hitting; how many absolute winners did Cibulkova hit, full power, into the corners, at the lines, which Radwanska was able to run down? Not just that, but to recover, AND bring the ball back also JUST within an inch of the lines and the corner so as to completely reverse Cib's winning shot, not just to retrieve it, while you are still on the defensive and the other person still has control of the point, but to completely reset the ball to neutral, so that Cibulkova had to setup another attacking move to find the winner again. This is what I call anti/reverse winners, which although is more subtle skill, is to me is no less impressive than going for the winner. At least, therefore, Radwanska hit 50 or 100 reverse winners.
Last edited:
^^Interesting counterpoint.
Sorry to keep bumping this now old thread, but just wanted to add a comment to all the exciting #1 speculation we've had thanks to @Aussie Darcy.
Kerber's Stanford points have come off, so she's now at 6380. In a week, rankings should account for the points she had to defend from Toronto last year; that'll bring her down by additional 105, so not much.
The good news for her is that she has no Cincy points to defend - flopped last year in the first match.
Serena's point loss from Cincy and Toronto is a combined 1250 (900 Cincy, 350 Toronto). Once this loss hits rankings, it will bring her down from 8300 to 7050, only 670 points ahead of Kerber.
I believe finals of Cincy nets a player 585 points. So Kerber can do it, but only if she wins Cincy.
I wonder how she does at Olympics. Will be interesting to see if she pushes herself to do her best or tries to get by on as little as possible to preserve herself for a number 1 rank.
Sorry to keep bumping this now old thread, but just wanted to add a comment to all the exciting #1 speculation we've had thanks to @Aussie Darcy.
Kerber's Stanford points have come off, so she's now at 6380. In a week, rankings should account for the points she had to defend from Toronto last year; that'll bring her down by additional 105, so not much. The good news for her is that she has no Cincy points to defend - flopped last year in the first match.
Serena's point loss from Cincy and Toronto is a combined 1250 (900 Cincy, 350 Toronto). Once this loss hits rankings, it will bring her down from 8300 to 7050, only 670 points ahead of Kerber.
I believe finals of Cincy nets a player 585 points. So Kerber can do it, but only if she wins Cincy.
I wonder how she does at Olympics. Will be interesting to see if she pushes herself to do her best or tries to get by on as little as possible to preserve herself for a number 1 rank.
Why? Doesn't seem like a universally high priority for tennis players.
I know Serena cares, obviously. Never saw much in connection with Kerber to make a determination one way or the other.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Serena cares far more for the Olympic gold than keeping number 1. She came out and said her gold medal means more then any slam and I actually believe her. She loves the Olympics.
Of course not, and I ordinarily wouldn't care. Indeed, in Safina years, I didn't care at all that Safina was no. 1 for as long as Serena kept grabbing Slams.
The reason I've taken interest now is because she's very close to breaking Graff's record of number of weeks at no. 1. She's at 181, and the record's 186. It'd be nice to see her break it because I don't think she'll get another chance. But I'm absolutely not suggesting that Serena should have skipped Olympics to be in better place for Cincy! I wouldn't in her place.
At any rate, I don't doubt that Serena, who indeed loves the Olympics, agrees with your reasoning. I was just wondering about Kerber, who I haven't followed closely enough to know how much she's into Olympics.
Personally I LOVE the Olympics, and if I were a professional player, I'd only skip it if I absolutely had to. And I'd treat a medal only slightly below a GS, and perhaps not even that if I had many GSs.
Similar threads
