Radwanska the most intelligent tennis player of all times?

dafinch

Banned
+1 I saw him and he was amazing. Same ideas as aga last night but against big strong stars like Becker and edberg.

There were some contemporaries of Gilbert who were pretty bright too, such as Krickstein and Chang.

Hmmm, I'm wondering if you are aware of his record against a strong star named Lendl...

Btw, the premise by the OP is hilarious. A pusher who has never won squat, in terms of Slams, but she's the most intelligent player EVER. Too funny...
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Is her IQ higher than Bartoli's?

I'm sure that the OP was not referring to intelligence as measured on an IQ test. IQ tests, according to Howard Gardner, measures primarily linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. While those may (or may not) help with post-match interviews, these are not necessarily the primary types of intelligences needed for high level tennis.
 

Fifth Set

Professional
Hmmm, I'm wondering if you are aware of his record against a strong star named Lendl...

Btw, the premise by the OP is hilarious. A pusher who has never won squat, in terms of Slams, but she's the most intelligent player EVER. Too funny...

If Gilbert was able to win even 1 set against Lendl in his career, it would be great proof of his amazing intelligence - since his strokes weren't good enough to deserve a single game off Lendl!

So, fill us in on the h2h?!
 
I hope she now wins the AO. She's an interesting player, very creative. Yet she's an underrated athlete it seems to me. She's got great anticipation, quickness and feel. Most intelligent player right now? That's very arguable and there have been many, many intelligent tennis players over the years.
 
Last edited:

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
This match tonight vs. Cibulkova illustrates my earlier point.

So many TWers equate variety and craftiness with "intelligence". It's just not the case. If it were, anyone could go out on court, slice and dice, drop shot, occasionally serve and volley, mix in some moonballs, sometimes hit flat shots, and lose 6-1, 6-1, but they'd still be "intelligent" because the showed variety in their game. It's the stupid notion that if you don't win by hitting hard, you must automatically be a tennis genius.

Any tennis player can be intelligent, no matter their level of variety or style of play. It's how you deploy your weapons, how you make adjustments, how you pick up on and exploit the weaknesses of your opponents.

Radwanska was intelligent in deploying her weapons and craftiness vs. Azarenka. A day later, she was far from intelligent in deploying her game vs. Cibulkova.

TWers always get down on "mindless bashers", but plenty of hard hitters can also be mindful, intelligent bashers. They play intelligent when they wait for the right opportunity to really pound a shot, make good decisions when to hit to the open court or behind their opponent, make a good decision to throw in a slice. Most of their game may appear to be one dimensional bashing, but it can be employed intelligently, or not, just as players with more variety and craftiness can employ their game intelligently or not.

Yes, it may be fun and interesting to watch variety, but while it may look good, it's not always intelligent. Someone like ex-player Hicham Arazi had a full arsenal of shots and could, at times, deploy them beautifully and really frustrate his opponents. Other times, he just looked like an idiot trying trick shots at the wrong time.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
This match tonight vs. Cibulkova illustrates my earlier point.

So many TWers equate variety and craftiness with "intelligence". It's just not the case. If it were, anyone could go out on court, slice and dice, drop shot, occasionally serve and volley, mix in some moonballs, sometimes hit flat shots, and lose 6-1, 6-1, but they'd still be "intelligent" because the showed variety in their game. It's the stupid notion that if you don't win by hitting hard, you must automatically be a tennis genius.

Any tennis player can be intelligent, no matter their level of variety or style of play. It's how you deploy your weapons, how you make adjustments, how you pick up on and exploit the weaknesses of your opponents.

Radwanska was intelligent in deploying her weapons and craftiness vs. Azarenka. A day later, she was far from intelligent in deploying her game vs. Cibulkova.

TWers always get down on "mindless bashers", but plenty of hard hitters can also be mindful, intelligent bashers. They play intelligent when they wait for the right opportunity to really pound a shot, make good decisions when to hit to the open court or behind their opponent, make a good decision to throw in a slice. Most of their game may appear to be one dimensional bashing, but it can be employed intelligently, or not, just as players with more variety and craftiness can employ their game intelligently or not.

Yes, it may be fun and interesting to watch variety, but while it may look good, it's not always intelligent. Someone like ex-player Hicham Arazi had a full arsenal of shots and could, at times, deploy them beautifully and really frustrate his opponents. Other times, he just looked like an idiot trying trick shots at the wrong time.

Okey, then all the tennis experts today on tv has it all wrong. They dont know anything, you do better.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Anyone surprised? As noted in another thread, she lost because she's not as "talented" as her fanboys/girls believe. She was as outplayed at the AO as she was by Lisicki at the 2013 Wimbledon, or by Serena in every match (8-0 H2H).

Schedule, or any other factors had nothing to do with her loss.

She's not fated to be this allegedly "crafty"/"smart" player...one who is still the pigeon of just about anyone when it counts.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
This match tonight vs. Cibulkova illustrates my earlier point.

So many TWers equate variety and craftiness with "intelligence". It's just not the case. If it were, anyone could go out on court, slice and dice, drop shot, occasionally serve and volley, mix in some moonballs, sometimes hit flat shots, and lose 6-1, 6-1, but they'd still be "intelligent" because the showed variety in their game. It's the stupid notion that if you don't win by hitting hard, you must automatically be a tennis genius.

Wise observation. Some also fear stronger women, which prevents them from understanding that one does not reach the top of the sport (particularly those who win more than a few majors over the course of a career) by being a "ball basher" alone. To even entertain that is the result of deep-rooted hang-ups about players not being the dainty, country club-like "girls" of the Tracey Austin mold.

To those who want that kind of player...they will have very long time to wait.

...forever.

Any tennis player can be intelligent, no matter their level of variety or style of play. It's how you deploy your weapons, how you make adjustments, how you pick up on and exploit the weaknesses of your opponents.

True.

Radwanska was intelligent in deploying her weapons and craftiness vs. Azarenka. A day later, she was far from intelligent in deploying her game vs. Cibulkova.

...yes, because this so-called "intelligent" player was picked apart by one who understood the court as much--or more than Radwanska.

TWers always get down on "mindless bashers", but plenty of hard hitters can also be mindful, intelligent bashers. They play intelligent when they wait for the right opportunity to really pound a shot, make good decisions when to hit to the open court or behind their opponent, make a good decision to throw in a slice. Most of their game may appear to be one dimensional bashing, but it can be employed intelligently, or not, just as players with more variety and craftiness can employ their game intelligently or not.

...hence one of the many reasons she lost in the semifinal.

Yes, it may be fun and interesting to watch variety, but while it may look good, it's not always intelligent. Someone like ex-player Hicham Arazi had a full arsenal of shots and could, at times, deploy them beautifully and really frustrate his opponents. Other times, he just looked like an idiot trying trick shots at the wrong time.

...Henri Leconte was also such a player: a flying by the seat of his pants, net-wise player, but for all of his flash and game-wit, he never broke through when it counted. Not because of being overrun by "bashers," but by players who could pick his strategy apart--their job.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Okey, then all the tennis experts today on tv has it all wrong.

Yes, her result proved they had it all wrong...or did you skip out on the match when Radwanska's defeat was zeroing in on her?

They dont know anything, you do better.

Yours is a failed move: what does bluetrain4 have to do with the predictable destruction of a player? Nothing, but his insight was correct about Radwanska.

So much for your OP premise.
 
Last edited:
L

Laurie

Guest
Superficially this result is a big surprise. But the way Cibulkova played against Sharapova then I'm not surprised at all. Cibulkova is a great fighter and has some good shots in her arsenal, and at 5 ft 3 can even hit the odd ace here and there.

Meanhwile, Radwanska has been on tour for a number of years, think I first heard of her in 2006. But how much progress has she actually made? She's only appeared in one slam final so far in her career and again, like against Lisicki she was favourite and came up short.

I think Radwanska's game has too many limitations, partly to do with lack of power but obviously she has done absolutely nothing to address that over the years.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Okey, then all the tennis experts today on tv has it all wrong. They dont know anything, you do better.

It's just my opinion. Calm down. Or, offer a counter-opinion instead of snark. And, none of this is even a direct attack on Radwanska. She's a fine player who can play great tennis at times. The thread started by OP asking if Radwanska was the most intelligent player of all time. I simply don't think she is based on what I consider to be tennis "intelligence" (which, even if you don't agree, I at least took the time to explain my ideas regarding the subject in detail). Not that she never plays intelligently, just that there are many players throughout tennis history (of all game styles) that are, in my view, more intelligent and have played intelligent tennis more consistently than Radwanska.

You put a question out there - "Is Radwanska the most intelligent tenis player of all time?"- and seem completely mystified that anyone could not believe she is. That's fine if you have a different view. I've explained in detail why I don't think she deserves that title without belitting her or insulting her. So, instead of getting upset that someone doesn't share the same view, why don't you offer a substantive explanation of what you think tennis "intelligence" is and why/how Radwanska has superior intelligence.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Superficially this result is a big surprise. But the way Cibulkova played against Sharapova then I'm not surprised at all. Cibulkova is a great fighter and has some good shots in her arsenal, and at 5 ft 3 can even hit the odd ace here and there.

Which shatters the brain-dead theory that smaller women cannot win against big players because the game has been shifted toward the larger, taller women. By the way, that is the same, hollow theory certain people used as an excuse to explain why the so-called "brilliant" Henin did not have greater success--especially at Wimbledon. Cibulkova is small, but nothing seems to trouble her--even against bigger women like Sharapova.



Meanhwile, Radwanska has been on tour for a number of years, think I first heard of her in 2006. But how much progress has she actually made? She's only appeared in one slam final so far in her career and again, like against Lisicki she was favourite and came up short.

So very true---but she was not prepared for someone who actually had a strategy of her own.

I think Radwanska's game has too many limitations, partly to do with lack of power but obviously she has done absolutely nothing to address that over the years.

If that is the case, then it strongly suggests she has bought into the kind of agenda-driven nonsense which launched a thread of this kind: that Radwanska is some dainty, crafty player who does not need fitness at all....That her blink-and-you-missed-it strategy is (ultimately) not enough to be all that certain commentators and her fans claim she is in the here and now. But it must be reiterated that a lack of power is an issue, but she's being defeated by players with a tennis mind of their own.
 
Last edited:

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
One thing that should be noted about Cibulkova (I know this is a Radwanska thread) is that she didn't just materialize out of nowhere. She's been around for a while, and has beaten top players before. Before she made this run at the AO, she had, over her career, made at least the QFs in the other three Slams, including a SF at the French Open. And, she's had some close losses to top players as well. It's not that inconceivable that she should make this sort of run. She's a good player, even if she has never reached that next level "top" player status.
 

dafinch

Banned
Okey, then all the tennis experts today on tv has it all wrong. They dont know anything, you do better.

Funny, I don't recall a single, solitary expert say that she was "the most intelligent tennis player of all times," did I miss that? Fact is, this is the 2nd time in 3 Slams she reached the semifinals, and, instead of having to play the # 1 or # 2 seed, she had the good fortune to be facing a much lower ranked player, neither of whom had ever been that far in a Slam. And, faced with a golden opportunity to reach a Slam final and then hopefully win her first Slam ever, what was the reaction of the would-be "the most intelligent tennis player of all times?" She fell apart like a cheap suit. You wanna be a fan of a pusher who exhibits poor sportsmanship and awful body language, hey, have at it, but, face it, your premise is absolutely, utterly ridiculous.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Intelligence is no match against power.

Skills are no match against brute force.

Radwanska-Cibulkova proved it.

Federer-Nadal has proved it many times before.
 

snowwhite

Professional
I'm going to say no, and here's why. No doubt she does have some good tennis intelligence. But, I think people confuse "crafty" and "variety" with "intelligence". Radwaska shows has a lot of pleasing-to-the-eye shots - drop shots, slices, short angles, lobs, volleys, etc. But, in and of themselves, they're just shots. Sometimes she deploys those shots intelligently and she looks like a genius because she's frustrating her opponent, planting doubt in their mind, making them look foolish. It's fun to watch, makes her look a step ahead of her opponent, makes her look "smart." And, if she deploys those shots effectively, it is smart.

That's been true in tennis forever. Whenever a player doesn't win with brute power and athelticism, they're thought of as more intelligent, "smart" players.

But, Radwa doesn't have the overall record in terms of significant wins over top players or Slam titles to earn "most intellingent of all time honors". Hingis, for example, used variety and crafitness to achieve far more. And, seriously, why wouldn't even a generational after-thought like Conchita Martinez with her moonballs, slices, great passing shots, occasional hard shots be considered just as intelligent? Like Hingis, she used her skills to achieve far more than Radwanska (33 titles on all surfaces, a Wimbledon title, 3 Slam finals on 3 different surfaces).

Also, do people ever consider when the craftiness and variety are not working. How intelligent or smart is it to to keep on retrieving from far behind the baseline, throwing in an occasional drop shot (even if it's nice to look at), when you're opponent is having their way with you? How smart is it to never attempt to improve a weak-for-a-top-player serve when so many players is so many big matches have exploited it?

She's a great player, and often is intelligent. But, she has a lot more to achieve before I'd slap a "most intelligent player of all time" tag on her.

Can't more agree
and who said that Rad's play should be more enjoyable to watch than Serena's or Li, Henin Venus, etc
She is boring
plus you just can't lose these matches and still you call it intelligent
Too many players are big hitters, but there are still people win more than others because the are more intelligent
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
It's just my opinion. Calm down. Or, offer a counter-opinion instead of snark. And, none of this is even a direct attack on Radwanska. She's a fine player who can play great tennis at times. The thread started by OP asking if Radwanska was the most intelligent player of all time. I simply don't think she is based on what I consider to be tennis "intelligence" (which, even if you don't agree, I at least took the time to explain my ideas regarding the subject in detail). Not that she never plays intelligently, just that there are many players throughout tennis history (of all game styles) that are, in my view, more intelligent and have played intelligent tennis more consistently than Radwanska.

You put a question out there - "Is Radwanska the most intelligent tenis player of all time?"- and seem completely mystified that anyone could not believe she is. That's fine if you have a different view. I've explained in detail why I don't think she deserves that title without belitting her or insulting her. So, instead of getting upset that someone doesn't share the same view, why don't you offer a substantive explanation of what you think tennis "intelligence" is and why/how Radwanska has superior intelligence.

Have you read your earlier post in this thread? You are not giving arguments Weather she is smartest of all time or not, from My point of view, it seems you are trying to say she is not intelligente by stating anyone who can "slice and dice, drop shot, occasionally serve and volley, mix in some moonballs, sometimes hit flat shots, and lose 6-1, 6-1....." Is considered intelligent. Thats were I dont agree.

And I have already given arguments why she is intelligent etc, read the earlier pages
 

tennis_hack

Banned
Intelligence is no match against power.

Skills are no match against brute force.

Radwanska-Cibulkova proved it.

Federer-Nadal has proved it many times before.

I don't understand what you're saying? Nadal is more intelligent and skilful than Federer as well as being more powerful, no?
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Have you read your earlier post in this thread? You are not giving arguments Weather she is smartest of all time or not, from My point of view, it seems you are trying to say she is not intelligente by stating anyone who can "slice and dice, drop shot, occasionally serve and volley, mix in some moonballs, sometimes hit flat shots, and lose 6-1, 6-1....." Is considered intelligent. Thats were I dont agree.

And I have already given arguments why she is intelligent etc, read the earlier pages

Well, then obviously there's some sort of communciation barrier. I never said she was never intelligent. In fact I've gone out of my way to say that she's is a good player, to explain by views on tennis intelligence, and not belittle or insult Radwanska.

I have repeatedly trying to explain the difference between variety/craftiness and "intelligence". My point is that shots are just shots. Having a variety of shots doesn't make one an intelligent tennis player. It's how a person deploys those shots. Those shots can be deployed intelligently, and those shots can be deployed not so intelligently, or even stupidly; just as sheer power can be deployed intelligently, not so intelligently, or even stupidly.

The point about losing 6-1, 6-1 while showing off a variety of shots, as well as my latter example of Hicham Arazi, is simply to illustrate that, again that variety has to be deployed to positive effect for it to be intelligent. Otherwise, as I stated earlier, all tennis players who simply pull out a a variety of shots, no matter the result, would be considered intelligent. Isn't that silly? If Serena stopped hitting hard and sliced and diced the majority of the match and lost to players she normally beats, would that be intelligent play just because she showed more variety than usual?

You state, " from My point of view, it seems you are trying to say she is not intelligent." That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that sometimes she is, sometimes she isn't (as is true for nearly all players) For some reason you take that as a huge insult.

I'm also saying, again, that just because she has a wide variety of shots doesn't make her intelligent. Why would it. Again, if you deploy variety haparzadly to negative effect, how is that playing intelligently? You think because Radwanska has a variety of shots and can use them effectively (as vs. Azarenka), that automatically makes her intelligent all the time, and the most intelligent player of all time. As, I said in my second long post, tennis intelligence, IMO, is also about making adjustments, pin pointing and exploiting opponents' weaknesses. If a player is losing badly and continues to deploy an aresnal of nice-to-look-at, but largely ineffective slices and short angles and net approaches, how is that intelligent?

Other posters have dimissed and insulted Radwanska far more than I have, which was never my intention. I tried to answer a question honestly and substantively, but apparently nothing short of blindly agreeing with you will satisfy you.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Intelligence is no match against power.

Skills are no match against brute force.

Radwanska-Cibulkova proved it.

Federer-Nadal has proved it many times before.

Suresh,

It's relatively easy to fall into this kind of trap. There are skills then there are skills.

So, some players have skills which others don't seem to have, we often term that naturally ability. And then there are fundamental skills a player needs to compete at a professional level, skills everyone must learn. And those who perform those fundamental skills better under pressure get the big prizes.

Now I have been watching and studying womens tennis since the early 2000s and have read books on the womens game and tactics. It is general consensus that the return of serve is a more practiced shot by girls / women encouraged by coaches. And that the serve and the 2nd serve in particular has been neglected somewhat in recent times.

But since 2000 the players who have won majors have tended to be the players with not only a good all round game but a strong serve. For instance in 2000 Mary Pierce, Venus, Davenport won the slams. In 2011 Stosur's serve was a big afctor in her US Open win. And last year Bartoli's work on her serve paid off to the extent she hit an ace on the line at matchpoint in the Wimbledon final. No rolling the ball in, nervous hoping for the best, she had belief in her teqnique and went for it.

Earlier in this particular tournament, one of my favourite players Angelique Kerber was virtually pushing her 2nd serve in and got punished virtually every time against Pennetta. Chris Bradnam quite rightly pointed out that she has to work on it if she wants to win a mjor one day. Incidentally her 1st serve also needs serious work.

Where so many women go wrong is that because they have not practiced their serve enough or at all, in match situations they have to push the ball in hoping on their movement to get them out of trouble. Dementieva was a perfect example, she had one of the best ground games we've seen but her serve prevented her winning a major and helped to humiliate her in big finals.

Players should study Henin more. Even tall players like Richard Krajicek did this a lot; instead of hitting a topspin serve that sits up waiting to be punished, develop a slice serve into the body instead. I recall Conchita Martinez doing it a lot, and she won around 40 titles including Wimbledon. Henin was very good at it. Its reliable and causes the opponent problems because its diffcult to run around that type of serve to smack it for clean winners.

A reliable serve also lifts your game and confidence. I watched Radwanska closely at Wimbledon against Lisicki and the serve of each player made the difference, Radwanska was always vulnerable to being attacked as she had no where to go with that delivery. This is the key reason I don't see her winning a mjor title and I have been saying that since around 2008, I didn't come up with this last week.

You really don't need big muscles to hit a reliable 1st serve and 2nd serve, just the willingness to practice a lot certain types of deliveries, and a bit of smarts to recognise that and do something about it.

If fundamental skills are an essential part of tennis, Radwanska lacks key fundamental skills to be a top player who wins major titles on a regular basis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
Suresh,

It's relatively easy to fall into this kind of trap. There are skills then there are skills.

So, some players have skills which others don't seem to have, we often term that naturally ability. And then there are fundamental skills a player needs to compete at a professional level, skills everyone must learn. And those who perform those fundamental skills better under pressure get the big prizes.

Now I have been watching and studying womens tennis since the early 2000s and have read books on the womens game and tactics. It is general consensus that the return of serve is a more practiced shot by girls / women encouraged by coaches. And that the serve and the 2nd serve in particular has been neglected somewhat in recent times.

But since 2000 the players who have won majors have tended to be the players with not only a good all round game but a strong serve. For instance in 2000 Mary Pierce, Venus, Davenport won the slams. In 2011 Stosur's serve was a big afctor in her US Open win. And last year Bartoli's work on her serve paid off to the extent she hit an ace on the line at matchpoint in the Wimbledon final. No rolling the ball in, nervous hoping for the best, she had belief in her teqnique and went for it.

Earlier in this particular tournament, one of my favourite players Angelique Kerber was virtually pushing her 2nd serve in and got punished virtually every time against Pennetta. Chris Bradnam quite rightly pointed out that she has to work on it if she wants to win a mjor one day. Incidentally her 1st serve also needs serious work.

Where so many women go wrong is that because they have not practiced their serve enough or at all, in match situations they have to push the ball in hoping on their movement to get them out of trouble. Dementieva was a perfect example, she had one of the best ground games we've seen but her serve prevented her winning a major and helped to humiliate her in big finals.

Players should study Henin more. Even tall players like Richard Krajicek did this a lot; instead of hitting a topspin serve that sits up waiting to be punished, develop a slice serve into the body instead. I recall Conchita Martinez doing it a lot, and she won around 40 titles including Wimbledon. Henin was very good at it. Its reliable and causes the opponent problems because its diffcult to run around that type of serve to smack it for clean winners.

A reliable serve also lifts your game and confidence. I watched Radwanska closely at Wimbledon against Lisicki and the serve of each player made the difference, Radwanska was always vulnerable to being attacked as she had no where to go with that delivery. This is the key reason I don't see her winning a mjor title and I have been saying that since around 2008, I didn't come up with this last week.

You really don't need big muscles to hit a reliable 1st serve and 2nd serve, just the willingness to practice a lot certain types of deliveries, and a bit of smarts to recognise that and do something about it.

If fundamental skills are an essential part of tennis, Radwanska lacks key fundamental skills to be a top player who wins major titles on a regular basis.

You make a good point. But there is one name obviously glaringly missing from your argument: Victoria Azarenka. Hers is a serve not too much better than Aga's. She has won multiple majors and will win more.

Honestly, I wouldn't hate Aga at all if she took a season off, worked on her strength training and serve exclusively, and returned to the tour as a true Aga 2.0.

Aga's serve has gotten noticeably better the past year or so, though she still has a ways to go before her serve is a force of note. She was 7th on the tour in 2013 in percent of service games held. Edit: Also 4th in "2nd serve points won."
 
Last edited:
L

Laurie

Guest
You make a good point. But there is one name obviously glaringly missing from your argument: Victoria Azarenka. Hers is a serve not too much better than Aga's. She has won multiple majors and will win more.

Honestly, I wouldn't hate Aga at all if she took a season off, worked on her strength training and serve exclusively, and returned to the tour as a true Aga 2.0.

Aga's serve has gotten noticeably better the past year or so, though she still has a ways to go before her serve is a force of note. She was 7th on the tour in 2013 in percent of service games held. Edit: Also 4th in "2nd serve points won."

Azarenka? True her serve is not the best for her height, but its not bad but agree needs to be improved.

As for statistics, again dont be fooled by stats, we are talking about the biggest matches, statistics don't cover when she plays a grand slam quarter or semi final. Its the best players in those situations that do the most damage, and being 4th on 2nd serve points won against lesser players overall wont help in the vital moments when it matters.

As f
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Azarenka? True her serve is not the best for her height, but its not bad but agree needs to be improved.

As for statistics, again dont be fooled by stats, we are talking about the biggest matches, statistics don't cover when she plays a grand slam quarter or semi final. Its the best players in those situations that do the most damage, and being 4th on 2nd serve points won against lesser players overall wont help in the vital moments when it matters.

As f
you do know that during that 2013 loss to Lisicki (you know, the example of 'biggest matches') Radwanska actually had better percentage of second serves points won than her average over the entire year, don't you? and that this percentage was almost 10% points better than Lisicki's percentage on second serves.
But do not ever let facts get in a way of the argument....
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, then obviously there's some sort of communciation barrier. I never said she was never intelligent. In fact I've gone out of my way to say that she's is a good player, to explain by views on tennis intelligence, and not belittle or insult Radwanska.

I have repeatedly trying to explain the difference between variety/craftiness and "intelligence". My point is that shots are just shots. Having a variety of shots doesn't make one an intelligent tennis player. It's how a person deploys those shots. Those shots can be deployed intelligently, and those shots can be deployed not so intelligently, or even stupidly; just as sheer power can be deployed intelligently, not so intelligently, or even stupidly.

The point about losing 6-1, 6-1 while showing off a variety of shots, as well as my latter example of Hicham Arazi, is simply to illustrate that, again that variety has to be deployed to positive effect for it to be intelligent. Otherwise, as I stated earlier, all tennis players who simply pull out a a variety of shots, no matter the result, would be considered intelligent. Isn't that silly? If Serena stopped hitting hard and sliced and diced the majority of the match and lost to players she normally beats, would that be intelligent play just because she showed more variety than usual?

You state, " from My point of view, it seems you are trying to say she is not intelligent." That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that sometimes she is, sometimes she isn't (as is true for nearly all players) For some reason you take that as a huge insult.

I'm also saying, again, that just because she has a wide variety of shots doesn't make her intelligent. Why would it. Again, if you deploy variety haparzadly to negative effect, how is that playing intelligently? You think because Radwanska has a variety of shots and can use them effectively (as vs. Azarenka), that automatically makes her intelligent all the time, and the most intelligent player of all time. As, I said in my second long post, tennis intelligence, IMO, is also about making adjustments, pin pointing and exploiting opponents' weaknesses. If a player is losing badly and continues to deploy an aresnal of nice-to-look-at, but largely ineffective slices and short angles and net approaches, how is that intelligent?

Other posters have dimissed and insulted Radwanska far more than I have, which was never my intention. I tried to answer a question honestly and substantively, but apparently nothing short of blindly agreeing with you will satisfy you.

I don't know if I have said that its intelligent to slice more, and use more variety shots. Again, Im telling you to go back some pages and read my longer post of what I think is intelligent about radwanska. She has the ability to put the right shots at the right place, and also her opponents doesn't know where she is gonna put the ball, wich is frustrating. And to be honest, she is good at making adjustments too. It doesn't take long for her to get to know her opponents before she starts to take advantage of their weaknesses and start to make them insecure.

And its good to have variety in your game, wich she has, but also these things I have suggested too. She is unpredictable.

You can have your opinion about her and Im not trying to be rude, but this is what I think and obviously many other experts.
-

Then its pretty wrong too say she cant beat the best, like THUNDERVOLLEY is pointing at her loss against lisicki last year and in the final against williams. You cannot always win, but she has shown through the years by making these results, that she can beat the best. She won in 2012 against li na at wimbledon, she has won against Kerber in the semi final, she won against azarenka, she has won against sharapova in 2012, their latest meeting and haven't played against eachother ever since. And by making it so far at these slams, she has obvoiusly beaten the best, the top ranked, so i don't really get it when someone is saying she cant but she has already shown that she can beat the top girls.

She is 24 years old, has started the season really well and has the future ahead of her. She can still develop.

Im not trying to compare her to Djokovic now, but the guy was until 2010 pretty much a pigeon for nadal and federer, always the looser in the final stages, and look at what breakthrough he has done. Become a real champion. I think radwanska can do the same. she will surprise you.

And for the record, im no super fan of her , I just think she is a lovely girl and enjoy her style of play, and hope she will get a grand slam one day.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
And her being the most intelligent player in history, I have already said I overexaggerated, but it was more a question to you guys.

I think she is the smartest right NOW, on tour.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
you do know that during that 2013 loss to Lisicki (you know, the example of 'biggest matches') Radwanska actually had better percentage of second serves points won than her average over the entire year, don't you? and that this percentage was almost 10% points better than Lisicki's percentage on second serves.
But do not ever let facts get in a way of the argument....

That so called fact is totally superflous as Radwanska didn't make the Wimbledon final.

I do realise that on this forum a lot of people here don't seem to have much vision at all.
 

Brian11785

Hall of Fame
That so called fact is totally superflous as Radwanska didn't make the Wimbledon final.

I do realise that on this forum a lot of people here don't seem to have much vision at all.

It is not superfluous. You validly argued that the thing keeping her from winning big matches at the Slams is her poor serve. The other poster brought up a relevant, specific stat about a big match at Slam that calls into question that argument.

Obviously she could stand to get more MPHs. And, all things equal, Aga with a 50% better serve would be a really formidable player. But, to me, the most evident issue is that she is incapable of hitting through opponents from the ground the way that they do (or try to do) to her. Normally, this isn't an issue because the opponent attempting to hit through her is going to litter the stat sheet with unforced errors. But if she is playing someone who is "on", that person is not hitting errors, Radwanksa has no access to easy winners, and will try to force the issue and will start making unforced errors herself.

That's why she has such a bad record against Azarenka and Serena. They typically play higher percentage tennis than the rest of the hard-hitters. And she has always been more competitive against Sharapova and Li than the other two because they are prone to excessive unforced errors.

PS - I am not sure she'd have beaten Bartoli in the final at Wimbledon. The Frenchwoman was playing (for herself) the steadier, smarter hardhitting tennis that is usually bad news for Aga.
 
Last edited:
Top