What's Wozniacki's record vs the top 20 in the last year?

[tennis_pro]

It seems to me that almost each time she faces a decent players, she loses. Wozniacki's also vulnerable to lower ranked big hitters who can kick her out early in tournaments. Seriously, how on earth is she the no 1 player in the world? I remember Safina an Jankovic didn't win majors when ranked no 1 but both had more wins than losses against other top players.

 

[Boom23]

I totally agree with you...she should not be number one and the ranking system should be changed. Kuznetsova is giving her a beating right now. Goodbye Caroline!

 

[Bryan Swartz]

It seems to me that almost each time she faces a decent players, she loses.

With all due respect, if that's the way it seems to you don't pay attention to Wozniacki much. She's 24-6 in the last year against Top 20 players.

 

[Cormorant]

Her record's 15-4 for 2011, took me a minute to find that out...

 

[rossi46]

Sums up women's tennis. She should leave the tour and become an actress instead.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

And why is that exactly?

 

[rafaelnadalfan1234]

I totally agree with you...she should not be number one and the ranking system should be changed. Kuznetsova is giving her a beating right now. Goodbye Caroline!

not really....

 

[guitarplayer]

I totally agree with you...she should not be number one and the ranking system should be changed. Kuznetsova is giving her a beating right now. Goodbye Caroline!

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

a. Why is that, when outside of the majors she is obscenely more successful than those who are winning them?

 

[rossi46]

a. Why is that, when outside of the majors she is obscenely more successful than those who are winning them?

Majors are what count, the greats get measured on that, nobody remembers other tournaments. Look at Safina, she is remembered for being a choker.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Majors are not the only thing that counts. They are merely the most important single factor among many.

 

[Kaz00]

1-2321 life time

 

[NLBwell]

Majors are what count, the greats get measured on that.

Until Sampras, nobody was measured as an all-time great with number of majors won as a large factor.
Most of the best guys went pro and so couldn't play them. Even for many years after that the majors weren't a primary factor. A lot of guys didn't play them all and the biggest money was in other tournaments or even exhibitions. When the ATP and ITF finally quit feuding and created a tournament calendar that featured the majors was when they became the most important tourrnaments. Of course Wimbledon was always the most prestigious, with the US Open and French right there, but players were always judged by their whole year's work. Emerson said he never gave any thought to winning the most majors unitl the press made a big thing about Sampras being close to his record.

If you go by majors won, then Steffi Graf is number one this year - and probably evey year for the next 20. That would be silly.
Do you really think Kvitova, Li Na, or Clijsters is more deserving than Wozniaki because they won one tournament? Especially considering that the majors are the LEAST demanding tournaments for the women since they get a day off instead of playing every day.

 

[DMan]

Majors are not the only thing that counts. They are merely the most important single factor among many.

And Wozniacki has ZERO of the single most important factors that count in professional tennis. (Those "mere" events.....the majors!) And she has 4 chances each year to win a major. Unlike other sports, when there is only 1 world championship or major victory opportunity.

OK, and a closer inspection of Woz's record vs Top1 0 opponents the last 2 seasons reveals a rather pedestrian record for the <snicker, snicker, snicker> # 1 ranked woman.

2010:
beat #8 Radwanksa (perhaps the weakest #8 of all time) in Indian Wells, lost to #9 Jankovic.
beat #7 Schiavone in Montreal
lost to #8 Zvonervea at US Open
beat #9 Radwanska (Aggie retired after 5 games) in Tokyo
beat a nearly retired #10 Dementieva in Tokyo
beat #4 Zvonereva in Beijing
beat #2 Zvonereva, #6 Schiavone and #9 Dementieva in Qatar
lost to #7 Stosur and #4 Clijsters in Qatar

For 2010 she was 8-4 vs Top 10, and her "best" win was against #2 Zvonereva!

2011:
beat #7 Schiavone in Australian Open (After Frankie had played a nearly 5 hour match the previous round)
lost to #11 Li Na (officially not top 10, but showing again when she comes up against the better players in majors, Woz loses)
beat #8 Jankovic in Dubai
lost to #3 Zvonereva in Doha
beat #9 Azarenka in Indian Wells (Vika retired after 3 games)
beat #8 Jankovic in Charleston
beat #9 Jankovic in Rome
lost to #9 Sharapova in Rome
beat #5 Schiavone in Brussels
beat #8 Schiavone in New Haven

Thankfully for Woz, she has her whipping girls in Frankie and Jelena (who isn't really top 10 anyway) to pad her record vs Top 10, to an underwhelming 7-3.

Face it, a nice ball retriever, but doesn't have what ti takes to even be int he conversation when it comes to being the best. She shops around at a lot of tournaments, and comes away with several prizes, and many wins over lower ranked players. Big deal. But she is not the best, by any stretch. ANd she's yet to win a major.

 

[DMan]

Until Sampras, nobody was measured as an all-time great with number of majors won as a large factor.
Most of the best guys went pro and so couldn't play them. Even for many years after that the majors weren't a primary factor. A lot of guys didn't play them all and the biggest money was in other tournaments or even exhibitions. When the ATP and ITF finally quit feuding and created a tournament calendar that featured the majors was when they became the most important tourrnaments. Of course Wimbledon was always the most prestigious, with the US Open and French right there, but players were always judged by their whole year's work. Emerson said he never gave any thought to winning the most majors unitl the press made a big thing about Sampras being close to his record.

If you go by majors won, then Steffi Graf is number one this year - and probably evey year for the next 20. That would be silly.
Do you really think Kvitova, Li Na, or Clijsters is more deserving than Wozniaki because they won one tournament? Especially considering that the majors are the LEAST demanding tournaments for the women since they get a day off instead of playing every day.

If the majors are the least demanding, then I'd guess you could say they are quite easy to win. If they're so "easy", then why can't Woz win one?

Why?

PS - Steffi Graf could easily be number one this year if she wanted to. Such is the sad and pathetic state of the women's game. No doubt Graf could come out of retirement at age 42 and win an other Wimbledon and French title. But good for Steffi that she doesn't want to show up the current crop of women on the tour. So she isn't #1 although she has won more career majors in singles in the Open era than anyone, male or female. I'm just saying.

 

[Kaz00]

If the majors are the least demanding, then I'd guess you could say they are quite easy to win. If they're so "easy", then why can't Woz win one?

Why?

PS - Steffi Graf could easily be number one this year if she wanted to. Such is the sad and pathetic state of the women's game. No doubt Graf could come out of retirement at age 42 and win an other Wimbledon and French title. But good for Steffi that she doesn't want to show up the current crop of women on the tour. So she isn't #1 although she has won more career majors in singles in the Open era than anyone, male or female. I'm just saying.

After seeing a video of Steffi Graf hitting with Petkovic I believe she could go deep in a slam too lol. Wow she still got the wheels at 42.

 

[1970CRBase]

After seeing a video of Steffi Graf hitting with Petkovic I believe she could go deep in a slam too lol. Wow she still got the wheels at 42.

I don't know how far Graf could go today, probably a round two depending on her opponent, but in her prime, she would be a nightmare for certain girls today, even with their modern tech, many of whom have no idea how to deal with slice. Notably Li who can't handle slice backhand at all and who doesn't have a particularly good DTL backhand against Graf's inside out forehand cc.

Graf in that vid was 42, still moves better than Petkovic.

 

[Kaz00]

That slice would be a nightmare at Wimbledon.. They should really give her a wild card just to see how far she CAN go!

 

[NLBwell]

If the majors are the least demanding, then I'd guess you could say they are quite easy to win. If they're so "easy", then why can't Woz win one?

Why?

PS - Steffi Graf could easily be number one this year if she wanted to. Such is the sad and pathetic state of the women's game. No doubt Graf could come out of retirement at age 42 and win an other Wimbledon and French title. But good for Steffi that she doesn't want to show up the current crop of women on the tour. So she isn't #1 although she has won more career majors in singles in the Open era than anyone, male or female. I'm just saying.

So you are saying the rankings point system for this year should be changed to enable Graf to be ranked #1?
Playing every other day neutralizes one of Wozniaki's strengths, her fitness. Since she doesn't have big shots like some other gals, losing that advantage is significant. It's one of the reasons an out-of-shape Serena W. could win majors and not do well in smaller tournaments. I'm more impressed that Serena could win back-to-back tournaments last month when fitness certainly could have been a problem than if she wins the US Open this year.

 

[DeShaun]

How can a number one have a losing record against the next ten closest rivals and retain the number one? This does not seem possible.

 

[tennis_pro]

Until Sampras, nobody was measured as an all-time great with number of majors won as a large factor.
Most of the best guys went pro and so couldn't play them. Even for many years after that the majors weren't a primary factor. A lot of guys didn't play them all and the biggest money was in other tournaments or even exhibitions. When the ATP and ITF finally quit feuding and created a tournament calendar that featured the majors was when they became the most important tourrnaments. Of course Wimbledon was always the most prestigious, with the US Open and French right there, but players were always judged by their whole year's work. Emerson said he never gave any thought to winning the most majors unitl the press made a big thing about Sampras being close to his record.

If you go by majors won, then Steffi Graf is number one this year - and probably evey year for the next 20. That would be silly.
Do you really think Kvitova, Li Na, or Clijsters is more deserving than Wozniaki because they won one tournament? Especially considering that the majors are the LEAST demanding tournaments for the women since they get a day off instead of playing every day.

If slams are the least demanding tournaments for women, why hasn't Wozniacki won one yet?

 

[Bryan Swartz]

@ tennispro:

Ok, let me see if I got this. First, you claim this:

It seems to me that almost each time she faces a decent players, she loses. ... I remember Safina an Jankovic didn't win majors when ranked no 1 but both had more wins than losses against other top players.

The title of the thread defines your meaning of 'top players' here to be Top 20.

It is then demonstrated that in the past year her record against such players is 24-6, meaning she won 80% of the time. Not more losses than wins, as you claimed.

Then we enter DMan(nice to see you again!)

closer inspection of Woz's record vs Top1 0 opponents the last 2 seasons reveals a rather pedestrian record for the <snicker, snicker, snicker> # 1 ranked woman.

What is pedestrian about winning more than twice as many as you lose(as your own post points out)? You then claim that Jelena 'isn't really Top 10 anyway' which is completely ludicrous, as she has been ranked in the Top 10 continuously since she was at the time of the match and had been for quite some time.

And Wozniacki has ZERO of the single most important factors that count in professional tennis. (Those "mere" events.....the majors!) And she has 4 chances each year to win a major

Yep, this is most certainly true. It is also true that looking only at the majors is an incomplete picture. If you want to compare the complete picture we can go down that route again. It isn't a picture that is at all unflattering to Wozniacki. She has a ton more of the other factors in her favor than any other player. That's why she's #1.

a nice ball retriever, but doesn't have what ti takes to even be int he conversation when it comes to being the best.

Depends on your definition of 'the best'.

She shops around at a lot of tournaments

No more than most of the other top players. As I demonstrated a few days ago(before the thread was deleted), her schedule is indistinguishable from Zvonareva and Azarenka, for example. She gets most of her points from the big events just like everybody else.

Steffi Graf could easily be number one this year if she wanted to. Such is the sad and pathetic state of the women's game. No doubt Graf could come out of retirement at age 42 and win an other Wimbledon and French title.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Nobody knows what Graf could do if she tried to come back, but aside from that it's completely irrelevant. What matters is what the players who are active are doing.

 

[tennis_pro]

I said it SEEMS to me that each time she faces tougher opposition she loses, especially in slams. Didn't check her actual record but that's not the point. Nowadays she's not even favored to beat another top 10 player in the bookies eyes. Seriously, when was the last the the no 1 player in the world was NOT the favorite against any other top player?

 

[NLBwell]

Don't know if the above is true, but bookies only reflect the thinking of the betting public in setting the line so that 1/2 of people will bet one way and 1/2 will bet the other way. If most people are misinformed and it SEEMS like she will lose despite her lopsided wining pct. vs. other top 10 players, the bookies will set the line to reflect that.

 

[danb]

How can a number one have a losing record against the next ten closest rivals and retain the number one? This does not seem possible.

Don't let facts get in the way of hate. She has a winning record against top 20 - otherwise she wouldn't be #1. Some people need to hate - it makes their day. Some hate Serena for her power game. Some hate Wozny for her grit and Barby look. Some hate them both.
Some people like tennis and appreciate both Serena (and power players) and Wozny (and grit players).

 

[Boom23]

I called last nights match too soon. I must say that I'm impressed with Caro's performance. With that being said, Svetlana totally choked, the match was on her racquet.

Side note: no matter what the Caro fans say, Grand Slams are the only thing that matter in the career of a tennis player. When players retire GS victories trump everything else on their resume.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

@ tennispro

I'm not trying to be difficult here: I'm all for differing opinions. But I think the fact that the actual record is so different from the perception you are talking about really does matter a lot. It shows that, as is so often the case with Wozniacki, the perception/accusation doesn't fit what she's actually done.

As far as being favored against Top 10, that is again not true. She was a strong favorite against Zvonareva in last year's USO semi, for example. There are other times she hasn't been favored(Li Na in Australia). It's also irrelevant. What the bookies think is often wrong, so why would we base an opinion of a player on that?

 

[Bryan Swartz]

no matter what the Caro fans say, Grand Slams are the only thing that matter in the career of a tennis player. When players retire GS victories trump everything else on their resume.

According to who? First of all, the issue of #1 and the issue of career legacy are completely different issues. The latter is a subjective matter and one which there are all kinds of different opinions on(as demonstrated by Emerson, noted earlier in the thread). I happen to think a guy like Lendl is way underrated going by pure Slam count, as are players like Borg because of what happened with the AO in earlier eras, etc. There's no way to get an even playing field and therefore no way to compare fairly.

It's just silly IMO to pretend the other 44 weeks of the year are irrelevant.

 

[BobFL]

Good win for Caro. and I don't think Sveta choked. She was simply out-fitness-ed.