When Is Agnieszka Radwanska going to win a grand slam?

[Amelie Mauresmo]

I am starting to wonder if Agnieszka is going to win a grand slam? Aga is only twenty four, but I thought she would have won a grand slam by now. Wimbledon was the perfect opportunity for Aga to win, but she got tight against Lisicki in their semifinal.

Aga hasn't done well at the US OPEN. In fact, the US OPEN is Aga's worst slam she's never gotten past the fourth round in New York which is a shock.

Last year, Aga had an easy draw yet got stunned by Roberta Vinci in the fourth round.

I think Aga needs to spend more time, making her legs stronger, and perhaps lifting some weights to improve her serve.

Aga's first serve is good, she can hit it over 105 miles per hour. The second serve is the problem for Aga, I don't understand why Aga doesn't go for more

on the second serve? Lisicki and now Cibulkova both attacked Aga's second serve and she lost both matches despite having a lead.

In Stanford, I thought it would be a walk in the park for Aga to win, I am shocked and stunned she lost to that Cibulkova!

I am so disappointed about Agnieszka losing to Cibulkova yesterday. I thought Aga had the match she was cruising up 6-3 3-2 but then she imploded and let Cibulkova back into the match. This is the second time in the month Agnieszka has lost a match in the third set despite having a lead.

I think Agnieszka needed to be more aggressive on Cibulkova's second serve. According to Cibulkova she said Agnieszka's second serve is slow. So, I think Aga needs to work on her second serve instead of just spinning it in, why not add some slice to it, or even hit a kick second serve?

I also think Aga needs to start lifting some weights she's so skinny, she's fit but she seems to be getting tired in these long three set matches.

 

[Steffi-forever]

She would like to know, she is looking for this

Btw a "Grand Slam" is winning the 4 majors in a calendar year.

 

[Doubles]

I'm going to say....never.

 

[El Diablo]

Never. Too many big hitters on the tour who can blow her away if they have a really good day.....and in a slam there are 7 opportunities to be blown away. Witness Ms. Bartoli, who can hit very big, and who had some very good days at Wimbledon. Watching Ms. Hampton this past weekend I see the same thing -- someone who hits an accurate and heavy ball, and who on a good day could make Agnieszka miserable down the road.

 

[Tcbtennis]

I really enjoyed watching the final between Radwanska and Cibulkova yesterday. Overall it was of high quality. That being said, Cibulkova really bullied Radwanska around the court. Cibulkova is an agressive, first strike player whereas Radwanska is a counter puncher with great touch and defense. In my opinion, an agressive first strike player will always beat a finesse, counterpuncher most of the time if the agressive player's balls stay on the court. Cibulkova really cut down on her unforced errors and at that point took control of the match. Radwanska was able to stay out of trouble in the first set because she came up with some big first serves (good velocity and great placement) at key moments.

The problem with Radwanska winning a major is that she will have to hope that she doesn't meet a big aggressive hitter who is on. Then all her great touch, variety, defensive skills will mean nothing. She has too slight a build to contend with the Williamses, Azarenkas and Sharapovas of the WTA. Her second serve is a huge detriment and Cibulkova, who is shorter than Radwanska but more muscular and stronger, feasted on them.

 

[dafinch]

What posters # 3 and 4 said...

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Never. Too many big hitters on the tour who can blow her away if they have a really good day.....and in a slam there are 7 opportunities to be blown away. Witness Ms. Bartoli, who can hit very big, and who had some very good days at Wimbledon. Watching Ms. Hampton this past weekend I see the same thing -- someone who hits an accurate and heavy ball, and who on a good day could make Agnieszka miserable down the road.

Aga destroyed Jamie Hampton 6-3 6-2 in their semifinal in Stanford. I agree that Hampton is good but she's too inconsistent and doesn't always play by the percentages or smart tennis.

Aga has a 7-0 record against Marion Bartoli. If Bartoli can win a grand slam then so can Aga.

Francesca Schivaone even has a grand slam title, Aga must be kicking herself seeing these players like Bartoli, Stosur, Schiavone, Li Na all more inconistent than her winning majors.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

I really enjoyed watching the final between Radwanska and Cibulkova yesterday. Overall it was of high quality. That being said, Cibulkova really bullied Radwanska around the court. Cibulkova is an agressive, first strike player whereas Radwanska is a counter puncher with great touch and defense. In my opinion, an agressive first strike player will always beat a finesse, counterpuncher most of the time if the agressive player's balls stay on the court. Cibulkova really cut down on her unforced errors and at that point took control of the match. Radwanska was able to stay out of trouble in the first set because she came up with some big first serves (good velocity and great placement) at key moments.

The problem with Radwanska winning a major is that she will have to hope that she doesn't meet a big aggressive hitter who is on. Then all her great touch, variety, defensive skills will mean nothing. She has too slight a build to contend with the Williamses, Azarenkas and Sharapovas of the WTA. Her second serve is a huge detriment and Cibulkova, who is shorter than Radwanska but more muscular and stronger, feasted on them.

Agnieszka beat Sharapova rather easily in Miami last year in straight sets, she also pushed Serena Williams to three sets in the Wimbledon final.

Radwanska can beat Sharapova on a hardcourt, their last match in Istanbul was extremely difficult for Sharapova to win a tough three set match.

Although Sharapova has a 7-2 edge against Radwanska their matches tend to be close.

I agree that Agnieszka needs to improve the second serve that was the problem yesterday.

The first serve is very good actually, Aga came up with some huge serves to stop Cibulkova from breaking her serve.

The second serve is the problem for Aga, she does need more variety on it.

I think Aga's time is going to happen she's too talented not to win a major.

 

[Fiji]

Never ever.

 

[tennisconsultcom]

Actually, at last Wimbledon she had a real chance to win the major. It was unique situation when all three main competitors lost before the semifinals. Unfortunately Agnieszka lost to Sabine Lisicki. Then we watched the most horrible major's final for many years.

I have been watching Agnieszka Radwanska play for the last eight years. The first time that I saw her was when she was playing an ITF tournament in Minsk when she was 16. I remember really well how surprised I was that she was so creative and smart on the court. When I discussed my opinion with some coaches, I was told “No way, Radwanska will never reach top 50 because she is not strong enough and does not have the physical ability to hit the ball like the top players do”. Less than one year later, she broke into the top 100 at 17 years of age, and in just two more years, she reached the top 10. But skeptics continued to say “She has zero chance of becoming a star, she is just lucky. She does not have a strong 110 mph serve and her ground strokes are not very powerful. She will phase away soon”.

Yes, for some tennis coaches and players, it is impossible to understand that a tennis player can be in the top 10 without all that stuff. Maybe it’s because they do not want or cannot understand that there are naturally gifted players who cannot be created with 30+ hours a week of tennis, fitness and millions of dollars of investment. To play like Agnieszka Radwanska or Martina Hingis, you have to have been kissed by a tennis god when you were born.

I want to give a special thanks to Agnieszka Radwanska for her smart and creative play. She saves the beauty in tennis. Her play is a good reason for some coaches and players to think that Boom-Boom tennis won’t completely dominate in the future. Smart tennis is still alive and the #4 in the world, Agnieszka Radwanska, proves it.

 

[Overdrive]

Then we watched the most horrible major's final for many years.

Elaborate on why this year's Women's final was 'horrible'.

 

[Mick]

well. I never thought Bartoli could win Wimbledon but she did it. So who knows. Maybe one fine day Radwanska can win a GS.

 

[spinovic]

Obviously she missed a golden opportunity at this year's Wimbledon, but I think it is wrong for people to say "she missed her chance".

As you noted, she is only 24, so she may very well have her best tennis ahead of her over the next 3-4 years. And, if that's the case and she can maintain her consistent performance, I think she'll get at least 2-3 more "good opportunities" to win a slam.

I don't think she got tight in the loss to Lisicki. I just think Lisicki was playing great tennis all the way until the finals. Then, she ran in to Bartoli who was playing very well and jumped on her early and Lisicki crumbled in the biggest moment.

I was really hoping Radwanksa would win that one, but I still think she'll get one if she keeps her focus and keeps playing the way she has been.

 

[dafinch]

Actually, at last Wimbledon she had a real chance to win the major. It was unique situation when all three main competitors lost before the semifinals. Unfortunately Agnieszka lost to Sabine Lisicki. Then we watched the most horrible major's final for many years.

I have been watching Agnieszka Radwanska play for the last eight years. The first time that I saw her was when she was playing an ITF tournament in Minsk when she was 16. I remember really well how surprised I was that she was so creative and smart on the court. When I discussed my opinion with some coaches, I was told “No way, Radwanska will never reach top 50 because she is not strong enough and does not have the physical ability to hit the ball like the top players do”. Less than one year later, she broke into the top 100 at 17 years of age, and in just two more years, she reached the top 10. But skeptics continued to say “She has zero chance of becoming a star, she is just lucky. She does not have a strong 110 mph serve and her ground strokes are not very powerful. She will phase away soon”.

Yes, for some tennis coaches and players, it is impossible to understand that a tennis player can be in the top 10 without all that stuff. Maybe it’s because they do not want or cannot understand that there are naturally gifted players who cannot be created with 30+ hours a week of tennis, fitness and millions of dollars of investment. To play like Agnieszka Radwanska or Martina Hingis, you have to have been kissed by a tennis god when you were born.

I want to give a special thanks to Agnieszka Radwanska for her smart and creative play. She saves the beauty in tennis. Her play is a good reason for some coaches and players to think that Boom-Boom tennis won’t completely dominate in the future. Smart tennis is still alive and the #4 in the world, Agnieszka Radwanska, proves it.

To each, his own, but I don't see what's so "naturally gifted" about pushing the ball and hoping that the opponent topples over from exhaustion-or boredom. The player right behind her(last I checked), Errani, is even worse-a serve timed as low as 49 mph recently and a sparkling 1-29 record against Top 5 players. Then there is the matter of Pugwanska being arguably the worst sport I've ever seen. The sooner the sport is rid of her, the better, IMO.

 

[happyloman]

Actually, at last Wimbledon she had a real chance to win the major. It was unique situation when all three main competitors lost before the semifinals. Unfortunately Agnieszka lost to Sabine Lisicki. Then we watched the most horrible major's final for many years.

I have been watching Agnieszka Radwanska play for the last eight years. The first time that I saw her was when she was playing an ITF tournament in Minsk when she was 16. I remember really well how surprised I was that she was so creative and smart on the court. When I discussed my opinion with some coaches, I was told “No way, Radwanska will never reach top 50 because she is not strong enough and does not have the physical ability to hit the ball like the top players do”. Less than one year later, she broke into the top 100 at 17 years of age, and in just two more years, she reached the top 10. But skeptics continued to say “She has zero chance of becoming a star, she is just lucky. She does not have a strong 110 mph serve and her ground strokes are not very powerful. She will phase away soon”.

Yes, for some tennis coaches and players, it is impossible to understand that a tennis player can be in the top 10 without all that stuff. Maybe it’s because they do not want or cannot understand that there are naturally gifted players who cannot be created with 30+ hours a week of tennis, fitness and millions of dollars of investment. To play like Agnieszka Radwanska or Martina Hingis, you have to have been kissed by a tennis god when you were born.

I want to give a special thanks to Agnieszka Radwanska for her smart and creative play. She saves the beauty in tennis. Her play is a good reason for some coaches and players to think that Boom-Boom tennis won’t completely dominate in the future. Smart tennis is still alive and the #4 in the world, Agnieszka Radwanska, proves it.

I like this post.

Her odds of winning are not good, but I would love to see her win (and not just against a decimated field like Wimbledon 13.

 

[sundaypunch]

I really enjoyed watching the final between Radwanska and Cibulkova yesterday. Overall it was of high quality. That being said, Cibulkova really bullied Radwanska around the court. Cibulkova is an agressive, first strike player whereas Radwanska is a counter puncher with great touch and defense. In my opinion, an agressive first strike player will always beat a finesse, counterpuncher most of the time if the agressive player's balls stay on the court. Cibulkova really cut down on her unforced errors and at that point took control of the match. Radwanska was able to stay out of trouble in the first set because she came up with some big first serves (good velocity and great placement) at key moments.

The problem with Radwanska winning a major is that she will have to hope that she doesn't meet a big aggressive hitter who is on. Then all her great touch, variety, defensive skills will mean nothing. She has too slight a build to contend with the Williamses, Azarenkas and Sharapovas of the WTA. Her second serve is a huge detriment and Cibulkova, who is shorter than Radwanska but more muscular and stronger, feasted on them.

This sums it up perfectly.

Radwanska is what she is. Of course she can improve but she's not going to turn herself into a power player. There is no shame in being a great player without a slam. At the end of the day, there are only a few players in the world that are better than her.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

To each, his own, but I don't see what's so "naturally gifted" about pushing the ball and hoping that the opponent topples over from exhaustion-or boredom. The player right behind her(last I checked), Errani, is even worse-a serve timed as low as 49 mph recently and a sparkling 1-29 record against Top 5 players. Then there is the matter of Pugwanska being arguably the worst sport I've ever seen. The sooner the sport is rid of her, the better, IMO.

You obviously aren't paying attention Agnieszka Radwanska she is my favourite WTA player and I will root for her to win a grand slam!

Agnieszka isn't just just pushing the ball. Radwanska changes the pace, it is dumb to just try to out hit an opponent you can make a lot of errors.

Radwanska is actually a lot of fun to watch she hits these incredible drop shots fooling her opponents and forcing her to move up in the court.

Radwanska's game is all about unpredictability she doesn't give her opponent the same ball.

Agnieszka doesn't give her opponents what they want which is pace, she makes things tough for them by using angles and changing the pace.

Radwanska can serve over 100 miles per hour against Cibulkova she came up with some big first serve. Agnieszka's first serve is actually pretty good, it is the second serve which is the problem and the shot she needs to improve dramatically.


Radwanska makes tennis UNCOMFORTABLE for her oppponent she forces her to hit awkward shots. For instance, Radwanska has a neat trick where her opponent thinks she's going to hit a drop shot instead she hits a slice and the opponent makes an error.

Radwanska also volleys extremely well, she knows how to finish a point, she does have aggression to her game.

The key for Agnieszka I feel is to be aggressive in the critical moments to take a chance and be aggressive on the big points instead of being defensive and waiting for errors.

 

[tennisconsultcom]

Elaborate on why this year's Women's final was 'horrible'.

Did you enjoy watching this final? I can repeat my opinion: the women’s final was terrible. It wasn’t the fault of Marion Bartoli, who played well and had a good game plan. But Sabine Lisicki was completely out of her play.

 

[happyloman]

yes the powerful 100 mph fh and bh winners of the serenas and marias are nice to watch, but did you see some of the SICK drop shots from radwanska this past weekend?


wow.

 

[tennisconsultcom]

To each, his own, but I don't see what's so "naturally gifted" about pushing the ball and hoping that the opponent topples over from exhaustion-or boredom. The player right behind her(last I checked), Errani, is even worse-a serve timed as low as 49 mph recently and a sparkling 1-29 record against Top 5 players. Then there is the matter of Pugwanska being arguably the worst sport I've ever seen. The sooner the sport is rid of her, the better, IMO.

The better? For whom? For BOOM-BOOM players and their coaches who teach "just hit the ball and practice, man, practice" approach.

I have heard the same opinion from some tennis coaches who can produce BOOM-BOOM players but have no idea how to develop creative and smart players. I guess, they do not like Radwanska because she in top 5-10 for many years, and she is not BOOM-BOOM They just cannot explain how she wins against 99% of big hitters.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

... Radwanska is what she is. Of course she can improve but she's not going to turn herself into a power player. There is no shame in being a great player without a slam. At the end of the day, there are only a few players in the world that are better than her.

QFT. She's not short on talent and, at 24, still has a shot. Andy Murray, long time at #4 did not win a slam til 25. Bartoli won her first slam at 28 and Schiavone won her first/only slam at the ripe old age of 30.

ARad has gotten to QF or better in 9 slams. The last 2 years have been her best at the slams -- finals at Wimby '12, SF at Wimby '13 and 3 QFs at the AO and FO. She is 13-3 at the slams this year thus far (but then has never gotten past the 4th round at the USO).

Note to the OP: At 56 kg or so (and 172 cm), she is really not all that skinny. Certainly not like sister, Ula, is this year. Lifting weight might not be the answer. Or certainly not weights alone. If stamina is an issue, weights aren't going to improve this. Cardio training, both aerobic and anaerobic (interval), will. For more power, plyo exercise is the way to go.
.

 

[TheRed]

Actually, at last Wimbledon she had a real chance to win the major. It was unique situation when all three main competitors lost before the semifinals. Unfortunately Agnieszka lost to Sabine Lisicki. Then we watched the most horrible major's final for many years.

I have been watching Agnieszka Radwanska play for the last eight years. The first time that I saw her was when she was playing an ITF tournament in Minsk when she was 16. I remember really well how surprised I was that she was so creative and smart on the court. When I discussed my opinion with some coaches, I was told “No way, Radwanska will never reach top 50 because she is not strong enough and does not have the physical ability to hit the ball like the top players do”. Less than one year later, she broke into the top 100 at 17 years of age, and in just two more years, she reached the top 10. But skeptics continued to say “She has zero chance of becoming a star, she is just lucky. She does not have a strong 110 mph serve and her ground strokes are not very powerful. She will phase away soon”.

Yes, for some tennis coaches and players, it is impossible to understand that a tennis player can be in the top 10 without all that stuff. Maybe it’s because they do not want or cannot understand that there are naturally gifted players who cannot be created with 30+ hours a week of tennis, fitness and millions of dollars of investment. To play like Agnieszka Radwanska or Martina Hingis, you have to have been kissed by a tennis god when you were born.

I want to give a special thanks to Agnieszka Radwanska for her smart and creative play. She saves the beauty in tennis. Her play is a good reason for some coaches and players to think that Boom-Boom tennis won’t completely dominate in the future. Smart tennis is still alive and the #4 in the world, Agnieszka Radwanska, proves it.

I hate the comparison to Hingis. Hingis was NOT a counterpuncher. She just didn't have power. Hingis was constantly attacking with variety and accuracy. Hingis was also the closest to an all court player the women's game had in the last 20 years. She's also the smartest player I've ever seen, man or woman.
Aga is a counterpunch/pusher. She also uses variety but mostly to make the other player miss. She's not really looking to attack and put away a shot. She's just trying to make the other player uncomfortable and go for a shot she shouldn't have, thereby forcing an error.

 

[robbo1970]

Never. I just think there are too many better, stronger players in her way. The same for many female players in the top 10.

 

[Narcissist]

She does well on the grass, if serena retires I can see it. Pova and vika are beatable for her at wimbly but this year was a huge chance gone begging and she knows it.

 

[torpantennis]

Athletics-wise, it's ridiculous to have someone like her at the top of a hard-fought, explosive, anaerobic sport such as tennis. Makes one question the level of competition in women's tennis, or even worse, the athletic challenge of tennis in general. If Aga ever wins with that physique, my respect for the women's game will seriously plummet!

 

[Phoenix1983]

She'll never win a slam.

And yes the comparison to Hingis is a disgrace.

 

[Narcissist]

Athletics-wise, it's ridiculous to have someone like her at the top of a hard-fought, explosive, anaerobic sport such as tennis. Makes one question the level of competition in women's tennis, or even worse, the athletic challenge of tennis in general. If Aga ever wins with that physique, my respect for the women's game will seriously plummet!

What is worse, bartoli winning or aga?

 

[torpantennis]

What is worse, bartoli winning or aga?

LOL! Who would you rather face, if they were pro MMA fighters?

Quess what's my level of respect for the women's game nowadays?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ What does MMA fighting have to do with pro tennis? ARad's physique and fitness are just fine IMHO. Note that tennis is not just anaerobic. Pro singles players often derive 40-60% of their energy needs from their aerobic systems. I've provided links for this in the Fitness forum several times if you care to research this.

If you've ever seen Aga in person, you would realize that she is hard-working -- her game is both hard-fought and explosive. Perhaps she could use a tad more explosiveness on her stroke mechanics to produce a bit more power, but her footwork/movement is not lacking in explosiveness. Note that Hingis' strokes were not all that explosive either compared to the big power girls.
,

 

[rossi46]

After she gets blessed by the church.

 

[sundaypunch]

QFT. She's not short on talent and, at 24, still has a shot. Andy Murray, long time at #4 did not win a slam til 25. Bartoli won her first slam at 28 and Schiavone won her first/only slam at the ripe old age of 30.

ARad has gotten to QF or better in 9 slams. The last 2 years have been her best at the slams -- finals at Wimby '12, SF at Wimby '13 and 3 QFs at the AO and FO. She is 13-3 at the slams this year thus far (but then has never gotten past the 4th round at the USO).

Note to the OP: At 56 kg or so (and 172 cm), she is really not all that skinny. Certainly like sister, Ula, is this year. Lifting weight might not be the answer. Or certainly not weights alone. If stamina is an issue, weights aren't going to improve this. Cardio training, both aerobic and anaerobic (interval), will. For more power, plyo exercise is the way to go.

Of course she still has a shot. My point is that there is nothing wrong with being a player without one.

 

[mbm0912]

You obviously aren't paying attention Agnieszka Radwanska she is my favourite WTA player and I will root for her to win a grand slam!

Agnieszka isn't just just pushing the ball. Radwanska changes the pace, it is dumb to just try to out hit an opponent you can make a lot of errors.

Radwanska is actually a lot of fun to watch she hits these incredible drop shots fooling her opponents and forcing her to move up in the court.

Radwanska's game is all about unpredictability she doesn't give her opponent the same ball.

Agnieszka doesn't give her opponents what they want which is pace, she makes things tough for them by using angles and changing the pace.

Radwanska can serve over 100 miles per hour against Cibulkova she came up with some big first serve. Agnieszka's first serve is actually pretty good, it is the second serve which is the problem and the shot she needs to improve dramatically.


Radwanska makes tennis UNCOMFORTABLE for her oppponent she forces her to hit awkward shots. For instance, Radwanska has a neat trick where her opponent thinks she's going to hit a drop shot instead she hits a slice and the opponent makes an error.

Radwanska also volleys extremely well, she knows how to finish a point, she does have aggression to her game.

The key for Agnieszka I feel is to be aggressive in the critical moments to take a chance and be aggressive on the big points instead of being defensive and waiting for errors.

She is my favorite WTA player as well.

 

[torpantennis]

^ What does MMA fighting have to do with pro tennis? ARad's physique and fitness are just fine IMHO. Note that tennis is not just anaerobic. Pro singles players often derive 40-60% of their energy needs from their aerobic systems. I've provided links for this in the Fitness forum several times if you care to research this.

If you've ever seen Aga in person, you would realize that she is hard-working -- her game is both hard-fought and explosive. Perhaps she could use a tad more explosiveness on her stroke mechanics to produce a bit more power, but her footwork/movement is not lacking in explosiveness. Note that Hingis' strokes were not all that explosive either compared to the big power girls.
,

MMA (or boxing) and tennis have a lot in common. They both include short bursts of explosive full-body activities, and then short breaks in-between to refuel the muscles. The key energy system in these kinds of activities is ATP-CP, i.e. chemical energy stored in your muscles, which is then released anaerobically during activities. These, together with the well trained muscles, provide your peak-power-output (PPO), which is a key to make heavier strokes and move more explosively.

However, ATP-CP stored in muscles only provides energy for 6-10 sec. But think what's the average length of a pro rally, maybe 4 strokes? That fits inside that time scale of 6-10 sec. Then you have a 30 sec break (or two) to (partly) refuel the ATP-CP system, and here jumps in BOTH aerobic and anaerobic systems. your guess of 40-60 % of energy "derived" from aerobic system is a good estimate IMO, but this is done DURING THE BREAKS between points. So during typical short points, ATP-CP stored in your muscles is THE key energy contributor.

A good reference:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm

Aga lacks in PPO, due to her tiny muscles, which limits power in her strokes and movement. I stand by my point, that it's ridiculous to have someone like her at the top of a sport like tennis. Disagree?

 

[torpantennis]

And regarding Aga being tiny, at 56kg and 172 cm she has a BMI of 19, being at the limit of being underweight. The male top players, and Serena Williams, have BMI close to 25, which is close to optimal.

 

[monfed]

Hopefully never but if she does end up winning I hope Serena Williams is on the other side of the net.

 

[surfvland]

Well I guess if Bartoli and Schiavone can do it...

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Well I guess if Bartoli and Schiavone can do it...

I just hope Aga can win a slam SOON before the younger players like Sloane Stephens or Laura Robson start to reach the top of women's tennis. I think Aga can do it, but I feel aggression is needed in the slams especially when she plays the other top players. I hope Aga takes to heart Cibulkova's comments that her second serve is weak and attackable she needs to improve it big time.

 

[BVSlam]

I don't believe she really ever will. She's consistent, but it seems the slams either go to Serena/Azarenka/Sharapova or someone who can at least hit winners easily. Not hitting unforced errors is not going to cut it, just like with Wozniacki. I don't think Radwanska is nearly as much of a pusher though, she is much more crafty with point construction. Nevertheless, she has no real weapon and it's going to be difficult winning 7 matches when you have nothing that can really catch fire. Looking at the third set against Lisicki, Lisicki's nerves and errors held Radwanska in. However, I saw her really struggling to control a point. Lisicki was completely outhitting her. In 7 straight matches, you're too likely to come against a player like that and it's what has happened every time so far.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

MMA (or boxing) and tennis have a lot in common. They both include short bursts of explosive full-body activities, and then short breaks in-between to refuel the muscles. The key energy system in these kinds of activities is ATP-CP, i.e. chemical energy stored in your muscles, which is then released anaerobically during activities. These, together with the well trained muscles, provide your peak-power-output (PPO), which is a key to make heavier strokes and move more explosively.

However, ATP-CP stored in muscles only provides energy for 6-10 sec. But think what's the average length of a pro rally, maybe 4 strokes? That fits inside that time scale of 6-10 sec. Then you have a 30 sec break (or two) to (partly) refuel the ATP-CP system, and here jumps in BOTH aerobic and anaerobic systems. your guess of 40-60 % of energy "derived" from aerobic system is a good estimate IMO, but this is done DURING THE BREAKS between points. So during typical short points, ATP-CP stored in your muscles is THE key energy contributor.

A good reference:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm

Aga lacks in PPO, due to her tiny muscles, which limits power in her strokes and movement. I stand by my point, that it's ridiculous to have someone like her at the top of a sport like tennis. Disagree?

Interesting/informative link on energy systems.

Yes, I do disagree with some of what you posted here and the stuff on BMI. I've never given much weight (pun shamelessly intended) to BMI figures. It does not really indicate body composition very well. Body fat % is more meaningful IMO (or perhaps BF % combined with BMI figures). A BMI or 25 is actually conisdered overweight.

Now Serena's weight has fluctuated in the past several years or so. There has been times on the recent past when I would have agreed that she was overweight (almost obese). However, when she is at her most fit, we would say that she is big, but hardly overweight. Nadal and other in-shape/fit tennis players as well as elite/fit athletes in other sports also fall into this BMI ( >25 ) overweight category.

I doubt that ARad's BF % is at an suboptimal level. Perhaps a little more bulk/muscle tone would not hurt. The emphasis for her would be developing the fast-twitch fibers, type IIa and type IIx, in order to generate more power. However, I do not believe that the fastest of the fast-twitch fibers do not really "bulk" very much. Take a look at Federer's arms. Many would consider them skinny but he generates plenty of power on his serves and groundstokes. (Yes, a lot of that power is genreated with the legs, core and other parts of the kinetic chain).

Gotta run now but I will talk later about the 3 primary energy systems used in tennis.

 

[storypeddler]

I am starting to wonder if Agnieszka is going to win a grand slam? Aga is only twenty four, but I thought she would have won a grand slam by now. Wimbledon was the perfect opportunity for Aga to win, but she got tight against Lisicki in their semifinal.

Aga hasn't done well at the US OPEN. In fact, the US OPEN is Aga's worst slam she's never gotten past the fourth round in New York which is a shock.

Last year, Aga had an easy draw yet got stunned by Roberta Vinci in the fourth round.

I think Aga needs to spend more time, making her legs stronger, and perhaps lifting some weights to improve her serve.

Aga's first serve is good, she can hit it over 105 miles per hour. The second serve is the problem for Aga, I don't understand why Aga doesn't go for more

on the second serve? Lisicki and now Cibulkova both attacked Aga's second serve and she lost both matches despite having a lead.

In Stanford, I thought it would be a walk in the park for Aga to win, I am shocked and stunned she lost to that Cibulkova!

I am so disappointed about Agnieszka losing to Cibulkova yesterday. I thought Aga had the match she was cruising up 6-3 3-2 but then she imploded and let Cibulkova back into the match. This is the second time in the month Agnieszka has lost a match in the third set despite having a lead.

I think Agnieszka needed to be more aggressive on Cibulkova's second serve. According to Cibulkova she said Agnieszka's second serve is slow. So, I think Aga needs to work on her second serve instead of just spinning it in, why not add some slice to it, or even hit a kick second serve?

I also think Aga needs to start lifting some weights she's so skinny, she's fit but she seems to be getting tired in these long three set matches.

Personally, I like Radwanska fine, but I don't see her winning a slam title until and unless she adds at least one big weapon to her game. She is very consistent and very steady overall, but she simply doesn't have a weapon she can unleash to hurt you with. You can absolutely win a match with error-free consistency, even against a big hitting power player. Trouble is, you are playing long odds to do so, and in the slams, she would have to do so multiple times in a row. Her game isn't that big. Similarly, Wozniacki has a beautiful game, and she can sometimes knock off Serena or Maria here and there---but she can't knock off 4 or 5 of those players in a row. You are always the underdog when you play only that style and it virtually always catches up to you in a tournament the size of the slams. Her only real hope would be a tournament where lots of upsets occur and her path really opens up---like it did at Wimbledon. But even then, a lesser player who has a bigger game (Lisicki, Kuznetsova, etc.) can take her out unless she is playing nearly perfect tennis.

On the rec level I play a similar style, and you can succeed with it as a 3.5, a 4.0, or even a 4.5, because other players at that level give you back free points with errors and have holes in their own games to attack---but as a pro, where players are not only so strong but also so skilled, consistency alone isn't enough, and probably won't ever be for her. Chang won one slam title with his style and he may have been the best ever at it. Don't bet the farm on Radwanska ever getting one. It COULD happen, but probably never will.

 

[dafinch]

You obviously aren't paying attention Agnieszka Radwanska she is my favourite WTA player and I will root for her to win a grand slam!

Agnieszka isn't just just pushing the ball. Radwanska changes the pace, it is dumb to just try to out hit an opponent you can make a lot of errors.

Radwanska is actually a lot of fun to watch she hits these incredible drop shots fooling her opponents and forcing her to move up in the court.

Radwanska's game is all about unpredictability she doesn't give her opponent the same ball.

Agnieszka doesn't give her opponents what they want which is pace, she makes things tough for them by using angles and changing the pace.

Radwanska can serve over 100 miles per hour against Cibulkova she came up with some big first serve. Agnieszka's first serve is actually pretty good, it is the second serve which is the problem and the shot she needs to improve dramatically.


Radwanska makes tennis UNCOMFORTABLE for her oppponent she forces her to hit awkward shots. For instance, Radwanska has a neat trick where her opponent thinks she's going to hit a drop shot instead she hits a slice and the opponent makes an error.

Radwanska also volleys extremely well, she knows how to finish a point, she does have aggression to her game.

The key for Agnieszka I feel is to be aggressive in the critical moments to take a chance and be aggressive on the big points instead of being defensive and waiting for errors.

I'm "not paying attention?" To what?!?! That she's your favorite player? First of all, I wasn't addressing you, and I don't give a **** who your favorite player is-actually, the hilarious way you tried to defend Pug-wanksa's disgraceful conduct in her loss to Lisicki comes to mind, so, it's hardly a surprise, but I STILL don't give a ****. Secondly, the very first words in my post were, "to each his own." There is no "right" answer to the thread title-yet-nor to the question of whether her style is attractive or not, so that makes the "not paying attention" arrogant AND incorrect.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

MMA (or boxing) and tennis have a lot in common. They both include short bursts of explosive full-body activities, and then short breaks in-between to refuel the muscles. The key energy system in these kinds of activities is ATP-CP, i.e. chemical energy stored in your muscles, which is then released anaerobically during activities. These, together with the well trained muscles, provide your peak-power-output (PPO), which is a key to make heavier strokes and move more explosively.

However, ATP-CP stored in muscles only provides energy for 6-10 sec. But think what's the average length of a pro rally, maybe 4 strokes? That fits inside that time scale of 6-10 sec. Then you have a 30 sec break (or two) to (partly) refuel the ATP-CP system, and here jumps in BOTH aerobic and anaerobic systems. your guess of 40-60 % of energy "derived" from aerobic system is a good estimate IMO, but this is done DURING THE BREAKS between points. So during typical short points, ATP-CP stored in your muscles is THE key energy contributor.

A good reference:

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm

Aga lacks in PPO, due to her tiny muscles, which limits power in her strokes and movement. I stand by my point, that it's ridiculous to have someone like her at the top of a sport like tennis. Disagree?

Ok, I've already indicated what I thought about BMI on the previous page.

Now I'll get back to the subject of energy systems. Again, the link you provided (above) is quite good. The USTA resource that I've seen talks about 3 energy systems employed by tennis players -- the aerobic system and 2 anaerobic systems. The first of the anaerobic systems is the Immediate Energy System aka the ATP-CP Energy Pathway. This is used for short bursts of high-intensity activity lasting for 10 seconds or less.

Next, we have the Short-term Energy System aka the Fast-Glycolysis pathway, which is the main source of energy for activities lasting
between 10 seconds and 2 minutes. Lastly the USTA document talks about the Long-term or Aerobic energy system, which provides energy for endurance events lasting for 2 minutes or longer.

This USTA High-Performance training manual indicates that an elite singles player can actually stay in the aerobic training zone for most of a match. Not difficult to believe since we see many of them dancing or jumping around before a point even starts. Bartoli is an extreme example of this.

I believe that it is not, as you indicate, just the time between points where 40-60% of the energy is derived from the aerobic system. I believe that this is the average contribution during and between points. We probably rarely, if ever, derive 100% from the aerobic system in tennis since rallies typically do not last longer than 90-120 seconds. However, there was a women's match back in 1984 that featured a 29 minute (643-shot) rally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sports/tennis/24tennis.html?_r=0

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/USTA/dps/doc_437_23.pdf
(pages 40 thru 47 of the PDF file)
.

 

[torpantennis]

Ok, I've already indicated what I thought about BMI on the previous page.

Now I'll get back to the subject of energy systems. Again, the link you provided (above) is quite good. The USTA resource that I've seen talks about 3 energy systems employed by tennis players -- the aerobic system and 2 anaerobic systems. The first of the anaerobic systems is the Immediate Energy System aka the ATP-CP Energy Pathway. This is used for short bursts of high-intensity activity lasting for 10 seconds or less.

Next, we have the Short-term Energy System aka the Fast-Glycolysis pathway, which is the main source of energy for activities lasting
between 10 seconds and 2 minutes. Lastly the USTA document talks about the Long-term or Aerobic energy system, which provides energy for endurance events lasting for 2 minutes or longer.

This USTA High-Performance training manual indicates that an elite singles player can actually stay in the aerobic training zone for most of a match. Not difficult to believe since we see many of them dancing or jumping around before a point even starts. Bartoli is an extreme example of this.

I believe that it is not, as you indicate, just the time between points where 40-60% of the energy is derived from the aerobic system. I believe that this is the average contribution during and between points. We probably rarely, if ever, derive 100% from the aerobic system in tennis since rallies typically do not last longer than 90-120 seconds. However, there was a women's match back in 1984 that featured a 29 minute (643-shot) rally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sports/tennis/24tennis.html?_r=0

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/USTA/dps/doc_437_23.pdf
(pages 40 thru 47 of the PDF file)
.

I don't agree that you need aerobic energy system in any significant amounts in tennis. I think it's (almost) all short term power and explosiveness. And this of course requires some muscles. Inside a BMI of 19, you cannot fit enough of muscles, IMO.

Please continue this discussion in a new thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7626194

Interested of your comments

 

[Vanhool]

However, there was a women's match back in 1984 that featured a 29 minute (643-shot) rally.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sports/tennis/24tennis.html?_r=0
.

This was a really fun article. Thanks for posting. Tragicomedy

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Personally, I like Radwanska fine, but I don't see her winning a slam title until and unless she adds at least one big weapon to her game. She is very consistent and very steady overall, but she simply doesn't have a weapon she can unleash to hurt you with. You can absolutely win a match with error-free consistency, even against a big hitting power player. Trouble is, you are playing long odds to do so, and in the slams, she would have to do so multiple times in a row. Her game isn't that big. Similarly, Wozniacki has a beautiful game, and she can sometimes knock off Serena or Maria here and there---but she can't knock off 4 or 5 of those players in a row. You are always the underdog when you play only that style and it virtually always catches up to you in a tournament the size of the slams. Her only real hope would be a tournament where lots of upsets occur and her path really opens up---like it did at Wimbledon. But even then, a lesser player who has a bigger game (Lisicki, Kuznetsova, etc.) can take her out unless she is playing nearly perfect tennis.

On the rec level I play a similar style, and you can succeed with it as a 3.5, a 4.0, or even a 4.5, because other players at that level give you back free points with errors and have holes in their own games to attack---but as a pro, where players are not only so strong but also so skilled, consistency alone isn't enough, and probably won't ever be for her. Chang won one slam title with his style and he may have been the best ever at it. Don't bet the farm on Radwanska ever getting one. It COULD happen, but probably never will.

Why are you comparing Wozniacki to Radwanska? Agnieszka's game is better than Caroline's game because she has a plan B, C, and D. Radwanska when she's aggressive she does attack the net, she slices the ball.

Wozniacki is just a human backboard she gets the ball back doesn't make errors but she also doesn't have much variety like Radwanska. Radwanska can actually finish a point and be aggressive and hit winners.

People need to understand tennis is not just about power. The problem for Agnieszka is she needs to continue to improve the second serve, and maybe add more power to the first serve.

If Agnieszka can hold her serve, then she could put pressure on the other women's serves.

Agnieszka actually has a solid forehand and backhand she can flatten the ball out and hit winners when she wants to.

I think the problem for Agnieszka is psychological, her two recent losses to Lisicki and Cibulkova she allowed them to dictate the point waiting for errors. And I feel that's the wrong way to play in the latter rounds.

So I think Agnieszka is going to have to take a risk, she cannot expect the top players to make errors they are too consistent.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

...I think Aga can do it, but I feel aggression is needed in the slams especially when she plays the other top players.

So true......Agnizeszjka needs more aggression. You're so on top of this; she could really you in her corner.

I hope Aga takes to heart Cibulkova's comments that her second serve is weak and attackable she needs to improve it big time.

Spot on. Agniewizkza needs to get it in harder and deeper. Harder and deeper.

 

[storypeddler]

Why are you comparing Wozniacki to Radwanska? Agnieszka's game is better than Caroline's game because she has a plan B, C, and D. Radwanska when she's aggressive she does attack the net, she slices the ball.

Wozniacki is just a human backboard she gets the ball back doesn't make errors but she also doesn't have much variety like Radwanska. Radwanska can actually finish a point and be aggressive and hit winners.

People need to understand tennis is not just about power. The problem for Agnieszka is she needs to continue to improve the second serve, and maybe add more power to the first serve.

If Agnieszka can hold her serve, then she could put pressure on the other women's serves.

Agnieszka actually has a solid forehand and backhand she can flatten the ball out and hit winners when she wants to.

I think the problem for Agnieszka is psychological, her two recent losses to Lisicki and Cibulkova she allowed them to dictate the point waiting for errors. And I feel that's the wrong way to play in the latter rounds.

So I think Agnieszka is going to have to take a risk, she cannot expect the top players to make errors they are too consistent.

My only real point was that I don't believe Radwanska has enough game to beat the best BIG GAME players 4 or 5 in a row. She does some things well, but not as well as they do, and her consistency, while very much a strength, is not enough to carry her to a slam title IMO. You are free to believe differently, of course. But the numbers speak for themselves.

If you felt the Wozniacki comparison unfair, let me point out that Caroline sat at #1 in the world for 67 weeks, while Radwanska has never gotten there. But to offer a different comparison, she also reminds me a bit of Davydenko. He anchored himself in at 4 or 5 for a long time and virtually never lost to anyone ranked beneath him. But he also rarely beat those ranked above him in the slams. Another one is Ferrer---a highly gifted player with no weapons big enough to take matches away from the big boys unless they help him out a lot. Radwanska may end up being different---but to this point she hasn't shown it.

 

[dafinch]

Well, another opportunity passed Pug-wanska by, like an millionaire passing by a panhandler. Only missed THIS Slam by a week, lol.

The men's side is not going to plan thus far, but on the women's, we've already gotten rid of of veritable plethora of putrid pushers: Errani, Woz, and now, Pugwanska. And no Pova to begin with. Good stuff...

 

[monfed]

Well, another opportunity passed Pug-wanska by, like an millionaire passing by a panhandler. Only missed THIS Slam by a week, lol.

The men's side is not going to plan thus far, but on the women's, we've already gotten rid of of veritable plethora of putrid pushers: Errani, Woz, and now, Pugwanska. And no Pova to begin with. Good stuff...

Hahaha yes the eradication of the parasites(i.e pushers) on the women's side is quite fulfilling. :lol: