Wanted to know what people think.(also cause I'm bored during off season )I see a lot of opinions on this board saying Aga is an underachiever who should have won a slam etc. but I see an equal amount saying she is an overachiever who is just vulturing a weak era.
What do you think? Should she have done more or has she already done more than expected?
She achieved what she had to. She would have overachieved if she had won Bartoli's Wimbledon.
She has taken advantage over a era where many players are brainless, because she is pretty much consistent which is a rarity nowadays. But IMO you can't call that she has/had a peak because I believe she already plays at her maximum potential.
There is no such thing as overachievers and underachievers. Players achieve what they can achieve in any era. That's what makes sport what it is. There is no such thing as weak era and strong era either. As early as you think an era is weak because some great players are missing, you're wrong, because it's physically proven that missing and losing are pretty much the same thing. You can only win what you compete for, facing players who compete for the same thing. There is the competition, the rest being a long, useless and miserable parade of complaints made of "if".
I think there is underachieving and overachieving. Like Kerber was obviously underachieving before this year or someone like Konta. And Francesca Schiavone overachieved with a grand slam title and another final. It's clear that some players don't live up to their abilities while some get more out of their limited abilities than they should.
Radwanska has been one of the best players over the last decade, made tens of millions, won a YEC & several mandatories including Miami. I'd say she achieved a lot and still will do more
I wont say she underachieved, but a player this good I'm sure wants to add a few majors
She achieved just about what she should have given the limitations of her game. She needs to add more improvements if she wants to go that final step but she so far hasn't shown that capability outside of WTA finals last year and maybe this year
So neither, but closer to overachieving than underachieving
She is the epitome of overachieving. Other than Errani, I can't think of a top player in the history of WTA with such a vulnerable and ridiculously weak game. Just check how helpless and utterly clueless she looks against a top player in decent form. Along with Wozniacki and Errani, she is a perfect sign of how much the WTA has fallen.
:lol: Like it or not Aga can hang with the top players when she is on. Just look at Wimbledon 2013 vs Li Na. Li played really well but she still lost because Aga played brilliantly. The highlights back it up:shrug:
I am always amused by this line. I can't recall a single opportunity she squandered to win a slam other than 2013 Wimbledon SF. Even Halep, who is much younger had wasted more chances to win a slam than Radwanska.
It's weird how people in this thread claim Aga has a "limited game" yet they completely discredit how well Sabine was playing in 2013 Wimbledon and make out like Aga should have won that SF match...even though Sabine had just beaten Serena in the previous match...
It's like today's player's can't win, they are either powerless pushers or overpowered brainless ballbashers... Yet it's not really that simple for any player...
IMO she did not overachieve but neither did she underachieve.
Her career is just fine as it is.
She still has enough time to make it even better and longer one.
I think she's maxing out her abilities, albeit missing that one opportunity when a Slam draw completely collapsed.
My question is: if you think she's playing to the limit of her talent or physical potential...why would you mock her for being Slamless?
This isn't to say she can't add things to her game, but I can't think of a single way she could improve that would transform her Slam chances beyond "maybe she can back into one if a draw falls apart again".
In an era when so many girls are falling far short of what they're capable of, she really shouldn't be derided. Save that for Kvitova or Muguruza (both of whom I like).
I think she's maxing out her abilities, albeit missing that one opportunity when a Slam draw completely collapsed.
My question is: if you think she's playing to the limit of her talent or physical potential...why would you mock her for being Slamless?
This isn't to say she can't add things to her game, but I can't think of a single way she could improve that would transform her Slam chances beyond "maybe she can back into one if a draw falls apart again".
In an era when so many girls are falling far short of what they're capable of, she really shouldn't be derided. Save that for Kvitova or Muguruza (both of whom I like).
I agree with this post with exception for Kvitova part. Aga beeing mocked for being slamless is almost on similar level how Kvitova is being mocked for being inconsistent. And after all Kvitova is only player in this era beside Serena who won big title (P5 and bigger) each single year from 2011 comparing to all of so called consistent players.
Over, probably. Even with the chances she had. I can't help but cackle at her losing to Lisicki in the semis with her pigeon waiting in the final of a Slam. It couldn't have been served to her on a bigger platter.
I think she had some chances at majors where she didnt play as well as normal
She was up 3-0 in set 3 vs lisicki with Bartoli next, who Aga was 7-0 against
Also was in AO SF to play Domi & Li, and Aga had beaten both of them in a row before that
So she had her looks to win majors.
But Pennetta and Kerber had years of majors where they didnt play their best
I have to see how the 2nd half of her career goes, because starting with Jankovic & Safina, we might have a lot of #1's and #2's who dont win majors
You wonder how so many players can win IW, or Beijing and so many Tier 1's and have so many funky losses at majors