PDA

View Full Version : Player discussion : Anastasia Myskina


king416
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:07 PM
I think out of all the players on the tour Myskina has the most divided opinion of her. Some people think she plays crafty, intelligent tennis and is bound to be a multiple slam winner, others think she's highly overrated and roland garos was luck (due to injured and mentally unsound opponents). I think she lies somewhere in between. I don't think she will ever reach number 1, i think playing her best she is a solid top tenner. She doesn't seem to have any major weapons and has been very inconsistent throughout her career.
Weapons - If on has a good forehand, solid backhand, hits with pace, intelligent shot making, doesn't seem phased by big occassions (fed cup, rg)
Weaknesses - Can make truly horrendous UE's, poor second serve
Predicted ranking throughout 2005 - 4-12

What does everyone else think?

Darop.
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:24 PM
She has great anticipation, and always knows exaclty where to hit the ball, and I when I watch her I almost get the feeling that her groundstrokes and very solid and consistent...

Volcana
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:30 PM
She does play intelligent tennis. Of course, most of the top players do.
She has a pretty good chance of being a multi-slam winner because she's under 25, and only has to win one more, and she'll probably play another twenty.
Her last four matches at RG were Kuznetsova, V Williams, Capriati and Dementieva. Not exactly a cakewalk. (Well, the final was ..... uh...)
As for overrated, she was ITF Player of the Year for 2004. It isn't an award they give away.
On paper, it seems unlikely she'll ever be #1. But last year she set out to win a GS title, defend Moscow and win Fed Cup. She did all that. So when I read her saying she intends to become #1 this year, I don't completely discount it.

thelittlestelf
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:33 PM
Her game is solid overall.

Serve: Probably the weakest part of her game. Her second serve is quite slow and her first serve doesn't go in at a high percentage.

Forehand: She has a nice forehand, nothing particularly noteable about it.

Backhand: I think her backhand is better than her forehand. She has a great backhand down the line.

Movement: Probably one of her greatest weapons, she's very quick around the court and gets to a lot of balls.

Volleys: She has a solid net game, but it's under utilized.

She has the best anticipation on tour, but her game does not have enough weapons to get to #1 or to dominate for any significant period of time. She can be a complete mess when she's off, IE against Dechy at this years AO where she had a completely awful match.

I do think she earned her FO title, but she did have the advantage of meeting Venus and Jennifer on off days and then meeting a noticeably weary Dementieva in the finals.

SM
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:36 PM
ditto volanca..

jfk
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:37 PM
She didn't dominate in RG, but unlike Kuznetsova at the US Open, her play impressed me a lot. She deserved to win, even if her road to the title was suspect. Capriati and Dementieva played as bad as they could possibly play, while beating Venus is no longer an amazing feat. Her best match was against Kuznetsova, just for hanging in there....that made her a champ in my eyes.

fammmmedspin
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Nastya has bad weeks and good weeks. Her bad weeks are often explicable by events - after the Olympics, after the FO , after this year's Hopman Cup. Her bad matches are often related to odd thoughts like "I am beating Justine to get the Olympic medal I want" creeping in in matches. Not ideal but Momo, Venus, Sveta, Elena, Maria and Lindsay all collapse at the wromg moment too so its hardly unique. Her success also seems related to her first serve percentage - which hits 30 when she loses - and may be related to an ongoing shoulder injury.

For a player with bad weeks and a serve that goes AWOL she has been very close to number 1. Take out her hopman Cup letdown this year and she would probably still be up there alongside Maria now - instead she has had a mucked up start to the year.

the reason she has done so well has something to do with the fact that when she is on she plays smarter and with more speed, anticipation and power than anyone who isn't a member of the big babe school. Against the power hitters she is one of the few people with the anticipation, fitness and speed and the odd killer shot who can keep them in a rally long enough to win it. She has taken Venus and Serena close and beats a less mobile Lindsay which isn't bad for someone with a serve that goes off. As Maria said after a pretty humiliating first set at the yec, Nastya can make you play her game and she plays it better than you do. Nastya's problem is the lapses in winning positions, the injured serving arm and the need for a bit more consistency - if she could bring out her Moscow or FO form at a couple of other tournaments she would be right up there with the very top. if she hadn't lost two big winning leads last year and had avoided the hopman cup disapointment this year she might already have made it to number 1.

RenaSlam.
Feb 27th, 2005, 11:51 PM
Allez Myskina.

fammmmedspin
Feb 28th, 2005, 12:13 AM
She does play intelligent tennis. Of course, most of the top players do.
She has a pretty good chance of being a multi-slam winner because she's under 25, and only has to win one more, and she'll probably play another twenty.
Her last four matches at RG were Kuznetsova, V Williams, Capriati and Dementieva. Not exactly a cakewalk. (Well, the final was ..... uh...)
As for overrated, she was ITF Player of the Year for 2004. It isn't an award they give away.
On paper, it seems unlikely she'll ever be #1. But last year she set out to win a GS title, defend Moscow and win Fed Cup. She did all that. So when I read her saying she intends to become #1 this year, I don't completely discount it.


You have to remember who the competition is for number 1 - there is a lot of it, it splits the points up and no one looks dominating and everyone has someone who can knock them out of a GS,

That said number 1 on the numbers was a perfectly realistic goal for Nastya. She came out of 2004 having missed number 1 by 2 GS letdowns and 2 big wins (YEC and Ollympics) lost from winning positions - it was very reachable in 2004 with just one more decent GS performance and one more big win. Before someone says other people could have done better too , Nastya didn't need a really good GS performance - a QF would have done and she was the one who twice lost winning leads at the YEC.

In 2005 , she won 3 matches at hopman and her schedule and her draws in Australia made it very possible to stay ahead of Maria in a good position for number 1 with a few points added from Sydney too. Hopman, or rather safin losing Hopman , just mucked her up for Australia though and Antwerp may not have helped for Doha so her schedule has gone wrong. Her way to number 1 is now a lot tougher - the Williams sisters are playing better and she has to defend the FO. She has lots of opportunities to add points but so do Maria, Sveta (Wimbledon) and Serena. Number 1 will be tough. The intra-Russian war though hasn't yet started in 2005 and I am not sure Maria can beat Nastya - she couldn't handle Molik the few games molik played like a slower Nastya.. There still isn't a clearly dominant character out there though and everyone out there is capable of losing badly so it may all depend on who gets who on what day in what draw anyway.

DEETHELICK
Feb 28th, 2005, 10:46 AM
Nastya's game is solid if unspectacular. Her biggest weapons are her BH, speed and anticipation. She is a definite Top 10 player, however I feel she is a 5-10 ranked player. She is fascinating to watch when on, however I never sit up and really take notice like when Elena smacks a FH, Jennifer crushes a sitter or Venus unleashes her BH.

I think Nastya lacks a certain explosiveness that the top power players possess. Maybe thats why she is underrated at times.

Ability and talent is there, however a defining shot or weapon is hard to identify with her.

If Elena wasn't such a mental midget at RG, Nastya would not be a Slam champion IMO.

wateva
Feb 28th, 2005, 12:20 PM
nastya's main problem is her lapses of concentration. she can be cruising in a match but suddenly find herself down a break etc. it's sometimes really worrying and scary to watch her play... :scared:

miffedmax
Feb 28th, 2005, 02:35 PM
Are we talking about the good Nastya or the bad Nastya?

Good Nastya has, I think, a shot at being Number 1. Bad Nastya doesn't even belong in the Top 20.

The problem is that you never know which Nastya will show up. But would a consistent Nastya be any fun to watch?

Wannabeknowitall
Feb 28th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Myskina is a good player. She annoys the hell out of the top players but when she's off she's off. Myskina's advantage is her superior record against the Russians. If she continues to play well against her fellow Russians, then she will continue to be a top 5 player.

Circe
Feb 28th, 2005, 03:18 PM
i think she's just smoochy :kiss:

she's also someone who can be very good when she's good and roll over and play dead when she's not. #1 seems difficult at the moment, i think she should have done better at the AO, and if she loses early at RG things could unravel quickly.

ooh post number 500 :bounce:

alfajeffster
Feb 28th, 2005, 03:25 PM
I think out of all the players on the tour Myskina has the most divided opinion of her. Some people think she plays crafty, intelligent tennis and is bound to be a multiple slam winner, others think she's highly overrated and roland garos was luck (due to injured and mentally unsound opponents). I think she lies somewhere in between. I don't think she will ever reach number 1, i think playing her best she is a solid top tenner. She doesn't seem to have any major weapons and has been very inconsistent throughout her career.
Weapons - If on has a good forehand, solid backhand, hits with pace, intelligent shot making, doesn't seem phased by big occassions (fed cup, rg)
Weaknesses - Can make truly horrendous UE's, poor second serve
Predicted ranking throughout 2005 - 4-12

What does everyone else think?

To be quite frank, I'm going to show my age here a little bit, but Anastasia's game is strikingly similar to another Russian player from about 15 years ago whose name was Leila Meshki (who I believe also caught Capriati on a bad day at the USOpen years ago). The games are/were solid, the retrieving skills world-class, but there really is nothing of substance there to really hurt the top players unless they're having a bad day at the office. That will (as the French Open last year illustrated) happen every now and again, and this type of player thrives among mediocrity, but in the long run, someone always comes along who plays to win, and who can take the game of a player who plays not to lose apart with surgical precision.

_LuCaS_
Feb 28th, 2005, 04:02 PM
Wow :yeah: to all these comments. It's nice to see some ppl cand discuss their oppinions without resorting to cheap, trashing comments.
Go Nastya :worship:
You still have a lot to show in tennis.

BUBI
Feb 28th, 2005, 04:11 PM
Wow :yeah: to all these comments. It's nice to see some ppl cand discuss their oppinions without resorting to cheap, trashing comments.
Go Nastya :worship:
You still have a lot to show in tennis.
I hope she'll be number 1. but I'm afraid she'll never make it. But I love her anyway :kiss:

mishar
Feb 28th, 2005, 05:23 PM
I think Nastya at her best can play great counter-punching tennis a la Coria or Hingis, but truthfully I've rarely seen her best. She played some excellent tennis in San Diego last year.
The French Open I wasn't so impressed with her game, though of course she "deserved" the title -- she made more UEs than winners though (at least in most of the matches, that's my memory) -- something I can't imagine an on-form Hingis or Coria doing. It seemed like she played sloppy, but less sloppy than her opponents.
I think her game is much better on fast courts.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Feb 28th, 2005, 06:03 PM
Myskina is definately very talented & when shes playing well (eg. Moscow, 04) shes a match for anyone. The frustrating thing is, she's ridiculously streaky form-wise.

When shes good she's plays like Hingis with power, but when she's bad she's bloody awful & can lose to literally anyone.

But good or bad, Anastasia Myskina is never boring. If the tennis is off, theres still the sexy body (love the little shorts) & endearing little tantrums. :)

Steffica Greles
Feb 28th, 2005, 07:09 PM
I'm sorry, but to me Anastasia Myskina is a stark example of how the standard of women's tennis, contrary to a popular myth propragated by TV "sport" commentators with nothing more knowledgeable to say and by fans who wouldn't remember further than a few years back, has NOT gone up in recent years.

She's a very good player at her best, admittedly. She moves like a cat, she works very hard, her groundstrokes are flat, fairly powerful, and rhythmic. But those players populated the top 10 10 years ago, and, with wooden rackets, 20 years ago.

I can't see that Myskina is anything special, and 2004 was a dreadful year for women's tennis in terms of injuries. The only redeeming feature was Sharapova's breakthrough, and perhaps Kuznetsova's (although really that was tainted by Lindsay's injury in the 2nd set of their US SF). Myskina's French Open win was certainly no redeeming feature, and never convinced me. I don't think it even convinced her, seeing how she reacted.

If a player as talented as Hantuchova can sink without a trace and then find the top 10 saturated, then so can Myskina. As I've said before, I think Myskina, along with Dementieva, are two of about 10-20 players in the top 50 who have top 5 potential. This year will be a big test for them both, because 10 of those players could push up the rankings, and where would they go? Down.

The 10-20 players I'm talking about are like shuffling a pack of cards. They are merely ranked in order of the confidence they've been playing with over a 6-9 month period. Those players' rankings are constantly waiting to be reshuffled.

Myskina
Dementieva
Zvonareva
Molik ((?) Or does her serve make her more dangerous?)
Safina
Golovin
Hantuchova
Bovina
Petrova
Schnyder
Sprem

All of these players have at some time been talked about as potential grandslam winners, each having the games to make an impact at the highest level. Most have beaten members of the elite (listed at the end of the next paragraph).

...then let's not forget Dokic or Krasnaroutskaya, who are both hanging around waiting to be rejuvenated. And I have a feeling it won't be long before Vaidisova joins this group, maybe Karantcheva, Kirilenko or Ivanovic too. Douchevina is almost certain to join them.

Rarely are players good enough to leapfrog this group to the next level, to be among players who clearly BELONG to the top 10. I'm thinking of Davenport, Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Capriati (although she's waning), Kuznetsova, Henin and Clijsters.

Last year only Kuznetsova and Sharapova, of the players making their top 10 debuts, convinced me that they were, by and large, in the top 10 to stay. That's not to say that Myskina is not a top player, but I think her position as no.2 in the world and ITF champion says more about the state of women's tennis and the gaps that were left last year.

Netsurfer
Feb 28th, 2005, 08:29 PM
She does play intelligent tennis. Of course, most of the top players do.
She has a pretty good chance of being a multi-slam winner because she's under 25, and only has to win one more, and she'll probably play another twenty.
Her last four matches at RG were Kuznetsova, V Williams, Capriati and Dementieva. Not exactly a cakewalk. (Well, the final was ..... uh...)
As for overrated, she was ITF Player of the Year for 2004. It isn't an award they give away.
On paper, it seems unlikely she'll ever be #1. But last year she set out to win a GS title, defend Moscow and win Fed Cup. She did all that. So when I read her saying she intends to become #1 this year, I don't completely discount it.
Very well said! :yeah: Myskina's year didn't start off as well as 2004 gave reason to hope for, certainly the expectations were really high, but 2005 is still young, and Myskina will undoubtedly be able to show that she has the ability to make it to the No. 1 spot.

Having said that: I know that when she's bad, she's really bad, but most of the time she is not, and I very much enjoy her clever, agile (for lack of a better word), fast-paced tennis. I'm not as much of an expert as some people here are, but I can see that no one in the Top 10 is invincible, Serena loses to Masha, Amelie loses to Alicia, Sveta loses to Elena, Anastasia loses to Lindsay, then defeats Sveta, and so on and so forth: Dominance is a temporary thing. As is a defeat. So we'll see.

**Netsurfer

blumaroo
Feb 28th, 2005, 09:29 PM
I'm sorry, but to me Anastasia Myskina is a stark example of how the standard of women's tennis, contrary to a popular myth propragated by TV "sport" commentators with nothing more knowledgeable to say and by fans who wouldn't remember further than a few years back, has NOT gone up in recent years.

She's a very good player at her best, admittedly. She moves like a cat, she works very hard, her groundstrokes are flat, fairly powerful, and rhythmic. But those players populated the top 10 10 years ago, and, with wooden rackets, 20 years ago.

I can't see that Myskina is anything special, and 2004 was a dreadful year for women's tennis in terms of injuries. The only redeeming feature was Sharapova's breakthrough, and perhaps Kuznetsova's (although really that was tainted by Lindsay's injury in the 2nd set of their US SF). Myskina's French Open win was certainly no redeeming feature, and never convinced me. I don't think it even convinced her, seeing how she reacted.

If a player as talented as Hantuchova can sink without a trace and then find the top 10 saturated, then so can Myskina. As I've said before, I think Myskina, along with Dementieva, are two of about 10-20 players in the top 50 who have top 5 potential. This year will be a big test for them both, because 10 of those players could push up the rankings, and where would they go? Down.

The 10-20 players I'm talking about are like shuffling a pack of cards. They are merely ranked in order of the confidence they've been playing with over a 6-9 month period. Those players' rankings are constantly waiting to be reshuffled.

Myskina
Dementieva
Zvonareva
Molik ((?) Or does her serve make her more dangerous?)
Safina
Golovin
Hantuchova
Bovina
Petrova
Schnyder
Sprem

All of these players have at some time been talked about as potential grandslam winners, each having the games to make an impact at the highest level. Most have beaten members of the elite (listed at the end of the next paragraph).

...then let's not forget Dokic or Krasnaroutskaya, who are both hanging around waiting to be rejuvenated. And I have a feeling it won't be long before Vaidisova joins this group, maybe Karantcheva, Kirilenko or Ivanovic too. Douchevina is almost certain to join them.

Rarely are players good enough to leapfrog this group to the next level, to be among players who clearly BELONG to the top 10. I'm thinking of Davenport, Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Capriati (although she's waning), Kuznetsova, Henin and Clijsters.

Last year only Kuznetsova and Sharapova, of the players making their top 10 debuts, convinced me that they were, by and large, in the top 10 to stay. That's not to say that Myskina is not a top player, but I think her position as no.2 in the world and ITF champion says more about the state of women's tennis and the gaps that were left last year.

Great post. Totally agree :worship:

_LuCaS_
Feb 28th, 2005, 09:43 PM
I'm sorry, but to me Anastasia Myskina is a stark example of how the standard of women's tennis, contrary to a popular myth propragated by TV "sport" commentators with nothing more knowledgeable to say and by fans who wouldn't remember further than a few years back, has NOT gone up in recent years.

She's a very good player at her best, admittedly. She moves like a cat, she works very hard, her groundstrokes are flat, fairly powerful, and rhythmic. But those players populated the top 10 10 years ago, and, with wooden rackets, 20 years ago.

I can't see that Myskina is anything special, and 2004 was a dreadful year for women's tennis in terms of injuries. The only redeeming feature was Sharapova's breakthrough, and perhaps Kuznetsova's (although really that was tainted by Lindsay's injury in the 2nd set of their US SF). Myskina's French Open win was certainly no redeeming feature, and never convinced me. I don't think it even convinced her, seeing how she reacted.

If a player as talented as Hantuchova can sink without a trace and then find the top 10 saturated, then so can Myskina. As I've said before, I think Myskina, along with Dementieva, are two of about 10-20 players in the top 50 who have top 5 potential. This year will be a big test for them both, because 10 of those players could push up the rankings, and where would they go? Down.

The 10-20 players I'm talking about are like shuffling a pack of cards. They are merely ranked in order of the confidence they've been playing with over a 6-9 month period. Those players' rankings are constantly waiting to be reshuffled.

Myskina
Dementieva
Zvonareva
Molik ((?) Or does her serve make her more dangerous?)
Safina
Golovin
Hantuchova
Bovina
Petrova
Schnyder
Sprem

All of these players have at some time been talked about as potential grandslam winners, each having the games to make an impact at the highest level. Most have beaten members of the elite (listed at the end of the next paragraph).

...then let's not forget Dokic or Krasnaroutskaya, who are both hanging around waiting to be rejuvenated. And I have a feeling it won't be long before Vaidisova joins this group, maybe Karantcheva, Kirilenko or Ivanovic too. Douchevina is almost certain to join them.

Rarely are players good enough to leapfrog this group to the next level, to be among players who clearly BELONG to the top 10. I'm thinking of Davenport, Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Capriati (although she's waning), Kuznetsova, Henin and Clijsters.

Last year only Kuznetsova and Sharapova, of the players making their top 10 debuts, convinced me that they were, by and large, in the top 10 to stay. That's not to say that Myskina is not a top player, but I think her position as no.2 in the world and ITF champion says more about the state of women's tennis and the gaps that were left last year.
How can someone write a big post and basically say nothing. I was reading this, hoping at each new paragraph to see some justification. It so easy to post thoughts, but please support them.
Btw I don't agree with you, but I am working on something right now, maybe later I'll explain why.

blumaroo
Feb 28th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Myskina's game is good when her opponents are slightly off and she is 100% on. She's a good retriever and gets many balls back because she's quick. But when someone like Davenport/Serena/Maria is on and blasting powerful winners down the line it is difficult to get them back. Surely she has a decent backhand down the line but it not much of a weapon to really threathen the top players. Her serve isn't helping much either. Hingis was one of the most craftiest players and she sort of got away with it since powertennis was only beginning to come up. But even back then she couldn't cope with all the power. Nastya has more power than Hingis but she's less stable. Maybe if Nastya brings her game 100% for most of the year, then she can stay top 5. But she's so inconsistent that she will most likely go down. She has no weapons to fall back on when she's off unlike some other top players.Thats why lower ranked players can beat her quite easily.k

23TwentyThree23
Feb 28th, 2005, 11:29 PM
I'm sorry, but to me Anastasia Myskina is a stark example of how the standard of women's tennis, contrary to a popular myth propragated by TV "sport" commentators with nothing more knowledgeable to say and by fans who wouldn't remember further than a few years back, has NOT gone up in recent years.

She's a very good player at her best, admittedly. She moves like a cat, she works very hard, her groundstrokes are flat, fairly powerful, and rhythmic. But those players populated the top 10 10 years ago, and, with wooden rackets, 20 years ago.

I can't see that Myskina is anything special, and 2004 was a dreadful year for women's tennis in terms of injuries. The only redeeming feature was Sharapova's breakthrough, and perhaps Kuznetsova's (although really that was tainted by Lindsay's injury in the 2nd set of their US SF). Myskina's French Open win was certainly no redeeming feature, and never convinced me. I don't think it even convinced her, seeing how she reacted.

If a player as talented as Hantuchova can sink without a trace and then find the top 10 saturated, then so can Myskina. As I've said before, I think Myskina, along with Dementieva, are two of about 10-20 players in the top 50 who have top 5 potential. This year will be a big test for them both, because 10 of those players could push up the rankings, and where would they go? Down.

The 10-20 players I'm talking about are like shuffling a pack of cards. They are merely ranked in order of the confidence they've been playing with over a 6-9 month period. Those players' rankings are constantly waiting to be reshuffled.

Myskina
Dementieva
Zvonareva
Molik ((?) Or does her serve make her more dangerous?)
Safina
Golovin
Hantuchova
Bovina
Petrova
Schnyder
Sprem

All of these players have at some time been talked about as potential grandslam winners, each having the games to make an impact at the highest level. Most have beaten members of the elite (listed at the end of the next paragraph).

...then let's not forget Dokic or Krasnaroutskaya, who are both hanging around waiting to be rejuvenated. And I have a feeling it won't be long before Vaidisova joins this group, maybe Karantcheva, Kirilenko or Ivanovic too. Douchevina is almost certain to join them.

Rarely are players good enough to leapfrog this group to the next level, to be among players who clearly BELONG to the top 10. I'm thinking of Davenport, Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Mauresmo, Capriati (although she's waning), Kuznetsova, Henin and Clijsters.

Last year only Kuznetsova and Sharapova, of the players making their top 10 debuts, convinced me that they were, by and large, in the top 10 to stay. That's not to say that Myskina is not a top player, but I think her position as no.2 in the world and ITF champion says more about the state of women's tennis and the gaps that were left last year.

That is exactly what I believe too!:angel:

fammmmedspin
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:06 AM
The point about the players who clearly belong at the top of the game is that all of them are just as capable as Myskina as playing as if they don't belong there. Some people are comparing Myskina to players who never existed (a confident Momo) or havn't existed for years ( a fit, match tight Venus and a GS winning Lindsay) Its pointless pointing out that Lindsay Venus or Momo can hit harder when they are quite capable of losing any GS QF they are in. Jen, Kim amd Justine had the virtue of being able to hit the ball consistently in court but they are all complete unknowns for 2005 - as are Jen and Lindsay's career plans. Nastya on form can take out Lindsay on Lindsay's recent form and can stay with Venus or Serena at least on their recent meetings - which isn't bad. There is no evidence that Sveta, Elena or Vera are playing any better and she beats them. Only Alicia has made the leap to the top rank out of all the players who might have made it . Apart from her , the threats to an on form Nastya (big if) remain as they were in 2005 - a group of top ten players she can beat, a group who are beatable and a group who cause her trouble. Momo needs to get through the draw to be a threat. Serena has the determination and sometimes the game but perhaps not the body to do better. Maria is the big questionmark and her game is showing more consistency at the same time as remaining weaknesses.

fammmmedspin
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:26 AM
I'm sorry, but to me Anastasia Myskina is a stark example of how the standard of women's tennis, contrary to a popular myth propragated by TV "sport" commentators with nothing more knowledgeable to say and by fans who wouldn't remember further than a few years back, has NOT gone up in recent years.

She's a very good player at her best, admittedly. She moves like a cat, she works very hard, her groundstrokes are flat, fairly powerful, and rhythmic. But those players populated the top 10 10 years ago, and, with wooden rackets, 20 years ago.

I can't see that Myskina is anything special, and 2004 was a dreadful year for women's tennis in terms of injuries. The only redeeming feature was Sharapova's breakthrough, and perhaps Kuznetsova's (although really that was tainted by Lindsay's injury in the 2nd set of their US SF). Myskina's French Open win was certainly no redeeming feature, and never convinced me. I don't think it even convinced her, seeing how she reacted.

If a player as talented as Hantuchova can sink without a trace and then find the top 10 saturated, then so can Myskina. As I've said before, I think Myskina, along with Dementieva, are two of about 10-20 players in the top 50 who have top 5 potential. This year will be a big test for them both, because 10 of those players could push up the rankings, and where would they go? Down.

The 10-20 players I'm talking about are like shuffling a pack of cards. They are merely ranked in order of the confidence they've been playing with over a 6-9 month period. Those players' rankings are constantly waiting to be reshuffled.

Myskina
Dementieva
Zvonareva
Molik ((?) Or does her serve make her more dangerous?)
Safina
Golovin
Hantuchova
Bovina
Petrova
Schnyder
Sprem

.

I think your historical sense iis suggesting to you a 1980-90s top 20 that just didn't exist. Graf actually faced players like Sabatini, ASV, MJF. Majoli, Date, Huber in her top 5 - not some second echelon of greats. Myskina plays at her best ast least as well as anyone of those and is faster and hits harder - as indeed does everyone in the top 10.

I also don't think the top 10 is that open - there are a few spaces coming up with retirement and injury but I think there is a clearer gap between who is in the top 10 (actually the top 12 or 13 on the points) and who isn't and a big gap between top 9 and the rest . The Belgians have their names pencilled in there too. The lesson of 2003-5 was just how many people stalled in the teens and then fell back . There is a new wave heading for the top of the game (9 up) but I would be surprised if many on your list who are not there now got there.

DEETHELICK
Mar 1st, 2005, 08:24 AM
Another thing that contributes to Myskina being underrated is that she did not burst onto the scene like the Williamses, did not make noise at a GS early in her career (Elena, Amelie), wasn't a child prodigy (Jen, Kim) nor has a defining shot (Justine).

Simply put, there are more marketable and more bigger games (and I dont mean hard hitting) out there that people take notice of.

squash
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:48 AM
Myskina is a good player, but Myskina has the tendency when playing high rank players to just hit the balls back in the middle of the court. Myskina instead of hitting winners agains the top players will wait for them to make the mistake.

I do think that Myskina would be a #1 player if she stops doing this.

jochem
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:53 AM
Molik has prooved the last couple of months that she does not want to be one of the world's best but THE best. She has played unbelievably so far this year, with wins over Venus Williams in Australia, Amelie Mauresmo in Antwerp and a great match against Maria in Doha. But about Myskina, she needs to improve that serve and her attitude. Sometimes she just seemes to hate playing tennis and with that mentality it is not easy to turn matches around and come through the tough matches...

ys
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:27 AM
Nastya will win more and she will win big ones too.

Her results are a rollercoaster.. In fact, last year she was in a good form only for 5 weeks - Doha, second week of RG, Olympics ( yes, she was in terrific form in Athens, it was just an accident ), Kremlin Cup and Fed Cup. And she will be doing it again. She will be unimpressive for most of the year, but once in a while she will strike, and I predict that not once she will play a snake in a grass during the big event. She is very smart person, and she knows that with her physique and style trying to play at her maximum every week will quickly drive her to a Hingis/Kournikova-like retirement or Henin-like burnout. She will save yourself for results to be remembered. Her current losses are for her own good. Because when she is at her best, when everything clicks - physical form, feel of the ball, anticipation, reflexes ( like it peaked during the second week of RG ), no one knows what to do on court to just win points against her.

JohnBoy
Mar 2nd, 2005, 09:43 AM
Great post. Totally agree :worship:

Ditto for me as well... I think this year will be very interesting for the Russians and already we can see that Myskina/ Zvonareva/ Dementieva are stuggling. I don't see them having the results that they had last year.. Apart from Sharapova, Kuznetsova I think the rest are top 15 players !!! Great players but nothing special ...

spar
Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:11 AM
Myskina - superstar !

spec7er
Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:29 AM
Myskina plays a solid game. She can put lots of pace on her balls and chooses which balls to attack. The backhand is her weapon since she can really disguise it well. Although it's not as powerful as that of Venus' backhand, she can still hit it with lots of pace. Her skill at retrieving balls is one of her strengths.

She can reach number 1 but she has to be more consistent in her results. She has too many letdowns like with the AO and when she has her mental meltdowns. She can hang with the big babes, who dominate the sport now. Given that, she can definitely at least make a short stint at number 1, especially now that there is no real dominant force.

Je_ne_sais_quoi
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:09 PM
Nastya has great movement :) i think she just needs to put a little more spin in her groundies so she'll be more consistent

DEETHELICK
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:15 PM
I wouldn't say Elena is struggling, the girl is injured.

Nastya and Sveta have played the worst of the 4 Russians in the Top 10.

Maria and Elena have played strong tennis, with Elena winning the duel between the two this year.

I think ys is right, Nastya will have moments of brilliance, however I think other girls are wising up to her and will reduce the moments of brilliance Nastya will have.

firefly_ac
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:48 PM
In conclusion..Nastya, the enigmatic Russina tennis player . .

tazman
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:01 PM
In my opinion Myskina lacks consistency which is something you need in order to achieve a #1 ranking. Players ranked in the top 5 are consistent on a tournament to tournament basis. Myskina has much to prove this year. And so far she hasn't done it. :woohoo: :woohoo:

Spunky83
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:24 PM
Are we talking about the good Nastya or the bad Nastya?

Good Nastya has, I think, a shot at being Number 1. Bad Nastya doesn't even belong in the Top 20.

The problem is that you never know which Nastya will show up. But would a consistent Nastya be any fun to watch?

:lol: :worship: ...exactly this is the problem, I would even say Bad Nastya doesn´t even belong on the tennis court. Nastya has to start to learn how to focuse on a match and STAY focused throughout a match, or even better, throughout a whole tourney...but anyway, love her no matter what ;)