PDA

View Full Version : Ana Ivanovic- Let's Be Realistic...


Robt424
Aug 24th, 2006, 04:11 AM
Ok, just wanted to let you know right now that this isn't a hate thread...

Ivanovic is a great player, top 20, and is celebrating her first career Tier I title. I'm really happy for her, and I think she can do great things in the future.

However, her hardcore fans are starting to get a bit out of control here. Calling her the next Queen of tennis, saying she's better than Vaidisova (who happens to be in the Top 10), is just a little premature. Let the girl get some consistency first before going this far.

What's going to happen is that people are going to end up hating her because of her fans. She's getting more popular by the day becuase of her personality and her beauty, and now that she has a Tier I title, she's the best thing since sliced bread? If she makes it pretty far in the US Open, ok, I'll be right along cheering with you guys, but until then, hold it, b/c its starting to get a bit obnoxious.

Not trying to take away from her Tier I victory, winning the title in the weakest tier I of the year, not even facing a top ten player on the way to victory doesn't mean this is a turn around in her career. Be careful before you jinx her guys. Consistency is key.

switz
Aug 24th, 2006, 04:18 AM
the only person who i saw call her the queen of tennis is a "fan" who insults her whenever she plays poorly. Most people are aware she still has more to prove. I've always believed this girl has a lot of potential because she does everything well - but there still remains a lot of areas that need to be tightened for her to be challenging for slams.

I see her career following a similar path to Davenports.

JackWalker
Aug 24th, 2006, 04:29 AM
im a huge fan of ana. i dont think however she will be the queen of tennis, or anyone else for that matter, but i do think that she is a better player than vaidisova. i think ana's game is much more unlikely to break down than vaidisova's. i think that the winner of serena and ana will get to the semis of the us open at the very least. serena vs ana is really a toss up because there are way to many uncertainties but ana's recent play should give her a bit of an advanatge and i hope she gets to the semis at least.

switz
Aug 24th, 2006, 04:34 AM
yes Vaidisova's game is very effective against a player ranked below her or an out of sorts top players like Mauresmo and Venus at RG. I'm sure she'll achieve great things but i don't see her game really developing all that much.

who really knows though

mboyle
Aug 24th, 2006, 04:49 AM
I see her career following a similar path to Davenports.

Okay I hope I don't come across as mean here, but I have to address this: Ivanovic plays NOTHING like Davenport. There are just so many differences.

Shot Production

1. Ivanovic's forehand is semi-open. When she gets a chance she steps into the ball. Davenport's forehand is completely open.

2. Davenport loops her backhand stroke. Ivanovic's takeback is completely straight.

3. Davenport's right foot is always across her left foot when she hits her backhand (if she has time.) Ivanovic's right foot stays to the right of her left foot.

4. Davenport takes small steps when running to the ball. Ivanovic's steps are much longer.

5. Davenport's arm is in constant motion when serving. Ivanovic's toss is higher, leading to a pause in her motion before she hits the ball.

6. Ana's forehand is a simple low takeback followed by a straight follow through over her left shoulder. Davenport has the old school "C" forehand swing (she takes the racket up to her shoulder, loops it down and then swings through) and often finishes above her right shoulder.

Gameplay

1. Ivanovic runs around her backhand. Lindsay never runs around any shot.

2. Ivanovic goes for outright winners early in points. Lindsay, for all her power, plays high percentage ball to set up points for easy winners.

3. Davenport goes for the slice serve (out wide on deuce, down the tee on ad) when she gets nervous. Ivanovic goes for a flat serve (down the tee on deuce, out wide on ad.)

4. Ivanovic moves more quickly than Davenport, and is willing to move more often (Davenport is a selective mover, whereas Ivanovic scrambles for everything.)

5. Ivanovic prefers to hit her forehand inside out, from the middle or the backhand side. Lindsay loves hitting her forehand crosscourt or down the line, from the forehand corner. Lindsay never hits inside out forehands. If she does step around her backhand (and she only does when the ball is in the middle of the court,) she smacks it to her opponent's forehand (assuming a right hander.)

6. Ivanvoic cannot produce crosscourt angles on her strokes (she has an off angle inside out, but none crosscourt.) She hits too flat. Davenport has the ability to add topspin and hit really nice angles.

7. Ivanovic uses dropshots and volleys far more often than Davenport does.

8. Davenport almost never double faults. Ivanovic's second serve is improving, but she still double faults frequently for a top player.

9. Ivanovic's forehand is clearly better than her backhand, whereas Lindsay's groundstrokes are pretty equal.

Mental /Intangibles

1. Lindsay is famous for her negative body language. When Ivanovic was getting crushed by Petrova at the French last year, I still saw that she thought she could win. She stayed positive until the last point. Ivanovic is so much more positive.

2. Ivanovic's game is high risk. When she's off, she can't find ways to win. Davenport's game is deceptively high percentage. She hits flat, but she hits with enough spin to keep the ball in court, and she goes for high percentage shots (as opposed to outright winners,) so she has far fewer bad days than Ana does. Also, when Lindsay is not playing well, she tones it down and reels herself in, whereas Ana keeps going for it.


I think the only reason people compare the two is that they both hit hard and flat, and move relatively slowly, or are thought to. However, even here, Ivanovic hits harder and flatter, and Davenport moves more slowly. Almost everything about their games is different. Ivanovic doesn't really remind me of any previous player...A little bit of Capriati...a little bit of Graf with the poise of Mary Pierce, but really she is different from most tennis players.

mboyle
Aug 24th, 2006, 04:51 AM
i think ana's game is much more unlikely to break down than vaidisova's.

Actually it is just the opposite. Nicole hits with much more margin for error, and is much more technically sound on serve. Technically, Nicole's game is much sounder. However, Ana does not lose it mentally, and contains herself beautifully. Nicole is...well...Nicole like;) .

ezekiel
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:00 AM
Ok, just wanted to let you know right now that this isn't a hate thread...

Ivanovic is a great player, top 20, and is celebrating her first career Tier I title. I'm really happy for her, and I think she can do great things in the future.

However, her hardcore fans are starting to get a bit out of control here. Calling her the next Queen of tennis, saying she's better than Vaidisova (who happens to be in the Top 10), is just a little premature. Let the girl get some consistency first before going this far.

What's going to happen is that people are going to end up hating her because of her fans. She's getting more popular by the day becuase of her personality and her beauty, and now that she has a Tier I title, she's the best thing since sliced bread? If she makes it pretty far in the US Open, ok, I'll be right along cheering with you guys, but until then, hold it, b/c its starting to get a bit obnoxious.

Not trying to take away from her Tier I victory, winning the title in the weakest tier I of the year, not even facing a top ten player on the way to victory doesn't mean this is a turn around in her career. Be careful before you jinx her guys. Consistency is key.

It's about potential, some fans get carried away, me included but we suffered a lot of disappointments this year and she finally showed us how well she can play. Just 3 weeks ago , she made me really sad with her loss to Chakvetadze . Don't mind us it's just a temporary thing but I think she is here to stay

ezekiel
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:06 AM
the only person who i saw call her the queen of tennis is a "fan" who insults her whenever she plays poorly. Most people are aware she still has more to prove. I've always believed this girl has a lot of potential because she does everything well - but there still remains a lot of areas that need to be tightened for her to be challenging for slams.

I see her career following a similar path to Davenports.

I criticize , not insult and I called her queen out of excitement but she is not queen yet, far from it but she could be so I am goint to take down that line of sig soon as it seems to draw controversy

mboyle
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:10 AM
yes Vaidisova's game is very effective against a player ranked below her or an out of sorts top players like Mauresmo and Venus at RG. I'm sure she'll achieve great things but i don't see her game really developing all that much.

who really knows though

You also must remember Vaidisova is 18 months younger than Ivanovic. That is critical to keep in mind. Already, Nicole is much more consistent. Nicole's serve/forehand combination is much safer and more reliable than Ana's, and Nicole's backhand is more versatile. Ana at her best is, in my opinion, more explosive and dominant, but, on an average day, Ana is farther from her best than Nicole is from her best. A lot of people on the boards are rightfully impressed by Ana at her peak. "Wait until she can play that way all the time," people say. Well the problem is, she likely will never be able to sustain that play match after match. She has so little margin for error on all her shots. It is very hard for her to pull them off time after time, match after match.

By contrast, Nicole's game is not flashy, but workman like. It is essentially the same every time she steps on court. She has a fraction of the "bad" days that Ana does. Because she always plays the same way and isn't no. 1 right now, it is hard to see the room for improvement. However, Mauresmo was always consistent before she rose to the top. Davenport was fairly consistent before she rose to the top. Venus was pretty consistent in 1998 and 1999 before she rose to the top.

I believe both Ana and Nicole have fairly similar levels of potential. Both can be hall of famers with multiple slams and weeks at no. 1. The differece, to me, is that I can sit here and tell you right now Nicole Vaidisova is going to be a solid top five player for most of her career, and that, if you put her up against any non top ten player, she is going to win. With Ana, I feel less confident that she will be consistent.

As for what can Vaidisova do to improve...it's simple: she needs to get to net more. One of her biggest strengths is her volley. She's a tall girl with a long reach, and she has a monster serve and forehand that are effective in getting her to net. If she developed that skill, it would be very hard to pass her, and I believe she would rocket into the top 5. However, that doesn't come up as a weakness in her matches, whereas Ana's mobility used to and her consistency still does. It is harder to spot the unused potential in Vaidisova, but that speaks more to the fact that she has tamed herself than to the fact that Ivanovic necessarily has MORE potential.

Vaidisova is my no. 2 fave and Ivanovic is a close no. 3, just to clarify (both after Masha,) so I really hope they both figure things out and rise to the top. I just think it is weird that, on this board, everyone chooses Ivanovic over Vaidisova...

Dominic
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:13 AM
Okay I hope I don't come across as mean here, but I have to address this: Ivanovic plays NOTHING like Davenport. There are just so many differences.

Shot Production

1. Ivanovic's forehand is semi-open. When she gets a chance she steps into the ball. Davenport's forehand is completely open.

2. Davenport loops her backhand stroke. Ivanovic's takeback is completely straight.

3. Davenport's right foot is always across her left foot when she hits her backhand (if she has time.) Ivanovic's right foot stays to the right of her left foot.

4. Davenport takes small steps when running to the ball. Ivanovic's steps are much longer.

5. Davenport's arm is in constant motion when serving. Ivanovic's toss is higher, leading to a pause in her motion before she hits the ball.

6. Ana's forehand is a simple low takeback followed by a straight follow through over her left shoulder. Davenport has the old school "C" forehand swing (she takes the racket up to her shoulder, loops it down and then swings through) and often finishes above her right shoulder.

Gameplay

1. Ivanovic runs around her backhand. Lindsay never runs around any shot.

2. Ivanovic goes for outright winners early in points. Lindsay, for all her power, plays high percentage ball to set up points for easy winners.

3. Davenport goes for the slice serve (out wide on deuce, down the tee on ad) when she gets nervous. Ivanovic goes for a flat serve (down the tee on deuce, out wide on ad.)

4. Ivanovic moves more quickly than Davenport, and is willing to move more often (Davenport is a selective mover, whereas Ivanovic scrambles for everything.)

5. Ivanovic prefers to hit her forehand inside out, from the middle or the backhand side. Lindsay loves hitting her forehand crosscourt or down the line, from the forehand corner. Lindsay never hits inside out forehands. If she does step around her backhand (and she only does when the ball is in the middle of the court,) she smacks it to her opponent's forehand (assuming a right hander.)

6. Ivanvoic cannot produce crosscourt angles on her strokes (she has an off angle inside out, but none crosscourt.) She hits too flat. Davenport has the ability to add topspin and hit really nice angles.

7. Ivanovic uses dropshots and volleys far more often than Davenport does.

8. Davenport almost never double faults. Ivanovic's second serve is improving, but she still double faults frequently for a top player.

9. Ivanovic's forehand is clearly better than her backhand, whereas Lindsay's groundstrokes are pretty equal.

Mental /Intangibles

1. Lindsay is famous for her negative body language. When Ivanovic was getting crushed by Petrova at the French last year, I still saw that she thought she could win. She stayed positive until the last point. Ivanovic is so much more positive.

2. Ivanovic's game is high risk. When she's off, she can't find ways to win. Davenport's game is deceptively high percentage. She hits flat, but she hits with enough spin to keep the ball in court, and she goes for high percentage shots (as opposed to outright winners,) so she has far fewer bad days than Ana does. Also, when Lindsay is not playing well, she tones it down and reels herself in, whereas Ana keeps going for it.


I think the only reason people compare the two is that they both hit hard and flat, and move relatively slowly, or are thought to. However, even here, Ivanovic hits harder and flatter, and Davenport moves more slowly. Almost everything about their games is different. Ivanovic doesn't really remind me of any previous player...A little bit of Capriati...a little bit of Graf with the poise of Mary Pierce, but really she is different from most tennis players.
Damn if you analyse that closely and that picky nobody's game is gonna be similar to anybody. and actually some of the things you said are not 100% true. davenport often goes for big winners early in points, yes its true that she's a good point constructer but she hits tons of return winners and does go for low percentage shots but she rarely ever misses so she makes it seem like high percentage. also ive seen davenport hit inside out forehands many times and i dont think ivanovic volleys more than lindsay. if you keep it simple their game is similar. Both hit very hard and pretty flat are not that quick and have a good serve.

Derek.
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:18 AM
You also must remember Vaidisova is 18 months younger than Ivanovic. That is critical to keep in mind. Already, Nicole is much more consistent. Nicole's serve/forehand combination is much safer and more reliable than Ana's, and Nicole's backhand is more versatile. Ana at her best is, in my opinion, more explosive and dominant, but, on an average day, Ana is farther from her best than Nicole is from her best. A lot of people on the boards are rightfully impressed by Ana at her peak. "Wait until she can play that way all the time," people say. Well the problem is, she likely will never be able to sustain that play match after match. She has so little margin for error on all her shots. It is very hard for her to pull them off time after time, match after match.

By contrast, Nicole's game is not flashy, but workman like. It is essentially the same every time she steps on court. She has a fraction of the "bad" days that Ana does. Because she always plays the same way and isn't no. 1 right now, it is hard to see the room for improvement. However, Mauresmo was always consistent before she rose to the top. Davenport was fairly consistent before she rose to the top. Venus was pretty consistent in 1998 and 1999 before she rose to the top.

I believe both Ana and Nicole have fairly similar levels of potential. Both can be hall of famers with multiple slams and weeks at no. 1. The differece, to me, is that I can sit here and tell you right now Nicole Vaidisova is going to be a solid top five player for most of her career, and that, if you put her up against any non top ten player, she is going to win. With Ana, I feel less confident that she will be consistent.

As for what can Vaidisova do to improve...it's simple: she needs to get to net more. One of her biggest strengths is her volley. She's a tall girl with a long reach, and she has a monster serve and forehand that are effective in getting her to net. If she developed that skill, it would be very hard to pass her, and I believe she would rocket into the top 5. However, that doesn't come up as a weakness in her matches, whereas Ana's mobility used to and her consistency still does. It is harder to spot the unused potential in Vaidisova, but that speaks more to the fact that she has tamed herself than to the fact that Ivanovic necessarily has MORE potential.

Vaidisova is my no. 2 fave and Ivanovic is a close no. 3, just to clarify (both after Masha,) so I really hope they both figure things out and rise to the top. I just think it is weird that, on this board, everyone chooses Ivanovic over Vaidisova...

Very well said. :worship: :worship: :worship:

brent-o
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:23 AM
Okay I hope I don't come across as mean here, but I have to address this: Ivanovic plays NOTHING like Davenport. There are just so many differences.

Shot Production

1. Ivanovic's forehand is semi-open. When she gets a chance she steps into the ball. Davenport's forehand is completely open.

2. Davenport loops her backhand stroke. Ivanovic's takeback is completely straight.

3. Davenport's right foot is always across her left foot when she hits her backhand (if she has time.) Ivanovic's right foot stays to the right of her left foot.

4. Davenport takes small steps when running to the ball. Ivanovic's steps are much longer.

5. Davenport's arm is in constant motion when serving. Ivanovic's toss is higher, leading to a pause in her motion before she hits the ball.

6. Ana's forehand is a simple low takeback followed by a straight follow through over her left shoulder. Davenport has the old school "C" forehand swing (she takes the racket up to her shoulder, loops it down and then swings through) and often finishes above her right shoulder.

Gameplay

1. Ivanovic runs around her backhand. Lindsay never runs around any shot.

2. Ivanovic goes for outright winners early in points. Lindsay, for all her power, plays high percentage ball to set up points for easy winners.

3. Davenport goes for the slice serve (out wide on deuce, down the tee on ad) when she gets nervous. Ivanovic goes for a flat serve (down the tee on deuce, out wide on ad.)

4. Ivanovic moves more quickly than Davenport, and is willing to move more often (Davenport is a selective mover, whereas Ivanovic scrambles for everything.)

5. Ivanovic prefers to hit her forehand inside out, from the middle or the backhand side. Lindsay loves hitting her forehand crosscourt or down the line, from the forehand corner. Lindsay never hits inside out forehands. If she does step around her backhand (and she only does when the ball is in the middle of the court,) she smacks it to her opponent's forehand (assuming a right hander.)

6. Ivanvoic cannot produce crosscourt angles on her strokes (she has an off angle inside out, but none crosscourt.) She hits too flat. Davenport has the ability to add topspin and hit really nice angles.

7. Ivanovic uses dropshots and volleys far more often than Davenport does.

8. Davenport almost never double faults. Ivanovic's second serve is improving, but she still double faults frequently for a top player.

9. Ivanovic's forehand is clearly better than her backhand, whereas Lindsay's groundstrokes are pretty equal.

Mental /Intangibles

1. Lindsay is famous for her negative body language. When Ivanovic was getting crushed by Petrova at the French last year, I still saw that she thought she could win. She stayed positive until the last point. Ivanovic is so much more positive.

2. Ivanovic's game is high risk. When she's off, she can't find ways to win. Davenport's game is deceptively high percentage. She hits flat, but she hits with enough spin to keep the ball in court, and she goes for high percentage shots (as opposed to outright winners,) so she has far fewer bad days than Ana does. Also, when Lindsay is not playing well, she tones it down and reels herself in, whereas Ana keeps going for it.


I think the only reason people compare the two is that they both hit hard and flat, and move relatively slowly, or are thought to. However, even here, Ivanovic hits harder and flatter, and Davenport moves more slowly. Almost everything about their games is different. Ivanovic doesn't really remind me of any previous player...A little bit of Capriati...a little bit of Graf with the poise of Mary Pierce, but really she is different from most tennis players.

Um, no one actually suggested that Ana was the exact carbon copy of Davenport's game. There are similarities (something that in all those points you failed to acknowledge) and frankly I think the fact that Ana hits a heavy, cleanly-struck forehand (like Lindsay), is a somewhat slow, big girl (not as bad as Lindsay but still not a good mover), hits with effortless power, and has the same friendly, outgoing personality (also like Lindsay) far outweigh small minute details like the difference in their take backs or how one doesn't position their feet exactly like the other. I just think it's fair to acknowledge that they do share some things in common, hence the comparisons. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but some of those are really small, nit-picking details.

mboyle
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:27 AM
Damn if you analyse that closely and that picky nobody's game is gonna be similar to anybody. and actually some of the things you said are not 100% true. davenport often goes for big winners early in points, yes its true that she's a good point constructer but she hits tons of return winners and does go for low percentage shots but she rarely ever misses so she makes it seem like high percentage. also ive seen davenport hit inside out forehands many times and i dont think ivanovic volleys more than lindsay. if you keep it simple their game is similar. Both hit very hard and pretty flat are not that quick and have a good serve.

If you keep it that simple, almost everyone in the top 100 has the same game:o . It's all about patterns. Lindsay and Maria have very similar patterns. Justine and Amelie have very similar patterns. Actually, Nicole and Ana have very similar games.

Lindsay does not go for low percentage shots. She hits crosscourt when she's in trouble, and only goes down the line when she is inside the baseline. She goes for big returns off of second serves, but she doesn't try to crush first serves, as Nicole and Ana often do.

Lindsay really does not go for winners early in the point. She almost never goes for winners when she is behind the baseline.

Zauber
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:35 AM
well so far Vaidisova is younger and higher ranked than Ivanovic.
She has much better so far.
My opion is that Vaidisova will continue to outshine Ivanovic.
Let the results speak for themselves however.

JackWalker
Aug 24th, 2006, 05:52 AM
Actually it is just the opposite. Nicole hits with much more margin for error, and is much more technically sound on serve. Technically, Nicole's game is much sounder. However, Ana does not lose it mentally, and contains herself beautifully. Nicole is...well...Nicole like;) .

i think nicole hits with a bit more spin than ana. ana is like a young seles and nicole is like a young mary to be honest. i think that every are of ana's game is more technically sound than nicole's. nicole has funny grips and long takebacks and is not technically sound. it works well for her now but it will give her problems in the future. the prove is in the pudding. hingis beat vaidisova in rome in straight sets and ana beat hingis in montreal in straight sets and never even faced a break point against hingis so you cant say nicole is more technically sound on serve. its a really ludicrous statement.

Derek.
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:02 AM
i think nicole hits with a bit more spin than ana. ana is like a young seles and nicole is like a young mary to be honest. i think that every are of ana's game is more technically sound than nicole's. nicole has funny grips and long takebacks and is not technically sound. it works well for her now but it will give her problems in the future. the prove is in the pudding. hingis beat vaidisova in rome in straight sets and ana beat hingis in montreal in straight sets and never even faced a break point against hingis so you cant say nicole is more technically sound on serve. its a really ludicrous statement.

Hingis was playing better in Rome than she is now.

Vaidisova wasn't in good form in Rome either. She was also just got over some injuries.

Ivanovic was in almost her best form vs. Hingis.

It's not a fair comparison.

Plus that match was on clay, and I think Nicole rather play Maritna on a hardcourt too. ;)

And it isn't ludicrous to say that Nicole has a more techinically sound serve. Her serve is much more reliable and it gets her out of a lot of trouble more.

CooCooCachoo
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:29 AM
I fully agree with you :wavey:

switz
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:36 AM
Okay I hope I don't come across as mean here, but I have to address this: Ivanovic plays NOTHING like Davenport. There are just so many differences.

Shot Production

1. Ivanovic's forehand is semi-open. When she gets a chance she steps into the ball. Davenport's forehand is completely open.

2. Davenport loops her backhand stroke. Ivanovic's takeback is completely straight.

3. Davenport's right foot is always across her left foot when she hits her backhand (if she has time.) Ivanovic's right foot stays to the right of her left foot.

4. Davenport takes small steps when running to the ball. Ivanovic's steps are much longer.

5. Davenport's arm is in constant motion when serving. Ivanovic's toss is higher, leading to a pause in her motion before she hits the ball.

6. Ana's forehand is a simple low takeback followed by a straight follow through over her left shoulder. Davenport has the old school "C" forehand swing (she takes the racket up to her shoulder, loops it down and then swings through) and often finishes above her right shoulder.

Gameplay

1. Ivanovic runs around her backhand. Lindsay never runs around any shot.

2. Ivanovic goes for outright winners early in points. Lindsay, for all her power, plays high percentage ball to set up points for easy winners.

3. Davenport goes for the slice serve (out wide on deuce, down the tee on ad) when she gets nervous. Ivanovic goes for a flat serve (down the tee on deuce, out wide on ad.)

4. Ivanovic moves more quickly than Davenport, and is willing to move more often (Davenport is a selective mover, whereas Ivanovic scrambles for everything.)

5. Ivanovic prefers to hit her forehand inside out, from the middle or the backhand side. Lindsay loves hitting her forehand crosscourt or down the line, from the forehand corner. Lindsay never hits inside out forehands. If she does step around her backhand (and she only does when the ball is in the middle of the court,) she smacks it to her opponent's forehand (assuming a right hander.)

6. Ivanvoic cannot produce crosscourt angles on her strokes (she has an off angle inside out, but none crosscourt.) She hits too flat. Davenport has the ability to add topspin and hit really nice angles.

7. Ivanovic uses dropshots and volleys far more often than Davenport does.

8. Davenport almost never double faults. Ivanovic's second serve is improving, but she still double faults frequently for a top player.

9. Ivanovic's forehand is clearly better than her backhand, whereas Lindsay's groundstrokes are pretty equal.

Mental /Intangibles

1. Lindsay is famous for her negative body language. When Ivanovic was getting crushed by Petrova at the French last year, I still saw that she thought she could win. She stayed positive until the last point. Ivanovic is so much more positive.

2. Ivanovic's game is high risk. When she's off, she can't find ways to win. Davenport's game is deceptively high percentage. She hits flat, but she hits with enough spin to keep the ball in court, and she goes for high percentage shots (as opposed to outright winners,) so she has far fewer bad days than Ana does. Also, when Lindsay is not playing well, she tones it down and reels herself in, whereas Ana keeps going for it.


I think the only reason people compare the two is that they both hit hard and flat, and move relatively slowly, or are thought to. However, even here, Ivanovic hits harder and flatter, and Davenport moves more slowly. Almost everything about their games is different. Ivanovic doesn't really remind me of any previous player...A little bit of Capriati...a little bit of Graf with the poise of Mary Pierce, but really she is different from most tennis players.

:lol: boy you went to a lot of effort there mate. I never meant there games where similar to look at - i simply meant there career pattern. Lindsay didn't just burst onto the scene from my memory - she had a heaps of ability but was out of shape and could only produce the occasional spectactular results among other solid ones. She got in shape and then became one of the best players in the world because everything came together.

That is what i see happening to Ivanovic. but again who knows what will happen.

JackWalker
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:43 AM
Hingis was playing better in Rome than she is now.

Vaidisova wasn't in good form in Rome either. She was also just got over some injuries.

Ivanovic was in almost her best form vs. Hingis.

It's not a fair comparison.

Plus that match was on clay, and I think Nicole rather play Maritna on a hardcourt too. ;)

And it isn't ludicrous to say that Nicole has a more techinically sound serve. Her serve is much more reliable and it gets her out of a lot of trouble more.

hingis was not playing better in rome than she is now. she is playing the same. FACT.

if vaidisova was not in good form in rome than the same arguement could be used for the french open because it was only a week later, and yet she reached the semis there. Contradiction.

ivanovic played one of her best matches against hingis. but that brings it more to the point that ana is better than nicole because she was able to play good tennis when it counted

i think it is a fair comparion

i do agree that the surface played a factor in both results. but i dont think it made a big factor.

i dont think nicole's serve is more reliable than ana's and gets her out of trouble more often.

switz
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:46 AM
Davenport was 5 years older than Hingis and she more than held her own against her. I don't think this age gap between Ivanovic and Vaidisova (which i personally dount even exists in reality) means much. It's about who's game has the most room for growth and ultimately who grows more as a player. neither are at the point yet where i expect them compete with the best at their best.

Derek.
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:52 AM
hingis was not playing better in rome than she is now. she is playing the same. FACT.

How is that a fact?


if vaidisova was not in good form in rome than the same arguement could be used for the french open because it was only a week later, and yet she reached the semis there. Contradiction.

It's not a contradiction. :retard:

Nicole wasn't confident until after Rome. ESPN2 talked with her father, and he said that match turned things around. She really started to gain confidence after she beat Rezai in the 3R of RG, because she lost her focus, but she kept calm and rolled in the 3rd set.


ivanovic played one of her best matches against hingis. but that brings it more to the point that ana is better than nicole because she was able to play good tennis when it counted

One win and suddenly Ana is better than Nicole? :lol:

I guess you need to look at more results than that. Ana has lost several close matches to people she should beat such as Kirilenko and Chakvetadze. Those matches counted as well, yet she wasn't able to bring out her best tennis to win.


i think it is a fair comparion

i do agree that the surface played a factor in both results. but i dont think it made a big factor.

It actually did. On clay Hingis has more time to set up on clay. Plus the clay doesn't allow Vaidisova to get the winners she should get on another surface. Put that match on hardcourts and Vaidisova has a very good chance to win. It's not like the Rome match was a blowout. It was 7-5 7-5. It could have gone either way. Vaidisova could have won Montreal as well.


i dont think nicole's serve is more reliable than ana's and gets her out of trouble more often.

Oh, but it does. ;)

Kunal
Aug 24th, 2006, 06:58 AM
better than vai?

people are out of their mind....she is so much better than ana

Robt424
Aug 24th, 2006, 08:23 AM
i do agree that the surface played a factor in both results. but i dont think it made a big factor.

Didn't play a big part? Try putting JHH against Venus on a hardcourt at their best and tell me who wins. Now put Justine against Venus at their best on clay... Tough match. Of course, surface can make all the difference in a world, especially from something so slow as clay vs. fast American hardcourts. Rafael Nadal prime example, dominates on clay, can struggle on hardcourts.

This is why Ivanovic fans are going to soon seem ridiculous. It's one thing to stand up for your fave, but to make absurd statements just to prove your point about some player who just started to get decent results one week ago is a whole different story.

Dasha_
Aug 24th, 2006, 09:08 AM
Ana is a very talented player. She needs to improve, but she has a huge potential. You can already see the improvement in her game since Wimbledon. What she needed was a new coach. Now she has one, and the results are showing already. Her fitness is much better now, she moves more and faster, she chases the ball we could never dream she will. She has a huge groundstroke, backhand is solid, she even started to volley, and serve is great. That said, Let's Be Realistic - Ana will soon become the player to beat. She will win several Grand Slams.

And, besides all that, she has a great personality, and she is beautiful.

So, why shouldn't she be called "The Next Queen of Tennis?"

Mileen
Aug 24th, 2006, 10:10 AM
I don't think a warning is necessary here. Fans of Ana are able to relativate her succes, there is no arrogance nor overration involved here. I don't really understand the need of your thread. Would you have reacted the same if it were concerned an American player? You'll reply yes of course - impossible question to ask. Be a little more emphatic with Ana's fans, so it seems to me. I really don't believe they were overrating her. The one who said "queen etc", I think that's just sweet fan stuff, without intending she is the #1 and best player.

lilimi
Aug 24th, 2006, 10:24 AM
the only person who i saw call her the queen of tennis is a "fan" who insults her whenever she plays poorly. Most people are aware she still has more to prove. I've always believed this girl has a lot of potential because she does everything well - but there still remains a lot of areas that need to be tightened for her to be challenging for slams.

Exactly, I love Ana and I believe she has everything to be n1 and a superstar of tennis (strength, brains, beauty and kindness) but anything can happen. She has a lot of things to improve though. I think the'fan''s behaviour you're talking about(--->ezekiel :) )is due to his huge love for ana. he's a die-hard fan :lol: and wants the best for his favourite player.
Other thing : she's not like Davenport. I agree with most of mboyle post but she can do cross courts shots!
CCL :lol: : Ana is a great player and since not much had happened thes last weeks, it's normal there's a little euforia around her. Will she become n1, only time will tell. ;) :cool:

Kim's_fan_4ever
Aug 24th, 2006, 10:32 AM
Ok, just wanted to let you know right now that this isn't a hate thread...

Ivanovic is a great player, top 20, and is celebrating her first career Tier I title. I'm really happy for her, and I think she can do great things in the future.

However, her hardcore fans are starting to get a bit out of control here. Calling her the next Queen of tennis, saying she's better than Vaidisova (who happens to be in the Top 10), is just a little premature. Let the girl get some consistency first before going this far.

What's going to happen is that people are going to end up hating her because of her fans. She's getting more popular by the day becuase of her personality and her beauty, and now that she has a Tier I title, she's the best thing since sliced bread? If she makes it pretty far in the US Open, ok, I'll be right along cheering with you guys, but until then, hold it, b/c its starting to get a bit obnoxious.

Not trying to take away from her Tier I victory, winning the title in the weakest tier I of the year, not even facing a top ten player on the way to victory doesn't mean this is a turn around in her career. Be careful before you jinx her guys. Consistency is key.
Hardcore fans, huh? We are getting out of control? Big lol here. Guess whose fans are really often out of control (no offence to anybody) on this board. Nevermind 'bout that.
What do you have against calling Ana a future queen of tennis? Maybe some day she will be the best in the world, you never know that.
And the Nicole-Ana comparison. So what that Nicole is in the top 10 (nice draws in tournament + 3 tournaments (tier III adn IV) won after UO 05). We should wait when they meet now and then tell who is better. If someone thinks Ana is better you call him immature? Oh please...
Another thing. She won Montreal 'cuz she deserved it. She won with Hingis in straight sets in the final and that's the best proof. And yes, that is a turn around in her career, you don't win a tier I for no reason even if it has relatively poor field.
The last thing.
"What's going to happen is that people are going to end up hating her because of her fans" - I guess it was a Serena fan but I don't remember it quite good said that how can you hate a player because of his fans? I'm asking the same question here: how it is possible?

vettipooh
Aug 24th, 2006, 10:47 AM
All I can say is that Ana is getting ready to make some big noise!!! She looked fit and full of stamina on the practice courts at USopen quali day 2, yesterday. Kept hitting that forehand over and over again, and was not even distracted playing next to a shirtless Marat!! :lol: :drool:
if you think your fav is a queen, who's to say she's not? :rolleyes: The girl always had game....now it's just a matter of set and match!!!!!! :banana:

Cp6uja
Aug 24th, 2006, 10:59 AM
What's going to happen is that people are going to end up hating her because of her fans. She's getting more popular by the day becuase of her personality and her beauty, and now that she has a Tier I title, she's the best thing since sliced bread? If she makes it pretty far in the US Open, ok, I'll be right along cheering with you guys, but until then, hold it, b/c its starting to get a bit obnoxious.




Her popularity here is more like Kim's or Lena D. popularity (ok, she is beauty, but she is at first very nice person) than with Kournikova or MaSha cases.

V-MAC
Aug 24th, 2006, 11:28 AM
Ok, just wanted to let you know right now that this isn't a hate thread...

Ivanovic is a great player, top 20, and is celebrating her first career Tier I title. I'm really happy for her, and I think she can do great things in the future.

However, her hardcore fans are starting to get a bit out of control here. Calling her the next Queen of tennis, saying she's better than Vaidisova (who happens to be in the Top 10), is just a little premature. Let the girl get some consistency first before going this far.

What's going to happen is that people are going to end up hating her because of her fans. She's getting more popular by the day becuase of her personality and her beauty, and now that she has a Tier I title, she's the best thing since sliced bread? If she makes it pretty far in the US Open, ok, I'll be right along cheering with you guys, but until then, hold it, b/c its starting to get a bit obnoxious.

Not trying to take away from her Tier I victory, winning the title in the weakest tier I of the year, not even facing a top ten player on the way to victory doesn't mean this is a turn around in her career. Be careful before you jinx her guys. Consistency is key.

well said ;) you should have named that person though who posted that rather ott thread about Ana's win in Montreal though :angel:

Cp6uja
Aug 24th, 2006, 11:34 AM
You also must remember Vaidisova is 18 months younger than Ivanovic. That is critical to keep in mind. Already, Nicole is much more consistent. Nicole's serve/forehand combination is much safer and more reliable than Ana's, and Nicole's backhand is more versatile. Ana at her best is, in my opinion, more explosive and dominant, but, on an average day, Ana is farther from her best than Nicole is from her best. A lot of people on the boards are rightfully impressed by Ana at her peak. "Wait until she can play that way all the time," people say. Well the problem is, she likely will never be able to sustain that play match after match. She has so little margin for error on all her shots. It is very hard for her to pull them off time after time, match after match.

...




I not agree with that (red quotes especially).

Ages factor is not crucial for judgement here. Martina Hingis played better tennis and have much better results at 16 than Martina Navratilova at 19 - so what!? Vaidisova in 2004, 2005 and 2006 always have better rank (if we forget couple months in 2005), but we talk here about Nicole and Ana future/potential and i see right now more area for improvment in Ana case than in 18 month younger Vaidisova. When Maria Sharapova won her Wimbledon title in 2004, only six months younger Ana lose her final match (against Katerina Bondarenko) in junior Wimbley... but Ana's "month by month" progress in her games and shots in last two years is much better and faster than Masha's, and right now she is already close to her (not very, but close). In 16, 17 and 18 Jelena Dokic played in (much) high level than Ana, but i never notice Jelena like world #1 potential when compare her with her generations best opposers (Hingis, Serena and Venus) - but if you compare Ana with Maria, Sveta and Nicole, Ivanovic have some chances and advantages. So, "ages factor" is not that import here.

Nicole will be always much "complete" player than Ana with only one single bad thing - her "public relations" :devil:, and nothing else! At other hand Ana will be good in only couple things, but in some of them she have chances to be simply world best - forehand, 1st serve, atack on opponent 2nd serve ("atack" is better word than "retern" in her case), and she is already most agressive WTA player... and all this is reason why comparation between Ivanovic and Davenport is generally very correct - Lindsay have much more bad characteristic than any expect of some player with 10-15 years world TOP5 status (and #1 by couple years), but things where she good - she is simply best (or very close to that), and if you see her forehand, 1st serve or retern on 2nd serve (i mean about EFECTIVITY - not STYLE of all this shots!!!) you will see why Ana/Lindsay comparations is correct. So, if your prediction that forehand/serve combination will be dangerious weapon for Nicole than Ana, that means that Vaidisova will be much much better player than Ana, but my oppinion that Ana's forehand/serve will be WTA players worst nightmare in next about 10 years!

"Secret" of Ana's winners shots is in POWER, not in angles or how close they is to lines. Also, that (shot power) is reason why her first "risk" shot in points in mostly cases is always her last "big" shot (winner or UE - whatever), and for example Nicole or MaSha needs about 3-4 good atacking shots before they close points. So "risk factor" (Ana even against Hingis in monday have more unforced errors!) is not that big problem for Ana, because she reach points, she lose points - but all is in her hands (this style is suicide in WTA, i agree generally - but not in Ivanovic case!).

GoClijsters
Aug 24th, 2006, 01:12 PM
we'll see what the US Open will bring for her. I believe in her quality and i think with her win in Montreal she will grow more.

dizoo
Aug 24th, 2006, 01:48 PM
i think there are too many threads bout a player that hasn't done much til now...!
as i said...she's a good player

just

she hasn't done any noise yet....

dizoo
Aug 24th, 2006, 01:54 PM
Okay I hope I don't come across as mean here, but I have to address this: Ivanovic plays NOTHING like Davenport. There are just so many differences.

Shot Production

1. Ivanovic's forehand is semi-open. When she gets a chance she steps into the ball. Davenport's forehand is completely open.

2. Davenport loops her backhand stroke. Ivanovic's takeback is completely straight.

3. Davenport's right foot is always across her left foot when she hits her backhand (if she has time.) Ivanovic's right foot stays to the right of her left foot.

4. Davenport takes small steps when running to the ball. Ivanovic's steps are much longer.

5. Davenport's arm is in constant motion when serving. Ivanovic's toss is higher, leading to a pause in her motion before she hits the ball.

6. Ana's forehand is a simple low takeback followed by a straight follow through over her left shoulder. Davenport has the old school "C" forehand swing (she takes the racket up to her shoulder, loops it down and then swings through) and often finishes above her right shoulder.

Gameplay

1. Ivanovic runs around her backhand. Lindsay never runs around any shot.

2. Ivanovic goes for outright winners early in points. Lindsay, for all her power, plays high percentage ball to set up points for easy winners.

3. Davenport goes for the slice serve (out wide on deuce, down the tee on ad) when she gets nervous. Ivanovic goes for a flat serve (down the tee on deuce, out wide on ad.)

4. Ivanovic moves more quickly than Davenport, and is willing to move more often (Davenport is a selective mover, whereas Ivanovic scrambles for everything.)

5. Ivanovic prefers to hit her forehand inside out, from the middle or the backhand side. Lindsay loves hitting her forehand crosscourt or down the line, from the forehand corner. Lindsay never hits inside out forehands. If she does step around her backhand (and she only does when the ball is in the middle of the court,) she smacks it to her opponent's forehand (assuming a right hander.)

6. Ivanvoic cannot produce crosscourt angles on her strokes (she has an off angle inside out, but none crosscourt.) She hits too flat. Davenport has the ability to add topspin and hit really nice angles.

7. Ivanovic uses dropshots and volleys far more often than Davenport does.

8. Davenport almost never double faults. Ivanovic's second serve is improving, but she still double faults frequently for a top player.

9. Ivanovic's forehand is clearly better than her backhand, whereas Lindsay's groundstrokes are pretty equal.

Mental /Intangibles

1. Lindsay is famous for her negative body language. When Ivanovic was getting crushed by Petrova at the French last year, I still saw that she thought she could win. She stayed positive until the last point. Ivanovic is so much more positive.

2. Ivanovic's game is high risk. When she's off, she can't find ways to win. Davenport's game is deceptively high percentage. She hits flat, but she hits with enough spin to keep the ball in court, and she goes for high percentage shots (as opposed to outright winners,) so she has far fewer bad days than Ana does. Also, when Lindsay is not playing well, she tones it down and reels herself in, whereas Ana keeps going for it.


I think the only reason people compare the two is that they both hit hard and flat, and move relatively slowly, or are thought to. However, even here, Ivanovic hits harder and flatter, and Davenport moves more slowly. Almost everything about their games is different. Ivanovic doesn't really remind me of any previous player...A little bit of Capriati...a little bit of Graf with the poise of Mary Pierce, but really she is different from most tennis players.


the way u put things it seems that your trying to convince people that Ana is half of the player that Davenport is.... LOL

Mr_Molik
Aug 24th, 2006, 02:00 PM
Okay I hope I don't come across as mean here, but I have to address this: Ivanovic plays NOTHING like Davenport. There are just so many differences.

Shot Production

1. Ivanovic's forehand is semi-open. When she gets a chance she steps into the ball. Davenport's forehand is completely open.

2. Davenport loops her backhand stroke. Ivanovic's takeback is completely straight.

3. Davenport's right foot is always across her left foot when she hits her backhand (if she has time.) Ivanovic's right foot stays to the right of her left foot.

4. Davenport takes small steps when running to the ball. Ivanovic's steps are much longer.

5. Davenport's arm is in constant motion when serving. Ivanovic's toss is higher, leading to a pause in her motion before she hits the ball.

6. Ana's forehand is a simple low takeback followed by a straight follow through over her left shoulder. Davenport has the old school "C" forehand swing (she takes the racket up to her shoulder, loops it down and then swings through) and often finishes above her right shoulder.

Gameplay

1. Ivanovic runs around her backhand. Lindsay never runs around any shot.

2. Ivanovic goes for outright winners early in points. Lindsay, for all her power, plays high percentage ball to set up points for easy winners.

3. Davenport goes for the slice serve (out wide on deuce, down the tee on ad) when she gets nervous. Ivanovic goes for a flat serve (down the tee on deuce, out wide on ad.)

4. Ivanovic moves more quickly than Davenport, and is willing to move more often (Davenport is a selective mover, whereas Ivanovic scrambles for everything.)

5. Ivanovic prefers to hit her forehand inside out, from the middle or the backhand side. Lindsay loves hitting her forehand crosscourt or down the line, from the forehand corner. Lindsay never hits inside out forehands. If she does step around her backhand (and she only does when the ball is in the middle of the court,) she smacks it to her opponent's forehand (assuming a right hander.)

6. Ivanvoic cannot produce crosscourt angles on her strokes (she has an off angle inside out, but none crosscourt.) She hits too flat. Davenport has the ability to add topspin and hit really nice angles.

7. Ivanovic uses dropshots and volleys far more often than Davenport does.

8. Davenport almost never double faults. Ivanovic's second serve is improving, but she still double faults frequently for a top player.

9. Ivanovic's forehand is clearly better than her backhand, whereas Lindsay's groundstrokes are pretty equal.

Mental /Intangibles

1. Lindsay is famous for her negative body language. When Ivanovic was getting crushed by Petrova at the French last year, I still saw that she thought she could win. She stayed positive until the last point. Ivanovic is so much more positive.

2. Ivanovic's game is high risk. When she's off, she can't find ways to win. Davenport's game is deceptively high percentage. She hits flat, but she hits with enough spin to keep the ball in court, and she goes for high percentage shots (as opposed to outright winners,) so she has far fewer bad days than Ana does. Also, when Lindsay is not playing well, she tones it down and reels herself in, whereas Ana keeps going for it.


I think the only reason people compare the two is that they both hit hard and flat, and move relatively slowly, or are thought to. However, even here, Ivanovic hits harder and flatter, and Davenport moves more slowly. Almost everything about their games is different. Ivanovic doesn't really remind me of any previous player...A little bit of Capriati...a little bit of Graf with the poise of Mary Pierce, but really she is different from most tennis players.

:haha:

jegood
Aug 24th, 2006, 02:15 PM
So we're excited for Ana.She won a very important tournament,very important for her selfconfidence I mean.I'm her fan,want her to show the potential she has,and I'm happy for her.I don't know if she can beat Vaidisova or Serena or wte.,I just want her to play her best tennis and to improve,and only then we will all be able to see who can she beat.And you're obviously concerned about her rising popularity,well it's really not her fault that she has a nice personality and beauty,and that people like her. :bigwave:

mboyle
Aug 24th, 2006, 08:27 PM
the way u put things it seems that your trying to convince people that Ana is half of the player that Davenport is.... LOL

No not at all. I think Ana has the potential to be much better than Davenport, because Ana does not get negative and always counts herself in a match. I just don't think they play ANYTHING alike. I think Ana plays a whole new style of tennis.

dizoo
Aug 24th, 2006, 08:33 PM
No not at all. I think Ana has the potential to be much better than Davenport, because Ana does not get negative and always counts herself in a match. I just don't think they play ANYTHING alike. I think Ana plays a whole new style of tennis.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
yes...ana is making a revolution in female tennis... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
i don't think she'll be half of Davenport....

she's a good player...that's all!!! there is nothing special bout the way she plays...

Dexter
Aug 24th, 2006, 08:37 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
yes...ana is making a revolution in female tennis... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
i don't think she'll be half of Davenport....

she's a good player...that's all!!! there is nothing special bout the way she plays...There has to be something special about her as you keep replying to all the threads that have something to do with Ana :D

dizoo
Aug 24th, 2006, 08:42 PM
There has to be something special about her as you keep replying to all the threads that have something to do with Ana :D


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
you got surprised with me coz i said in another thread that she's a good player :tape: :tape: :tape: :tape:

i still think she is...but i mean...she has something like 473874839274897234 threads by day...!!!

she is not a Wta star yet... that's all i mean...and most of her fans doesn't accept when somebody make any critics

franny
Aug 24th, 2006, 08:43 PM
hingis was not playing better in rome than she is now. she is playing the same. FACT.

if vaidisova was not in good form in rome than the same arguement could be used for the french open because it was only a week later, and yet she reached the semis there. Contradiction.

ivanovic played one of her best matches against hingis. but that brings it more to the point that ana is better than nicole because she was able to play good tennis when it counted

i think it is a fair comparion

i do agree that the surface played a factor in both results. but i dont think it made a big factor.

i dont think nicole's serve is more reliable than ana's and gets her out of trouble more often.

Sorry, I don't wnat to be mean but that's a stupid post. Hingis was playing better in Rome. In fact, the two weeks of Rome/Berlin was some of her best tennis of the year. SHe was aggressive and moved beautifully. In MOntreal, she played scrappy tennis and it was her foot speed that allowed her to get to the finals. It is not a fact that Hingis was playing better in Montreal. If you watched her matches back to back, as I did, you will agree me.

Ivanovic was not in good form in LA, yet she went to Montreal and picked it up. Venus was not in good form at the French last year, and yet went to Wimbledon and won it. Form is a very tricky thing. It can be there one week and go away the next. Likewise it can come at anytime, just like Vaidisova's.

For your third point, one can also say that Nicole is better than Ana because she was able to bring it to the quarterfinals of a slam and beat a great opponent when it mattered. Ana could not even beat a Petrova to reached the semis of the French as Nicole beat Venus this year. Thus, is Nicole better?

You think it's a fair comparison? I don't think it's a fair comparison. Different surface, different situations, a different level Hingis.

Surface plays a major factor. Hingis on a hardcourt is just not as effective as a Hingis on clay or indoor.

Vaidisova has a great serve. Watch her match against Golovin in Fed Cup and watch her match against Venus and you will see. She hits many more aces than Ivanovic and her second serve is better. She does not hit as many double faults and is not as attackable. I think that you need to not let your fanboyism blind your judgement, but that's just my opinion. Really no need to continue on with this conversation. It's not worth the time.

Freakan
Aug 24th, 2006, 11:33 PM
I agree with the most things you said but IMO she's better than Vaidisova.

JackWalker
Aug 25th, 2006, 06:09 AM
Sorry, I don't wnat to be mean but that's a stupid post. Hingis was playing better in Rome. In fact, the two weeks of Rome/Berlin was some of her best tennis of the year. SHe was aggressive and moved beautifully. In MOntreal, she played scrappy tennis and it was her foot speed that allowed her to get to the finals. It is not a fact that Hingis was playing better in Montreal. If you watched her matches back to back, as I did, you will agree me.

Ivanovic was not in good form in LA, yet she went to Montreal and picked it up. Venus was not in good form at the French last year, and yet went to Wimbledon and won it. Form is a very tricky thing. It can be there one week and go away the next. Likewise it can come at anytime, just like Vaidisova's.

For your third point, one can also say that Nicole is better than Ana because she was able to bring it to the quarterfinals of a slam and beat a great opponent when it mattered. Ana could not even beat a Petrova to reached the semis of the French as Nicole beat Venus this year. Thus, is Nicole better?

You think it's a fair comparison? I don't think it's a fair comparison. Different surface, different situations, a different level Hingis.

Surface plays a major factor. Hingis on a hardcourt is just not as effective as a Hingis on clay or indoor.

Vaidisova has a great serve. Watch her match against Golovin in Fed Cup and watch her match against Venus and you will see. She hits many more aces than Ivanovic and her second serve is better. She does not hit as many double faults and is not as attackable. I think that you need to not let your fanboyism blind your judgement, but that's just my opinion. Really no need to continue on with this conversation. It's not worth the time.

i watched hingis' matches back to back and she played the same type of tennis she played on the clay. i think that ana has any more wins against big name players while vaidisova has only challengesthem. vaidisova has won many small tournaments with weak fields and therefore not as impressive as ana's lone tier one. i dont think hingis on clay is amazing, if she was she would have won the french by now. i think hingis is much better on rebound ace. i think nicole has a good serve but i dont think that its better than ana's.

BrokewingsPrince
Aug 25th, 2006, 06:32 AM
I always think Nicole is better than Ana.I never think Ana is the next what.