PDA

View Full Version : Nicole better then Maria : LOL


selesbooz
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:00 PM
The way the people talk about her you would think that she walked on water. Why because she made the Semi's of a slam and beat a tired Venus and Momo in Paris - pretty much anyone can beat her there.

BTW Ana is better then her fat ass :tape:

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:01 PM
Nicole has a better game than Maria so thats why people say she is better. Simple as...

cellophane
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:03 PM
Nicole isn't better than Maria; she has more variety than Maria. And :rolls: at you saying she has a fat ass.

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:04 PM
He's obsessed with her ass :rolleyes: Why don't you just stick to it :bounce:

jamatthews
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:05 PM
Yes her variety in the 3rd set was amazing. :worship: :o

selesbooz
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:06 PM
Nicole has a better game than Maria so thats why people say she is better. Simple as...

No she does not. if she does didn't use it today :lol:

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:08 PM
No she does not. if she does didn't use it today :lol:
Yeah so she had a bad match. And 90% of this board think Nicole has a better game. She can do more than just smack a forehand and backhand. Hey at least Nicole didn't get beat 6/0 6/0 by Davenport :haha:

Joana
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:09 PM
she has more variety than Maria

Which is a real accomplishment. :tape:
Anyway, their results speak for themselves.

selesbooz
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:11 PM
Yeah so she had a bad match. And 90% of this board think Nicole has a better game. She can do more than just smack a forehand and backhand. Hey at least Nicole didn't get beat 6/0 6/0 by Davenport :haha:


Maria may have lost but aleast she came back the next year and won the tournment and owns Davenport 4-1 :wavey:

squig2k
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:11 PM
nicole does have a better game and more variety. she just fell apart grrr, which sharapova doesn't, thats all

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:11 PM
Nicole has a better game than Maria so thats why people say she is better. Simple as...

Joke of the day :tape:

Thats only if her game is invisible :tape:

morningglory
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:12 PM
:lol: not yet anyway...

jamatthews
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:17 PM
Hey at least Nicole didn't get beat 6/0 6/0 by Davenport :haha:

Yep, Nicole is clearly superior to players like Seles and Navratilova and their embarassing double bagel losses.

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:20 PM
Joke of the day :tape:

Thats only if her game is invisible :tape:
Well I think anyone who can do more than thump groundstrokes has a better game. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so no its not a joke :)

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:20 PM
Yep, Nicole is clearly superior to players like Seles and Navratilova and their embarassing double bagel losses.

He's just a deluded fanboy. Let him think what he wants to think.

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:22 PM
He's just a deluded fanboy. Let him think what he wants to think.
Yes I'm sooooo deluded :rolleyes:
Well at least Nicole could hit drop shots at the age of 17 unlike Maria :lol:

Steffica Greles
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:22 PM
You're right that there's no evidence of it yet. And there may never be.

But I still stand by what I've said before: Nicole Vaidisova has the potential to go further than Maria Sharapova because she has a better game.

-Sonic-
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:22 PM
Hitting it long, hitting it wide & hitting it into the net all in one game does NOT constitute variety.

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:22 PM
I don't think Nicole is fat, like what the original poster said but I do think she lacks the talent and has a poor game and limited skills compared to Maria as the results prove.

burgerboy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:24 PM
I don't get why people say Nicole is better than Maria. Maria won her first slam at 17. Right now Nicole is 17 and how many slams does she have ZERO!Plus Sharapova is better looking :p . I am not a big fan of Maria so I can say that Nicole has more variety and it seesm her movemen is less awkard but her run to the French Open Semis wasn't a fluke but... she had help. Mauremo chokes in Paris and Venus made 70 unforced errors.

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:24 PM
limitied skills? :weirdo: She has a great serve, solid groundstrokes. Good volleys and she can drop shot/lob.

morningglory
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:24 PM
Well I think anyone who can do more than thump groundstrokes has a better game. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so no its not a joke :)
In that case Fabrice Santoro should be ranked no 2 in the world after Federer and Ljubicic should be no 300 from no 3, right? :o
It's not all about having many weapons if none of the weapons are effective...

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:25 PM
Yes I'm sooooo deluded :rolleyes:
Well at least Nicole could hit drop shots at the age of 17 unlike Maria :lol:

If you prefer hitting a couple of drop shots in a match rather than winning wimbledon then fine. :lol:

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:25 PM
I don't get why people say Nicole is better than Maria. Maria won her first slam at 17. Right now Nicole is 17 and how many slams does she have ZERO!Plus Sharapova is better looking :p . I am not a big fan of Maria so I can say that Nicole has more variety and it seesm her movemen is less awkard but her run to the French Open Semis wasn't a fluke but... she had help. Mauremo chokes in Paris and Venus made 70 unforced errors.
We could talk about Wimbledon 04 then. Sugiyama choked in the 1/4 final. Sharapova was getting destroyed by Davenport in the semis then the rain came and Maria benifited from that. In the final well, it was Serena's twin sister playing :lol: :p

Russianboy90
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:27 PM
Yeah so she had a bad match. And 90% of this board think Nicole has a better game. She can do more than just smack a forehand and backhand. Hey at least Nicole didn't get beat 6/0 6/0 by Davenport :haha:
OMG! Maria is better than nicole! She would lose against Masha in straight sets! You are talking shit!!!!!!!!

cellophane
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:28 PM
Hitting it long, hitting it wide & hitting it into the net all in one game does NOT constitute variety.

Nobody (at least not me) is saying she is better than Maria at what she does, but she does have more than just power.

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:29 PM
limitied skills? :weirdo: She has a great serve, solid groundstrokes. Good volleys and she can drop shot/lob.

Nicole is good compared to most youngsters but compared to Maria, Maria outshines her in every department. Maria has all the skills whereas Nicole's skills are very limited.

Steffica Greles
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:29 PM
We could talk about Wimbledon 04 then. Sugiyama choked in the 1/4 final. Sharapova was getting destroyed by Davenport in the semis then the rain came and Maria benifited from that. In the final well, it was Serena's twin sister playing :lol: :p

I also agree that Maria was a little fortunate to win Wimbledon so soon.

That's why she's not been in a final since, nor won all that many tier 2 or 1 events (although she's done well this year to win San Diego and Indian Wells at tier 1 level).

Her Masters victory was also fortunate - Serena literally couldn't serve with a shoulder injury in what was already a three set final, even with Serena's injury.

Maria is too good to never win another slam. But at 17 I do feel she was a little lucky and that she really wasn't that much better (if at all) than Nicole is right now.

Craigy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:33 PM
I just think Nicole has more options in a match. And No Maria doesn't outshine Nicole at everything. Nicole can hit better drop shots/lobs, volleys. But I'm not saying Maria isn't a good player, she wouldn't be where she is now if she sucked. Lets just wait and see how Nicole develops :p

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:37 PM
I just think Nicole has more options in a match. And No Maria doesn't outshine Nicole at everything. Nicole can hit better drop shots/lobs, volleys. But I'm not saying Maria isn't a good player, she wouldn't be where she is now if she sucked. Lets just wait and see how Nicole develops :p

Maria's lobs are wayyyy better. You remember the 2 she hit in the wimbledon final? She hits quite a lot and is successful most of the time.

Nicole I still feel lacks the game to get to the top but she will hang around in the top 10 tho, but not right at the top like Maria. :)

franny
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:40 PM
It's so funny the people on this board. To everyone, Ana > Nicole > Maria, when in fact, the results show Maria > Nicole > Ana. I find it astonishing that there's still people going, "I think Nicole has a better game so I think she's a better player" or 'Nicole has more variety, she can hit a drop shot at age 17." Variety does not make a player better or worse. Like a poster before me said, if it did, then Fabrice Santoro would be number 2 in the world, and Martina Hingis would not be losing to freaking Virginie Razzano in the 2nd round. A better player is the one who wins more matches, the one who is mentally stronger, the one who gets the results. You can say Nicole have a "better game" all you want, but if she is not as headstrong as Maria, and if she is not as dedicated as Maria, and she does not fight as well as Maria, then she is not the better player. Bottom line: if she does not win more than Maria, then she is not the better player. Talk all you want and live in a delusional world, but until the day comes that Nicole Vaidisova has reached number 1 in the world, won a grand slam, won a year end championship, won multiple tier 1's, and reached 5 grand slam semifinals, she will not be the better player.

burgerboy
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:40 PM
We could talk about Wimbledon 04 then. Sugiyama choked in the 1/4 final. Sharapova was getting destroyed by Davenport in the semis then the rain came and Maria benifited from that. In the final well, it was Serena's twin sister playing :lol: :p

:tape: :lol: Thats so true

franny
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:43 PM
Oh, and talk about variety, I don't see Nicole pulling out no left handed lob winners or pulling out dropshots when down match points. I love Nicole, and am one of the few who don't mind her demon attitude, but to say that she is better than Maria is too premature.

By the way, Serena was in that final, whether her fans like to admit it or not or to say it's her "twin sister." That's just a stupid excuse. You can say that about any match. Yea, at Indian Wells, it wasn't Davenport who beat Maria 6-0, 6-0, it was Maria's long lost and unheard of twin sister who has disguised herself as her. Or we can say that the person who won Serena's Australian Open 05 slam was not really Serena, but rather the twin sister. The real Serena was still recovering from her injury, so she asked that twin sister that played in the Wimby final to sub in for her again. Yea, twin sister my ass. That's just a stupid thing to say.

selesbooz
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:44 PM
It's so funny the people on this board. To everyone, Ana > Nicole > Maria, when in fact, the results show Maria > Nicole > Ana. I find it astonishing that there's still people going, "I think Nicole has a better game so I think she's a better player" or 'Nicole has more variety, she can hit a drop shot at age 17." Variety does not make a player better or worse. Like a poster before me said, if it did, then Fabrice Santoro would be number 2 in the world, and Martina Hingis would not be losing to freaking Virginie Razzano in the 2nd round. A better player is the one who wins more matches, the one who is mentally stronger, the one who gets the results. You can say Nicole have a "better game" all you want, but if she is not as headstrong as Maria, and if she is not as dedicated as Maria, and she does not fight as well as Maria, then she is not the better player. Bottom line: if she does not win more than Maria, then she is not the better player. Talk all you want and live in a delusional world, but until the day comes that Nicole Vaidisova has reached number 1 in the world, won a grand slam, won a year end championship, won multiple tier 1's, and reached 5 grand slam semifinals, she will not be the better player.


:worship:

mboyle
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:48 PM
We could talk about Wimbledon 04 then. Sugiyama choked in the 1/4 final. Sharapova was getting destroyed by Davenport in the semis then the rain came and Maria benifited from that. In the final well, it was Serena's twin sister playing :lol: :p

That's just not true. Sugiyama did not choke at all. She was never ahead. Sharapova actually had 14 break points in the second set before she converted one (and she had like 8 in the first set.) Sharapova choked and still won.

The rain thing should be impressive. Davenport was the veteran, and therefore should have come out and closed the match, knowing better how to deal with rain delays. Sharapova completely outplayed her in the second half of the match. 6-1 final set.

In the final, Serena was on her back foot the entire time because Maria was hitting so hard, so flat and so deep. That was Maria's perfect match, in my opinion.

As to the topic at hand:

1. Vaidisova is NOTTTTTT fat. What the hell are you talking about?
2. The ability to hit a drop shot once in a while should not be awe-inspiring:o .
3. Both players are good. I think Maria has the mind of a champion. I do not know that Nicole does.

x Chu x
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:50 PM
nicole is good but not as good as maria or everywill be

mboyle
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM
It's so funny the people on this board. To everyone, Ana > Nicole > Maria, when in fact, the results show Maria > Nicole > Ana. I find it astonishing that there's still people going, "I think Nicole has a better game so I think she's a better player" or 'Nicole has more variety, she can hit a drop shot at age 17." Variety does not make a player better or worse. Like a poster before me said, if it did, then Fabrice Santoro would be number 2 in the world, and Martina Hingis would not be losing to freaking Virginie Razzano in the 2nd round. A better player is the one who wins more matches, the one who is mentally stronger, the one who gets the results. You can say Nicole have a "better game" all you want, but if she is not as headstrong as Maria, and if she is not as dedicated as Maria, and she does not fight as well as Maria, then she is not the better player. Bottom line: if she does not win more than Maria, then she is not the better player. Talk all you want and live in a delusional world, but until the day comes that Nicole Vaidisova has reached number 1 in the world, won a grand slam, won a year end championship, won multiple tier 1's, and reached 5 grand slam semifinals, she will not be the better player.

I agree with most of this. However, I think we would expect J2H and Mauresmo to have better results than Sharapova, Ivanovic and Vaidisova due to age. I think your argument works within age groups, but age is really important to a player's development.

!<blocparty>!
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM
Wow. How old is everyone in here. 7?

The people who actually, like, know stuff about tennis will know that results aren't always everything when you're comparing players.

Does the fact that x has more POTENTIAL than y but y has won a slam make y any better? In the case of Sharapova Vaidisova and Ana, to me it doesn't.

Everyone develops at different rates, it just happens Maria took advantage of the joke that's known as the WTA Tour to bullshit a slam. Nicole may take a couple of years longer to mature mentally, and improve some aspects of her game. When or IF she does that, she'll be a more successful player than Sharapova, in the long run. :shrug:

Gnaag
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:59 PM
Saying Vaidisova has limited skills, as some posters have suggested, is outrageous. They're either blatantly biased or their tennis knowledge is limited.

However, Vaidisova is certainly not better than Sharapova at the present time. Thinking otherwise is just as outrageous. Vaidisova is a significant notch behind, no question, but it's not because she has less talent. What Vaidisova is lacking is Sharapova's mental fortitude specifically the mental fortitude that carried Sharapova to a Wimbledon title two years ago.

I should also point out that measuring Sharapova's success at 17 versus Vaidisova's success at 17 isn't a practical exercise. Different players have different learning curves. Example? Hingis won all her five majors before she was 20. Davenport won her three after 20. Is one considerably more talented than the other? Most would say no.

In the long run, Vaidisova may end up being better than Sharapova or she might not. Bottomline, it's far too early for anyone to be debating that. Let's wait five years.

mboyle
Sep 1st, 2006, 06:59 PM
Everyone develops at different rates, it just happens Maria took advantage of the joke that's known as the WTA Tour to bullshit a slam. Nicole may take a couple of years longer to mature mentally, and improve some aspects of her game. When or IF she does that, she'll be a more successful player than Sharapova, in the long run. :shrug:

Why does everyone think that Sharapova is so bad? She has the best serve/ground combination this side of Lindsay Davenport, and moves decently to boot. Nicole/Ana might hit dropshots better, but their ground games are not as solid.

mashamaniac
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:02 PM
i assume all people are jealous to maria not only cuz of her beauty but also for her tennis results,never bother urself for finding a way to discover who's better cuz we all know it better that maria looks and is pretty better than nicole,i accept that nikki is maybe very better than others but "only after masha"!!!

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:06 PM
Why does everyone think that Sharapova is so bad? She has the best serve/ground combination this side of Lindsay Davenport, and moves decently to boot. Nicole/Ana might hit dropshots better, but their ground games are not as solid.

They don't think that, they wish that.

Darop.
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:07 PM
Nicole better then Maria : LOL

than*

Russianboy90
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:07 PM
i assume all people are jealous to maria not only cuz of her beauty but also for her tennis results,never bother urself for finding a way to discover who's better cuz we all know it better that maria looks and is pretty better than nicole,i accept that nikki is maybe very better than others but "only after masha"!!!
:worship: :worship: :worship:

franny
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:08 PM
Wow. How old is everyone in here. 7?

The people who actually, like, know stuff about tennis will know that results aren't always everything when you're comparing players.

Does the fact that x has more POTENTIAL than y but y has won a slam make y any better? In the case of Sharapova Vaidisova and Ana, to me it doesn't.

Everyone develops at different rates, it just happens Maria took advantage of the joke that's known as the WTA Tour to bullshit a slam. Nicole may take a couple of years longer to mature mentally, and improve some aspects of her game. When or IF she does that, she'll be a more successful player than Sharapova, in the long run. :shrug:

Okay, then wait until the time comes before making claims that player x is better than player y. People are not only saying that Nicole is "potentially" better, but that she IS better. That is a big difference, and that is what causes a lot of disagreement. There has been many many talented players in the history of the game. But they do not all go down as great players. If Andy Roddick a better player or is Marcelo Rios a better player? Rios is certainly more talented, but Roddick has the slam. He is a better player, and if the two played in their prime, I'd still put my money on Rios because there are parts of his game(his mind) that is just not there. When you compare players, you must use results because all else is subjective. Potential is a very difficult component to guage. How do you measure it? How do you know that a player really does have what it takes to get to the top? Honestly, what was everyone saying about Jelena Dokic, and Daniela Hantuchova? Talented, yes. Great champions, no. Time is on Vaidisova's side. But at 17, Maria was more accomplished. Let's see where Vaidisova is at age 19. Dont' say she's the better player until she has better results. Keep using the word potentially better, but even then there is room for argument.

The_Pov
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:16 PM
People here would do well to remember that after Maria's spectacular summer of 04, she had a pretty tame hardcourt season, she didn't go deep in the US open and didn't really bring out the Maria from the French Open and Wimbledon until the YEC's

burgerboy
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:17 PM
Why does everyone think that Sharapova is so bad? She has the best serve/ground combination this side of Lindsay Davenport, and moves decently to boot. Nicole/Ana might hit dropshots better, but their ground games are not as solid.


Ana's ground game is just as good as Maria's :rolleyes: .

franny
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:28 PM
Ana's ground game is just as good as Maria's :rolleyes: .

Not her backhand and her consistency. Also not as good on the run, imo. Her forehand is on par with Maria's. Is it more consistent? I know its deadly but I'm not sure if it is consistent. If it is, then it's probably better than Maria's forehand, which is just as deadly but can go off.

alelysafina
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:29 PM
i assume all people are jealous to maria not only cuz of her beauty but also for her tennis results,never bother urself for finding a way to discover who's better cuz we all know it better that maria looks and is pretty better than nicole,i accept that nikki is maybe very better than others but "only after masha"!!!

:lol: :lol:

You're funny :)

johnoo
Sep 1st, 2006, 07:30 PM
results are all that matter,its kinda like saying arsenal play better football than chelsea but who won the premiership the last 2 seasons.

!<blocparty>!
Sep 1st, 2006, 08:22 PM
When you compare players, you must use results because all else is subjective.

No you must not.

I can use what the hell I want, subjective or not. Vaidisova > Sharapova. If you don't like it, then that's fine. :)

Why does everyone think that Sharapova is so bad? She has the best serve/ground combination this side of Lindsay Davenport, and moves decently to boot. Nicole/Ana might hit dropshots better, but their ground games are not as solid.


She isn't. Who is saying that? Nicole volleys much better, she can slice and dropshot. Hopefully she'll work hard on these areas of her game and become a more complete player in the next couple of years. Maria can do the essentials well but lacks certain shots that would take her to the next level, IMO.

illianna
Sep 1st, 2006, 08:35 PM
how can you say that Vaidisova is better then Sharapova???That's just ridiculous!!!Maria has 5 SF , 2 QF at Slams and a Wimbledon title!!!All Vaidisova has is one SF...How can you say that the results don't matter :confused: :confused: THEY ARE ALL THAT MATTER because tennis is a complex game and the most comlex players achieve more!!!So don't give me the crap that you must not look at the results by comparisson between two players

franny
Sep 1st, 2006, 08:38 PM
No you must not.

I can use what the hell I want, subjective or not. Vaidisova > Sharapova. If you don't like it, then that's fine. :)




She isn't. Who is saying that? Nicole volleys much better, she can slice and dropshot. Hopefully she'll work hard on these areas of her game and become a more complete player in the next couple of years. Maria can do the essentials well but lacks certain shots that would take her to the next level, IMO.

What does she lack that she can't obtain? It's not that hard to learn how to volley. It just takes a few years of practice. You speak as if Vaidisova is the only one whose game can improve.

But enough of this, let time show us who will become better. But as of now, Maria is and has been the better player. This may change in the future, but when their careers are over, it IS THE RESULTS that are going to be the final verdict. Not what they could have been or who benefitted from what not. We will all see I guess in 10 years.

cellophane
Sep 1st, 2006, 08:40 PM
Well, results aren't everything. I mean, Hinigs has more slams than Lindsay - does that mean Lindsay is worse than Hingis? I don't think she is; I don't think Lindsay is worse than Venus and Serena either, althought they've achieved more.

illianna
Sep 1st, 2006, 08:56 PM
Well, results aren't everything. I mean, Hinigs has more slams than Lindsay - does that mean Lindsay is worse than Hingis? I don't think she is; I don't think Lindsay is worse than Venus and Serena either, althought they've achieved more.

That's 2 totally different cases...When someone has won 8 Slams for example and you have won 6 -that dosn't mean you are worse but the difference between Vaidisova and Sharapova is just on another level - Maria is consistant but Nicole made a SF once and then she lost 4rd and 3rd round - that's why I think Sharapova is the better player

!<blocparty>!
Sep 1st, 2006, 08:58 PM
That's 2 totally different cases...When someone has won 8 Slams for example and you have won 6 -that dosn't mean you are worse but the difference between Vaidisova and Sharapova is just on another level - Maria is consistant but Nicole made a SF once and then she lost 4rd and 3rd round - that's why I think Sharapova is the better player

:weirdo:

Nobody remembers slam semi finals. Maria has one slam. Nicole has 0. That is all.

cellophane
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:04 PM
That's 2 totally different cases...When someone has won 8 Slams for example and you have won 6 -that dosn't mean you are worse but the difference between Vaidisova and Sharapova is just on another level - Maria is consistant but Nicole made a SF once and then she lost 4rd and 3rd round - that's why I think Sharapova is the better player

I agree about Nicole and Maria - Maria has a better game (even if it is more one-dimensional, it's what works better), so she is clearly the better player. I'm just saying that you may have a game that is right up there with the best, but not have the results, and I don't think the difference has to be 2 slams necessarily.

IceHock
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:07 PM
Yeah,Maria is alot better than Nicole I think.She can run faster and hit just as hard,and she's stronger mentally.I'll give Nicole the vollies but other than that,she's toast against Maria.

franny
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:09 PM
:weirdo:

Nobody remembers slam semi finals. Maria has one slam. Nicole has 0. That is all.

If that is the only thing that matters, then a 1 slam differential is a big deal. Maria has one slam, she's accomplished. She's done at the very least something. Nicole has done NOTHING. If semifinals don't matter, then Nicole Vaidisova is not any better off than Peng Shuai or Jamea Jackson, because they too have 0 slams. Really, the only thing about Vaidisova that makes her stand out right now is that she reached the semifinals of Roland Garros. I find it funny that someone defending her would say that semifinals do not matter.

cellophane
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:10 PM
Meh, I don't know though. If Nicole played like she did at the French consitently, where would she be?

!<blocparty>!
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:12 PM
Yawn.

supergrunt
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:19 PM
I think that they both strike the ball with equal velocity. Vadiasova is better at the net but Maria is better mentally.

jbeacinu
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:21 PM
reason y nicole lost?

Joana
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:37 PM
Meh, I don't know though. If Nicole played like she did at the French consitently, where would she be?

Isn't consistency also a part of the game? It doesn't matter if Nicole can hit a dropshot or slice once in a while, the point is that she cannot play near her best consistently throughout the season. Maria can, and that's why she (for time being, at least) has the better game.
I mean, IMO, Kuznetsova's best beats anybody else's best. But since she can play like that only once in 6 months, it's impossible to claim that she's the best player.

streag
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:53 PM
I guess the difference in physique of Maria and Nicole is underestimated. Nicole is more gifted in that area. Nicole is two years younger than Maria and just almost as strong as her. Given that it's no surprise her backhand slice and volleys are far better than Maria's. You have to have some strength in your arms and wrists to be able to control ball hitting those type of shots. If you're stronger at younger age you've at least got chance to practice them with more efficiency. Maria just only recently started developing enough arm strength and I suppose her volleys and backhand slice will never match those of Nicole and Ana. I'm afraid she missed the chance to develop volleys/slice partly because she was still like a stick just a couple years ago. And partly because NBTA and Lansdorp.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Sep 1st, 2006, 09:55 PM
Nicole better than Maria :lol: That was the funniest thing I heard today :lol:

Rocky5
Sep 1st, 2006, 10:13 PM
No you must not.

I can use what the hell I want, subjective or not. Vaidisova > Sharapova. If you don't like it, then that's fine. :)




She isn't. Who is saying that? Nicole volleys much better, she can slice and dropshot. Hopefully she'll work hard on these areas of her game and become a more complete player in the next couple of years. Maria can do the essentials well but lacks certain shots that would take her to the next level, IMO.

And if we said Frazier > Davenport its also subjective.

But I don't say stupid things like Frazier > davenport or Vaidisova > Sharapova cos its stupid