PDA

View Full Version : Vaidisova is better than Ivanovic in every aspect


ZListCelebrity
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:24 PM
Today's match has proved it. Nicole has such a complete game whereas Ivanovic is even worse than her 2005 form. Ivanovic is still quite overweight and very slow.

I'm bored of all this talk about Ivanovic's potential. Nicole has done better than Ana in every department. Full stop.

Adal
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:29 PM
But Vaidisova hasn't won a Tier 1 yet, even Tier 2! :crazy:
And you mentioned yourself, that Ivanovic was in a very bad form.

frenchie
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:30 PM
I just think it is the exact opposite!

Vaidisova's game is limited. Ana has much more potential to develop
One match doesn't tell a lot about their game

Tenis Srbija
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:33 PM
I agree with frenchie...

Ana can be much better than this, and Nicole can't be much better.
At theirs best, I'm sure Ana would win...
But that' "What if..."

Last night Nicole was just better!

ZListCelebrity
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Nicole can do dropshop, slice, volley etc... Ivanovic is Lindsay-10.

selyoink
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:37 PM
I tend to think Vaidisova is better of the two but I think both are overrated at this point. Vaidisova's one great result was semis at Roland Garros. Ivanovic's one great result was winning a depleted Rogers Cup. Full credit to her for taking advantage of the opportunity but she didn't have to beat any of the top players aside from Hingis.

Nicolás89
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:44 PM
im going to say the same that i said in previous threads like this.

nicole has more power, better forehand, better serve, movement and she "can" volley, and can do many others things better than ana....

but unfortunately for me i can see ana has more potential in some things, she can improve her serve she can improve her movement and other stuffs, the difference between these two ladies is that ana has way too much tallent wasted, and nicole can capitalize her tallent better than ana:wavey:

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Every aspect. Lies.
Ivanovic is a better natural volleyer.
Ivanovic has a better slice.

Vaidisova is a better server.
Vaidisova is a better mover.
Vaidisova still looks clueless after hitting one volley from the net.
She doesn't expect it to come back, when it does, she has no answer.

If you were to ask either to hit the hardest shot in their arsenal, Ivanovic would win.
Nicole hits a consistently flat hard shot though.

They both have their weaknesses but at this point Nicole is the one willing to work at them.
She'll never have the bite to her shots like Sharapova but if she's more willing to do the things that Sharapova isn't to be able to get to that level.

She's willing to play doubles. She's willing to work on her slice.
She's willing to use variety.
These will pay off in the near future.

Shonami Slam
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Vaidisova is throughout thier complete parellel careers the more achieved and succesful player.
talent, promise and prestige are something only the fans debate in telentless babling of nonsense, missing the poin at most arguements.

Nicole will simply have to continue claiming wins while Ivanovic remains a mystery, but we just may as well see Ivanovic winning slams partially like Pierce or Kuznetsova, with streaky wins all over her career, but you tend to rate the Czech youngster the more constant dark horse for every tourny she enters.
she might win this one with the deflated field, then some will claim that beating Jankovic was so huge, and at the end she'll be written beside the "tierII" victory as much as Ana has her tierI.

they'll play each other again and again, and we'll see best whom is better.

dizoo
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:50 PM
I tend to think Vaidisova is better of the two but I think both are overrated at this point. Vaidisova's one great result was semis at Roland Garros. Ivanovic's one great result was winning a depleted Rogers Cup. Full credit to her for taking advantage of the opportunity but she didn't have to beat any of the top players aside from Hingis.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Tenis Srbija
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:51 PM
I tend to think Vaidisova is better of the two but I think both are overrated at this point. Vaidisova's one great result was semis at Roland Garros. Ivanovic's one great result was winning a depleted Rogers Cup. Full credit to her for taking advantage of the opportunity but she didn't have to beat any of the top players aside from Hingis.

Don't look at them just on what have they one! Look how many top players have they defeated!!! That's what will tell you how good they are.
Anna Kournikova never won a trophy, but she was damn good player, with a tons of victories over very good players.

Sexysova
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Nicole is much better than Ana and she has best results than Ana, many semifinals etc. and semifinal in RG was the biggest success :) Ana hasn't got some big successes when I don't count ROGERS CUP - great succes, but only in her career, but Ana is great player, but Nicole is younger and much better...

Tenis Srbija
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Ana natural volleyer???? :haha: :haha: :haha: OMG!!!
Ana and volleys... :help:

She has learned them. Believe me. She didn't have any clue one year ago about volleys!

vogus
Jan 10th, 2007, 05:17 PM
Today's match has proved it. Nicole has such a complete game whereas Ivanovic is even worse than her 2005 form. Ivanovic is still quite overweight and very slow.

I'm bored of all this talk about Ivanovic's potential. Nicole has done better than Ana in every department. Full stop.


yeah. I have been saying this since summer '05, despite a lot of zealots shouting otherwise. Nicole is the better player by FAR. She is a potential multi-GS winner. Ivanovic is merely a future Top 10.

However, Nicole has under-achieved since she choked away the FO semi against Kuznetsova, and this is a cause for worry.

Wannabeknowitall
Jan 10th, 2007, 05:38 PM
Ana natural volleyer???? :haha: :haha: :haha: OMG!!!
Ana and volleys... :help:

She has learned them. Believe me. She didn't have any clue one year ago about volleys!

I said Ana is the better natural volleyer.
Never said she was a natural volleyer in the likes for Martina Hingis.
How about actually reading something? :rolleyes:

goldenlox
Jan 10th, 2007, 05:49 PM
It won't come down to who has more talent. They're too close in ability.
It will be who stays healthier, and who handles big moments better.

Piotr'ek
Jan 10th, 2007, 05:59 PM
Nicole is progressing every day, Ana stopped progressing some time ago.
Nicole is much better player currently and the difference will rise.

Martina2
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:06 PM
I think both players are pretty evenly matched...I hope both of them can increase their levels so that they can reach Sharapova level as I would love to see the three of them dominating and competing against each other regularly!

buckyohare
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Vaidisova is better,(serve, volleys, strokes) has better results, is more consistent, and is younger as well.

Screw potential. Potential is in the eye of the beholder.
I remember after wimby 2004 final, Pat Cash said "Roger is better than Roddick, but Roddick has more room for improvement, things will get a lot tighter..." Well no shit, when you are crap you always have room/potential to improve, but the question is whether you will improve.
If we are going by potential Ivo Karlovic would be the best player ever. He already has the best serve ever and he has a lot of room for improvement on his backhand, forehand, volley, movement etc.

prock
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Screw potential. Potential is in the eye of the beholder.
I remember after wimby 2004 final, Pat Cash said "Roger is better than Roddick, but Roddick has more room for improvement, things will get a lot tighter..." Well no shit, when you are crap you always have room/potential to improve, but the question is whether you will improve.
If we are going by potential Ivo Karlovic would be the best player ever. He already has the best serve ever and he has a lot of room for improvement on his backhand, forehand, volley, movement etc.

:lol: Well said.

AaronJoyB
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I prefer Nicole
I think in 3-4 years she will obtain many more results then Ana

starr
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Temperament is also important. I like Vaidisova quite a bit, but I think she sometimes lets thing get away from her because of her temper. She needs to solve that problem.

It's great that we have these two girls coming up in the ranks. The future looks good

Sugar_Kane
Jan 10th, 2007, 06:54 PM
I hate all this talk about Vaidisova's style of play not being able to develop. Sharapova has proved that their style can be improved and Vaidisove I would say is the better all round player of the two

Martian KC
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:03 PM
LOL, devilsova has a complete game?

Mina Vagante
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:18 PM
i think that overall ana's game is better that nicole's

morningglory
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:24 PM
Nicky > Ana, but not in every aspect. But then again, aside from raw power, Nicky has a more consistent FH and BH (the difference between the BH's is quite clear) also slightly better movement and I can't really judge the volleys since the success of a net-attack depends a lot also on your approach shot and your opponent's position on the court, also how the players select the shots to come in. Mentality wise, both still not Serena, Maria or Justine tough, but Nicky has the slight edge.

pav
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:42 PM
The Devil :devil: beat the Angel:angel:
in the battle of the king sized teens
because Nicole cleaned up Ana in two sets
what do we think this means?
I think both have huge potential
their games have the room to grow
who will be the better in the long term?
well that I sure don't know
These two are great entertainment
with their size, their looks and their game
I don't really want to compare them
because I like them both much the same:hearts:

ayusania
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:53 PM
i dont think i can really say whether nicole is better or ana coz i think both hav a really aggressive game n smtimes nicole has a gud form goin or smtimes ana....i think both of em r really gud players....hard to compare

lilimi
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:54 PM
why comparing only these two players. IMO, ana's game is much more complete than nicole's. nicole's game is at its peak, i mean she's on top physically, now she only needs to be more consistent. seriously she should have won 61 60. today was a really bad day for ana...that's one of the worst matches i've seen from her. completely lost, and she didn't fight t all. she was there the first two games and then i don't know what happened.

ezekiel
Jan 10th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Poor Ana , she is lost and now everyone jumps on here . She can't serve to save her life which indicates that mentally she is not there. She can mature if she does something quick, it won't come by itself .

jazar
Jan 10th, 2007, 08:17 PM
are both incredibly talented players, its just that nicole has found a game that works and is effective against anyone when she is playing her best. ana is still trying to find that game, the right balance, but when she does i see no reason why she can't eclipse nicole

vogus
Jan 10th, 2007, 08:32 PM
are both incredibly talented players, its just that nicole has found a game that works and is effective against anyone when she is playing her best. ana is still trying to find that game, the right balance, but when she does i see no reason why she can't eclipse nicole


Nikki is that rare big girl who naturally moves fluidly for her size. Ana is a big girl who, like most others of her size, naturally struggles with movement. And that is the major reason why Nikki is a greater talent than Ana.

hurricanejeanne
Jan 10th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I think, like a lot of people have already stated, that they're very similar especially in playing style.
While Ana won the bigger tournament first, Nicole made top ten first.

I do think Nicole is the more consistant of the two. And that she has the capability to produce some top tennis in the future. Ana has the same ability, it just may take her longer. Both of them still have to become mentally tougher and more consistant overall.

Only time will tell.

hingisGOAT
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:04 PM
i like ivanovic, she's a pretty girl with a good game

but there was never any doubt, before or after their match in sydney, that vaidisova is the better player.

she moves better, serves better, and i'll take her hard, heavy forehand over ana's flat forehand any day of the week

soon enough it will be a sharapova-vaidisova show. the only young girl who i thought would be able to compete was sesil. we'll see about that.

Monica_Rules
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:08 PM
I was thinking about these two but also Jankovic and Safina. All four play a similar type of game although Jankovic is a good defender and mover better than the other 3.

All 4 are in the 10-15 mark and just need that few big wins to make the next level.

From watching them all play i've been most impressed with Jankovic and Ivanovic but all 4 are still great players. It will be interesting to see how they develop over the next 2 years.

Tenis Srbija
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:08 PM
Sesil :rolleyes:

Nicolás89
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:14 PM
i heard somewhere that sesil was selling drugs to kids:scared:

















sarcasm

Derek.
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:17 PM
I was thinking about these two but also Jankovic and Safina. All four play a similar type of game although Jankovic is a good defender and mover better than the other 3.

They do not play alike really.

Nicole and Ana do, but not Dinara and Jelena.

Jelena has a more all-court, solid game with no real huge weapon.

Dinara has a good serve and a great groundstrokes, but she usually plays with more topspin.

Hayato
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Today's match has proved it. Nicole has such a complete game whereas Ivanovic is even worse than her 2005 form. Ivanovic is still quite overweight and very slow.

I'm bored of all this talk about Ivanovic's potential. Nicole has done better than Ana in every department. Full stop.

Ivanovic overweight? If you really believe that, you need your eyes checked and some kind of psychological help.

mboyle
Jan 10th, 2007, 09:21 PM
I like both, but here's the deal: if Ana really does have more "potential," then we would expect her to have highs and lows, which I think we can agree she does. We would also agree that her highs were significantly higher than Nicole's highs. To me, that translates into more spectacular title runs and more victories over top ten players. So I'm investigating that right now.

Nicole Vaidisova
Top ten victories:
Myskina Charleston 05
Petrova Bangkok 05
Mauresmo French Open 06
Mauresmo Moscow 06

Overall Win Loss Record: 122-39 (76%)
Win loss record against active top tenners: 4-14 (29%)
Overall record against the current top ten: 4-14 (29%)
Record having won the first set: 101-5 (95%)
Record having lost the first set (comeback victories): 23-33 (41%)
Record in three set matches: 39-10 (80%)
Record vs. lower ranked players: 83-8 (92%)

Losses to lower ranked:
Morigami Fed Cup Czech Republic 05 (Nicole's first fed cup match)
Danilidou Birminghmam 05
Azarenka Memphis 06
Safarova Amelia Island 06
Castano Charleston 06
Li Na Wimbledon 06
Sugiyama Beijing 06
Golovin Zurich 06

Ana Ivanovic
Top ten victories:
Petrova Miami 05
Kuznetsova Miami 05
Zvonareva Warsaw 05
Mauresmo French Open 05
Mauresmo Sydney 06
Schnyder Warsaw 06

Overall Record: 126-43 (75%)
Overall record vs. active top ten players: 6-12 (33%)
Overall record vs. current top ten: 8-18 (31%)
Record having won the first set: 117-10 (92%)
Record having lost the first set: 12-32 (27%)
Three Set Record: 26-17 (60%)
Record vs. lower ranked players: 72-12 (86%)

Losses to Lower Ranked:
Safina Berlin 05 (just two spots below)
Vento Kabchi US Open 05
Stosur Oz Open 06
Kirilenko Tokyo 06
Chakvedatze Warsaw 06
Chakvedatze San Diego 06
Jankovic LA 06 (forgivable, I'm sure;) )
Serena Williams US Open 06 (I wouldn't include it, but Serena then lost to some not so top calibre players in later tournaments...)
Venus Williams Luxembourg 06 (ditto)
Krajicek Hasselt 06
Peer Gold Coast 07




Things that stand out:
They are both so so close. Nicole has been slightly more consistent, while Ana has been even more slightly better against the top players. Maybe this does reflect that Ana has slightly more "potential," as her game seems to trouble the top a bit more, but Nicole seems to have a slightly better work ethic and a better team, because she has fewer rough patches, and the ones she does have are less rough than Ana's.

The most startling differences however, are their comeback records and their three set records. Nicole has won 20% more of her three set matches than Ana, and has come back to win in three sets in 15% more of her matches. That is a big big difference, and testifies to what ultimately separates them: Nicole is fitter and more mentally tough than Ana. Yes, Nicole throws her racquet and screams and Ana looks serene almost 100% of the time. However, Nicole is never out of a match, and finds a way to win more often than she does not.

Therefore, the statistics seem to say that Ana has a slight advantage in raw physical ability. Her best days are slightly better than Nicole's best days. However, Nicole has a similar advantage in consistency (losing to lower ranked players less often and in shorter patches,) and a larger advantage in fitness and mental toughness. While Ana can easily overcome the advantage in fitness, it will prove harder to overcome the mental toughness flaw.

In short, not much separates the two. Ana might have slightly more ability, but Nicole has the better brain, both by slight margins.

rada
Jan 10th, 2007, 10:37 PM
Today's match has proved it. Nicole has such a complete game whereas Ivanovic is even worse than her 2005 form. Ivanovic is still quite overweight and very slow.

I'm bored of all this talk about Ivanovic's potential. Nicole has done better than Ana in every department. Full stop.

OK you must be stupid i watched the match yesterday LIVE and ana is NOT overweight she looks great if she was to lose more weight she would be just to thin.............and they both play the same hit hard and go for winners ana just missed a few more shots then niki ;)

jenny161185
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:07 PM
okay heres what I think is weird I follow tennis regularly and look at most results but I couldnt belive when I saw Nicole was knocking on the top ten - obviously she has the talent to be where shes ranked but the only result I can really recall of hers that stood out to me is the french open semis!!!! maybe its because I havent really seen her play on tv so Im not sure what her games about

ZListCelebrity
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:07 PM
She IS overweight and I watched the match. You can see her small tummy from the side and she is almost as slow as Lindsay.

Corswandt
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Screw potential. Potential is in the eye of the beholder.
I remember after wimby 2004 final, Pat Cash said "Roger is better than Roddick, but Roddick has more room for improvement, things will get a lot tighter..." Well no shit, when you are crap you always have room/potential to improve, but the question is whether you will improve.
If we are going by potential Ivo Karlovic would be the best player ever. He already has the best serve ever and he has a lot of room for improvement on his backhand, forehand, volley, movement etc.

You make a very good point here.

Even though discussing who's got the best slice BH and the best second serve makes for an amusing parlour game, one must bear in mind that:

- it's impossible to predict how any player will develop in the future, or if the player is going to improve at all - for instance, who would have thought that after a somewhat lackluster Wimbledon Maria would appear in San Diego with the single most effective serve on the Tour? And who would believe that year after year Lena D. would steadfastly refuse to do anything about her serve?

- Nicole and Ana aren't 12 y.o. What you see now already gives an idea of what they will be in the future - and this is valid for both Nicole and Ana. Continuing to discuss future "potential" in abstract with virtually no reference to their current performances and results is useless.

- these comparisons always assume a textbook scenario where both players perform at their very best level - and that seldom if ever happens. Players have both on and off days (and for Ana and Nicole, who can blow anyone off the court but play an extremely high risk game with no margin for error, being "on" or "off" means everything); sometimes they are all fired up, sometimes they are nervous, sometimes they are tired and out of sorts, sometimes they just don't give a damn. Look at Maria - even though it's her ability to play at her best more often than anybody else that allows her to compete with much more talented and versatile opponents, she sometimes has her off days. So it doesn't mean much to say that player X is capable of beating anyone at her best if she plays her best about once every two years (case in point Kuznetsova).

rada
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:25 PM
She IS overweight and I watched the match. You can see her small tummy from the side and she is almost as slow as Lindsay.

:lol: i was watching it LIVE you need some psychological help if you think she is overweight

Steffica Greles
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:41 PM
yeah. I have been saying this since summer '05, despite a lot of zealots shouting otherwise. Nicole is the better player by FAR. She is a potential multi-GS winner. Ivanovic is merely a future Top 10.

However, Nicole has under-achieved since she choked away the FO semi against Kuznetsova, and this is a cause for worry.

Couldn't have put it better myself :worship:

Farina Elia Fan
Jan 10th, 2007, 11:58 PM
I love Ana and actually hate Nicole but I do honestly feel Nicole is the better player. For me when Ana arrived on the tour it was fresh and exciting but I dont feel she has developed a lot and I keep waiting and waiting for it to happen but to be honest I cant see it happen any time soon. I have been expecting a lot from Ana this season but so far she has lost to Peer and Vaidisova who will be her rivals for many seasons. Ivanovic IMO has a beatiful game when its on and I really hope she properly gets it together

austennis
Jan 11th, 2007, 12:05 AM
Vaidisova has so far shown to be the more consistent and the more dangerous player against top players.. but her game lacks dimension and i fail to see how she will improve her weak spots... where as ana looks like she is developing all the time..

Steffica Greles
Jan 11th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Things that stand out:
They are both so so close. Nicole has been slightly more consistent, while Ana has been even more slightly better against the top players. Maybe this does reflect that Ana has slightly more "potential," as her game seems to trouble the top a bit more, but Nicole seems to have a slightly better work ethic and a better team, because she has fewer rough patches, and the ones she does have are less rough than Ana's.

The most startling differences however, are their comeback records and their three set records. Nicole has won 20% more of her three set matches than Ana, and has come back to win in three sets in 15% more of her matches. That is a big big difference, and testifies to what ultimately separates them: Nicole is fitter and more mentally tough than Ana. Yes, Nicole throws her racquet and screams and Ana looks serene almost 100% of the time. However, Nicole is never out of a match, and finds a way to win more often than she does not.

Therefore, the statistics seem to say that Ana has a slight advantage in raw physical ability. Her best days are slightly better than Nicole's best days. However, Nicole has a similar advantage in consistency (losing to lower ranked players less often and in shorter patches,) and a larger advantage in fitness and mental toughness. While Ana can easily overcome the advantage in fitness, it will prove harder to overcome the mental toughness flaw.

In short, not much separates the two. Ana might have slightly more ability, but Nicole has the better brain, both by slight margins.

Superb post :)

Just a few critiques:

First of all, you seem to overlook the fact that Ivanovic is over a year older than Vaidisova. You may view that as neither here nor there, especially given that Nicole joined the tour earlier than Ivanovic. But before the age of 18, 15 months' difference can sometimes be decisive in terms of confidence and technical development.

So my point is that when considering Vaidisova's 4 top ten wins to Ivanovic's 6, maybe that should be taken into consideration.

Secondly, wins over top ten players, although sounding impressive, are not necessarily a great indicator of where a player is at. The importance of following up with consistency aside, there is also the fact that, as we know, many of the top eight or nine, above Nicole -- Dementieva, Schnyder, Kuznetsova, even Mauresmo and Hingis, as well as the normally ultra-consistent Clijsters last year -- can lose to practically anybody on a bad day. Check out Jill Craybas' record and you'll see. Look at all the bagels against Mauresmo's name, Schnyder's nigh-on disastrous hard-court season, Dementieva's perennial problems with lower-ranked opponents and Hingis's unravelling late last season, etc, etc.

If we look at Nicole's wins over top ten players, if anything she comes out worse than Ivanovic. Her win over Myskina in 2005 was when the former was in freefall. Her win over Mauresmo late last season was when Amelie, just like now, appeared to be tanking matches, searching for motivation (despite her current bravado) after her long-awaited triumphs last year. And in 2005, Petrova was not established in the top ten. Or I don't think she was. She was consistent but not feared.

In fact, looking at the list there, I think the most impressive win for both of them was defeating an Amelie Mauresmo playing, I thought, to a reasonably high level at the French Open in 2005 and 2006 respectively. All the other top ten victories have an asterix next to them, in my view, because top ten players can play just as badly as anybody else when they are in a bad sequence of results and are, as is often the case these days, fatigued.

It's consistency I would go with, where Nicole is far more impressive. Both have shown themselves to be dangerous opponents, capable of defeating most opponents, if not all just yet.

vogus
Jan 11th, 2007, 12:43 AM
(and for Ana and Nicole, who can blow anyone off the court but play an extremely high risk game with no margin for error, being "on" or "off" means everything)




one of the biggest misconceptions about Vaidisova is that she has a high risk game. Not true. Just re-watch what she did to Williams and Mauresmo at FO this year. She has an aggressive big hitting game but it is lower risk, and with more patience, than Sharapova and Ivanovic. And that's why i think that Nicole will eventually be a better player than Sharapova and reach #1. Her inconsistency doesn't stem from having a high-risk game, but rather from having too many "off" days.

tennisbear7
Jan 11th, 2007, 12:53 AM
At the moment, I have to say that Nicole is the better player. Having said that, Ana has a LOT to improve - her fitness, her agility, net game and backhand. For me, if Ana was to improve these aspects she would surpass Nicole. Nicole is pretty much the complete package, her game is good, her fitness and agility for a big girl is fantastic, and her groundstrokes are blowtorch.

It's a fabulous rivalry in the making.

Let's break down their games.

Serve:
Nicole's serve is better. She has more variety, usually has more aces and unreturnables; consistently higher first serve percentage and a more reliable second serve.

Forehand:
Nicole, just because of her greater consistency. Nicole's forehand is hard but quite topspun - greater margin of error than Ana's. But Ana has also got a huge forehand, hard, flat; hits as many winners, if not more than Nicole. I also find it promising that Ana's forehand is getting more and more consistent, and if she could get it to Lindsay's level she will be devastating.

Backhand:
You've got to give it to Nicole. Years and years training in Florida with Nick perfecting their trademark shot have given her really sweet timing. She usually has more depth than Ana, and more reliability, which means that it is more unlikely to break down than Ana's. However, I think Nicole needs to harness this shot more, because from the matches I've seen sometimes she goes for ridiculous winners than end up at the bottom of the net. But overall, Nikki's backhand is great.

Movement:
Nicole is much much better and she's pretty much at her peak now, for how fast she is for such a tall girl. Ana has a lot of work to do with her agility whereas Nicole is very fast.

Volleys:
Ana. Ana is more of a natural volleyer, has very sound technique and has more stick and depth on her volleys. Nicole, I think, has more trouble at the net and she looks awkward up there. This may be because she's taller than Ana.

Courtcraft:
I think Ana's better here. Yes it might sound controversial, but I think that Ana has a better nack of outcrafting her opponents in conjunction with her huge power. When things aren't working she'll throw every thing at you, and if you handle it like Nikki did yesterday, then too good. At the Montreal final, I saw Ana giving Hingis a lot of her own medicine and it was great to watch. I think that Ana's got a better slice and having grown up on clay, has greater control and consistency with her dropshot. Nicole on the other hand, having developed most of her game on the hardcourts of Florida where you learn to bludgeon the ball, doesn't have that natural touch - she might, but she's yet to show it.

Mentality
Even, maybe tilted towards Ana. Someone mentioned earlier that Nicole wins more of her three-set matches, but to me this is by virtue of her superior fitness. I think that Ana has a great mindset, very calm, tries to figure out her opponents, while Nicole, while a fighter, has a very big tendency to tank matches if she's upset.

So yeah, for me, Nicole's the better player now, but this may change in the future. As for the threadstarter: your comparisons can't just stem from one match. Going by your tact, Pironkova is a better player than Williams. :o

goldenlox
Jan 11th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Nicole still has not done anything to separate from Ana.
They both should have successful careers. But this match doesn't make or break their careers.

Junex
Jan 11th, 2007, 01:25 AM
Whatever it is, I will always be for Nicole!

Derek.
Jan 11th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Nicole still has not done anything to separate from Ana.


Yes, she has.

Corswandt
Jan 11th, 2007, 02:26 AM
one of the biggest misconceptions about Vaidisova is that she has a high risk game. Not true. Just re-watch what she did to Williams and Mauresmo at FO this year. She has an aggressive big hitting game but it is lower risk, and with more patience, than Sharapova and Ivanovic. And that's why i think that Nicole will eventually be a better player than Sharapova and reach #1. Her inconsistency doesn't stem from having a high-risk game, but rather from having too many "off" days.

IMO of the three Sharapova is by far the one who plays a more patient, relatively conservative game.

And a high risk game makes "off" days both more likely (because it requires more focus than just pushing the ball back) and more dangerous (because a big hitter on an off day will bury herself in UEs).

goldenlox
Jan 11th, 2007, 02:27 AM
No she hasn't. Ana beat Amelie at RG also. And she won a Tier I.

Corswandt
Jan 11th, 2007, 02:28 AM
Courtcraft:
I think Ana's better here. Yes it might sound controversial

It does sound controversial.

But good point on Nicole tanking matches when things don't go her way.

madame_maria
Jan 11th, 2007, 02:42 AM
They both have their weaknesses but at this point Nicole is the one willing to work at them.
She'll never have the bite to her shots like Sharapova but if she's more willing to do the things that Sharapova isn't to be able to get to that level.

She's willing to play doubles. She's willing to work on her slice.
She's willing to use variety.
These will pay off in the near future.

wow impressive! an indirect jibe at Maria.

let's see. with Maria schedule i'd rather her not be playing as much doubles just so she could be really successful on the singles court. you cannot say that someone ISN'T WILLING to work on their weaknesses (i.e. slices and volleys) just because they do not practise a certain schedule or playing style.

Nicole uses variety, so does Maria. out of the three we are talking about here, i think Ana uses the least variation with her "bang-bang" style of ball-whacking. Maria has incorporated (more so these days) slices into her game.

while what you said sounds accurate and all, it isn't. and i believe, it's unfair to Maria when you conclude the things about her not working on her weaknesses so generally. thumbsdown man seriously.

:o

Joana
Jan 11th, 2007, 02:42 AM
A lot of people claim that Ana still has a lot of room for improvement, it's true but 2 years have passed and we haven't seen much of it. In fact, we did see some improvement in her fitness, backhand and she's willing to commit to come to the net more, but I can't help but feel that she had a much more effective game back in 2005, before those supposed improvements took place.
And I remember that she used to be so much more creative on court, not a new Hingis by any stretch, but certainly not this robot that regularly buries herself in UEs.

For the first time I have to admit that I'm afraid that Ana may never improve as much as I thought she would. Hopefully I'm wrong.

And yes, Nicole is a better player now.

madame_maria
Jan 11th, 2007, 02:50 AM
Mentality
Even, maybe tilted towards Ana. Someone mentioned earlier that Nicole wins more of her three-set matches, but to me this is by virtue of her superior fitness. I think that Ana has a great mindset, very calm, tries to figure out her opponents, while Nicole, while a fighter, has a very big tendency to tank matches if she's upset.

So yeah, for me, Nicole's the better player now, but this may change in the future. As for the threadstarter: your comparisons can't just stem from one match. Going by your tact, Pironkova is a better player than Williams. :o

i don't think that Nicole is out to tank matches. with the way she played against Amelie at Moscow. she didn't tank that one. yes one match example. there are so many other matches she plays, that people do not take notice, because they merely take notice of the matches which she has lost.

the obsession these days revolve around the win-loss records as well as the matches that a player lost, instead of the games and matches they've won.

after reading soooo much about their potential and all, i STILL think it's a load of "bullshit". which of course is just MY opinion. seriously.

i believe that Nicole has shown greater growth, heart, desire as well as tennis alongside the big guns to prove that she IS a better player than Ana. yes BOTH of them are occasionally prone to mind-boggling losses but everyone has that once in a while. these matches are reduced in numbers when they get more and more experienced.

for her age, Nicole has done sooo much better to cope with the tennis girls. Ana i believe is one of the most overhyped players these days. she won Montreal. like ages ago, and she hasn't CONSISTENTLY done well. of course, it's hard to compare.

but the question of potential links to the question of hardwork. for me, Nicole shows so much more effort in trying to do better. so the "potential" argument that Ana is better than Nicole, to me, hahahaha, is bullshit. :)

Joana
Jan 11th, 2007, 03:02 AM
i don't think that Nicole is out to tank matches. with the way she played against Amelie at Moscow. she didn't tank that one. yes one match example.


As you said, that's only one match. And no, there are not many other matches she's managed to overcome a serious deficit and come back to win it.
While on the other hand she threw in one of the worst performances in the history of Australian Open in her 6-1 6-1 loss to Mauresmo, got killed by Golovin and Petrova and lost to Azarenka and Castano.

And yes, hitting one lob and two drop shots during a match is so much variety and a sure sign someone is going to be #1.