PDA

View Full Version : Why is Golovin so underrated?


Forever More
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:30 PM
To me, Golovin is the best of the bunch (Vaidisova, Ivanovic, Chakvetadze) minus Sharapova at her best. But I think Tati is highly underrated on this board! People look at her like she is a Srebotnik or Sugiyama type player, just floating around the draws, making a few upsets a year. But from what I've seen, Tati has the most complete game compared to her compatriots. The only thing that has held her back is the inconsistency brought on by injuries. If Ivanovic can make it to the top 4, then I know Tatiana can surely be top 3. Ivanovic only has a big forehand. Tati has the complete package.

We'll see next year. Tati will begin to dominate like she should have been doing a year ago before all these injuries came on at such inconvenient times.

2008, here we come!!! :bounce:

Slutiana
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:36 PM
:worship:

and in an answer to your question - because shes not a 6ft + ball basher.

Williamsser
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:36 PM
because she doesn't perform well at the Slams.

goldenlox
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:37 PM
You have to get past a slam quarter before you get grouped with slam winners, slam finalists, or even multiple slam semifinalists.

Jasmin
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:38 PM
I like her but her results and are much better now but she's still a little inconsistent.

Tennisation
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Golovin isn't underrated, she occasionally have some sporadic good performances against the top 10 but hasn't done it consistently enough and have only won 1 tittle so far in her career, not to mention she hasn't done well at slams, so how is she underrated?

Donny
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:41 PM
:worship:

and in an answer to your question - because shes not a 6ft + ball basher.

Nope- she's a 5ft 5 in+ ball basher.

MLF
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:41 PM
She's good but definitely deserves to be ranked somewhere between #14-20 unless she beefs up her backhand and gets a lot faster.

Matt01
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Golovin isn't underrated, she occasionally have some sporadic good performances against the top 10 but hasn't done it consistently enough and have only won 1 tittle so far in her career, not to mention she hasn't done well at slams, so how is she underrated?

You make it sound as if all of her good wins were flukes :rolleyes:
And she has won 2 titles btw, at least get your facts straight.

yukon145
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Golovin isn't underrated, she occasionally have some sporadic good performances against the top 10 but hasn't done it consistently enough and have only won 1 tittle so far in her career, not to mention she hasn't done well at slams, so how is she underrated?

shes got 2 titles.

Chris 84
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Golovin isn't underrated, she occasionally have some sporadic good performances against the top 10 but hasn't done it consistently enough and have only won 1 tittle so far in her career, not to mention she hasn't done well at slams, so how is she underrated?

2 titles :p

But yeah, I don't think she is underrated either. She is too inconsistent and has been "stuck" at around the same ranking position for the past 2 years while her peers (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) have surged past her. She has been very poor in general at slams, and she is often injured.

She will be a top 10 player I'm sure, but I don't know if she will do much else :shrug:

Tennisation
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:43 PM
You make it sound as if all of her good wins were flukes :rolleyes:
And she has won 2 titles btw, at least get your facts straight.oh my bad, I thought Amelia Island was her only tittle, and no I don't mean that her wins against the top players were flukes, she has proven she can beat them, but her biggest problem is she loses to people she shouldn't lose to way too often

The Dawntreader
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Tat underated on this board!:spit:

She's really not........... unfortunately:tape: :lol:

brent-o
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:45 PM
She hasn't impressed me much against the top players, especially in Slams. She strikes me as having a Hantuchova-like career.

Natash.
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Nope- she's a 5ft 5 in+ ball basher.

:lol: :spit:

Matt01
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:47 PM
But yeah, I don't think she is underrated either. She is too inconsistent and has been "stuck" at around the same ranking position for the past 2 years while her peers (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) have surged past her. She has been very poor in general at slams, and she is often injured.

2004: 27
2005: 24
2006: 22
2007: 18 (Race: 17)

She's clearly on her way up :p

Bruno71
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:48 PM
I'm one who buys into Tati's top 5 potential but she hasn't quite shown it yet, and I agree the issue is consistency. One week she's beating top players and the next week...she's injured. And then she'll have tourneys where she loses to the likes of Rolle or Tanasugarn. I see a little more consistency creeping in lately; now she just has to stay healthy and she should be on her way up.

Chris 84
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:49 PM
2004: 27
2005: 24
2006: 22
2007: 18 (Race: 17)

She's clearly on her way up :p

Very slowly though when compared to the progress of some of her peers. She got to the top before them, but hasn't progressed terribly much in my opinion :p

saint2
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Why is Golovin so underrated? Maybe becouse she never reached sth great in the past, and few girls of her generation did it...Shes still young, but at the moment shes worse than Ivanovic/Chakvetadze/Sharapova/Vaidisova...Rankings shows it clearly.

Matt01
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Very slowly though when compared to the progress of some of her peers. She got to the top before them, but hasn't progressed terribly much in my opinion :p

Well she's still young :p

I think the most important thing for her is to get over her injuries, everytime she seems to start playing well she gets one :rolleyes: But without these injuries, she should be fine for the future...:)

homogenius
Oct 17th, 2007, 08:57 PM
Each time that she started to have great results she got an injury and a lot of people here call that inconsistency.Still she's one the young players who has the most top10 wins, she beat Venus twice, pushed Henin and mauresmo a couple of time, lost only 7-6 and 7-6 against Sharapova at USO last year etc...She'll be good, underrated or not.

Lulu.
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:00 PM
She's very underrated, top 5 potential. The only thing thats holding her back is consistency.

Slutiana
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:03 PM
Nope- she's a 5ft 5 in+ ball basher.

Yet she doesn't bash the ball.....:scratch:

2004: 27
2005: 24
2006: 22
2007: 18 (Race: 17)

She's clearly on her way up :p

:lol: slowly but surely. Hopefully with a good performance here and in her last 2 tournies, she can end her year in the top 15

I'm one who buys into Tati's top 5 potential but she hasn't quite shown it yet, and I agree the issue is consistency. One week she's beating top players and the next week...she's injured. And then she'll have tourneys where she loses to the likes of Rolle or Tanasugarn. I see a little more consistency creeping in lately; now she just has to stay healthy and she should be on her way up.

:help: its true.

She just needs to get it together. Seriously, this was the same as ivanovic until she lost to tati. (:o) And even now, Ivanovic is still very inconsistent. Shes getting back on track and hopefully she can stay injury free because i believe she can do something big next year. Even with all the injuries and the fact that she got to the top 30 first, i think tati has improved the most out of all of them. When she burst on the tour, all she had was a forehand and was good at reading the game. Now her serve is a big weapon, her forehand is even more massive, her footwork is great, her movement has been impressive recently. Her volleys are quite good, she just needs more confidence behind them and the backhand has shown a lot of promise. Mainly in the henin, jankovic, kuznetzova and sharpova 06 matches. She has the most complete game out of all the youngsters. I believe she has a champions heart but she just needs to get a bit tougher mentally.
Very slowly though when compared to the progress of some of her peers. She got to the top before them, but hasn't progressed terribly much in my opinion :p

Maybe not ranking-wise but as i pointed out earlier, she has a top 10 game, just needs to get it together consistently now.

Shepster
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:04 PM
To me, Golovin is the best of the bunch (Vaidisova, Ivanovic, Chakvetadze) minus Sharapova at her best. But I think Tati is highly underrated on this board! People look at her like she is a Srebotnik or Sugiyama type player, just floating around the draws, making a few upsets a year. But from what I've seen, Tati has the most complete game compared to her compatriots. The only thing that has held her back is the inconsistency brought on by injuries. If Ivanovic can make it to the top 4, then I know Tatiana can surely be top 3. Ivanovic only has a big forehand. Tati has the complete package.
Ivanovic has one of the biggest serves on tour + that huge forehand and gets it done at a higher level much more consistently. Tati is not someone I would describe as "complete" in any way shape or form, her serve is decent but not a weapon. She's around 100mph on average, the majority of the top 10 and every singles slam winner going apart from Hingis has a better serve than that. Her forehand is amazing but when things start going wrong with her game in general she has a tendency to go all-or-nothing and it can look amazing and can also be atrocious - that leads to inconsitency much more than her injuries. Also, when it comes to the big occasions (i.e. big tournaments where she's expected to do well) she goes missing. She has a very good record against the top 10 this year showing she's good in the underdog role but then no amount of inconsistency is down to injuries when you're going .500 for the year at Grand Slams, it's failing in the role where you're expected to beat people.

Tier I? Her best result was the semis in Toronto, getting there via the worst match I've seen this year (vs Sveta) : the 2nd set was horrendous and featured just awful play from both. She's made 1 semifinal and now 3 quarters in Tier I this year from 6 events played. While that's not bad, Elena for example has a win, 2 semis and a 1/4 from 7, Dani has a win and a semi from 6, Dinara has a final, a semi and 2 1/4ers from 9. These are people in and around the edge of the top 10 too, not the likes of Ivanovic and Chakvetadze you claim she's better than (who have her beat in win %age, tournaments won, finals made, grand slam record, Tier I record - basically every conceivable meaningful statistic apart from Anna C's top 10 record Tati cannot touch) - when you combine the worst slam record in the top 20 this year by far with sub-par Tier I results you're bound to get a player who's not rated that highly. :shrug:

mboyle
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:19 PM
She hasn't impressed me much against the top players, especially in Slams. She strikes me as having a Hantuchova-like career.

Hantuchova at her peak beat Hingis and Henin. That's it. Hantuchova beat multiple top ten players once. Golovin has more top ten wins than Vaidisova and (I believe) Jankovic. When she gets a string of tournaments without injury, she is a top 5 player.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:28 PM
She's a deceptive player, that's why. I've talked with several friends about her and how she has so few weapons but still CAN be a top 10 persona. Sometimes when I see her play I'm just astounded at the level she can achieve, and I see what she does so well, but most of the time I'm in awe at how awful she is.

I've seen a lot of Golovin over the past two years. I like her a lot, she's a sweet girl. But it's like others have said, she NEEDS to do better in grand slams. Since Toronto she's been more consistent than I've ever seen her--Toronto SF, USO 1R, Portoroz W, Luxembourg QF, Stuttgart F, and now Zurich QF. That's excellent for her, as of now. But she needs to pick it up.

I'd love for her to finally be a top 10 player, which is where she should be if she could get her head together. Although I disagree that she looks like a top five/slam contender.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Oh, and she has the worst backhand in probably the top 50 players.

AcesHigh
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:29 PM
There will never be space for her in the top 5 IMO. She does not have a great game and does not have great consistency. She's been hovering in the 15-30 range for a while. In that time, Jankovic, Chakvetadze, Ivanovic and Vaidisova have shot up with rankings with clearly superior games.
She's one of those players that's good, possibly very good when she's on.. but never great. Ivanovic, Jankovic, etc. have that potential to be great that Tati lacks, IMO.

Donny
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Yet she doesn't bash the ball.....:scratch:



Really? Then what, in your opinion, separates her from Sharapova, Vaidisova, or Ivanovic?

AcesHigh
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:35 PM
vs. Ivanovic: 1-6
vs. Jankovic: 1-2(Tati's win came in 2004 when Jelena was ranked 94 and Tatiana 72)
vs. Sharapova 0-5
vs. Chakvetadze 3-2
vs. Vaidisova 1-3

and somehow, she is better than these players?

EDIT: I forgot to mention how all these players have achieved more in Tier 1's, slams and rankings.

Donny
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:40 PM
Here's a better question: Why does Golovin have so many fans here?

If she didn't speak fluent English, or looked like Safina, would she be as popular on this board?

Because from what I've seen in matches, players like Safarova have shown just as much potential on the court, but don't have nearly as much fanfare.

Poova
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:43 PM
UNDERRATED? If we're talking about on this board, she's overrated as hell. :o

Slutiana
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:45 PM
vs. Ivanovic: 1-6
vs. Jankovic: 1-2(Tati's win came in 2004 when Jelena was ranked 94 and Tatiana 72)
vs. Sharapova 0-5
vs. Chakvetadze 3-2
vs. Vaidisova 1-3

and somehow, she is better than these players?

EDIT: I forgot to mention how all these players have achieved more in Tier 1's, slams and rankings.

its 2 :p

No one said she was better than Pova (well at this moment in time she is but so are some players outside the top 50 :o :tape:)

Anyway, I dno why jankovic is thought of as one of the new players - shes 23 next year.

As i was saying, I think that she has the potential to be better. Doesn't mean she is. And as for weapons; you dont see henin hitting winners from every shot do you? She builds up a point and then unleashes. Thats what tati does.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Aces: I like Golovin primarily because I like her personality and demeanor. I'm sure it's the same for many on here. Though I probably should just speak for myself.

Slutiana
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:49 PM
Really? Then what, in your opinion, separates her from Sharapova, Vaidisova, or Ivanovic?

she does hit the ball hard but not always. She has many gameplans and if you watch a match on clay and one on a fast surface, you'll notice how well she adapts her game and how well she can play on both. She is much quicker than the bbbs with better footwork. A lot of variety, isnt afraid to come to the net. Her weapons are much more subtle than the povas of this world who just smash the ball but when on, are just as effective.

Derek.
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:53 PM
she does hit the ball hard but not always. She has many gameplans and if you watch a match on clay and one on a fast surface, you'll notice how well she adapts her game and how well she can play on both. She is much quicker than the bbbs with better footwork. A lot of variety, isnt afraid to come to the net. Her weapons are much more subtle than the povas of this world who just smash the ball but when on, are just as effective.

Vaidisova and Ivanovic are just as "good" at net as Golovin.

And when you say variety, what are you talking about?
Because all three players hit angles, slice, do drop shots, etc.

Golovin doesn't do anything better than any of them besides maybe she's a bit better with her movement and footwork, but not by that much, to be honest. Oh and she's more consistent because her game is not as aggressive as them.

Andrew Laeddis
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:53 PM
because she has absolutely no backhand and only beats the top players when they are playing bad tennis. even then sometimes she cant get the job done. you see what happened once justine stopped playing badly in stuttgart, golovin only held serve once in 15 games. ivanovic is better, chakvetadze can do more with ball and vaidisova has more firepower and a better serve.

PatrickRyan
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:57 PM
Shes injured so much.

TennisGuy21
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Wow Seeing this post makes me wonder if the person who wrote it has ever actually played tennis before in his life. Tati is great- I love her, and her game, and I think she is pretty. But HONESTLY... her only weapon is her forhand. - The problem is, even her forhand isnt that much of a weapon. She is consistant, and places it well, and can throw people out of a rythem based solely on the fact that her backhand is SO MUCH weaker. The change of pace being so drastic between the two making it a little more difficult. Seriously, we are talking about one of the weekest backhands in the top 20 here. She is consistant with it- I will give her that, and it really comes in handy while playing some of these other players. She is clearly not a player like the ones you are comparing her too, but lets break down a list of people who could SERIOUSLY be top 10 for next year..

1.Justine 7 slams
2.Sveta 1 slam 3 finals
3.Serena 8 slams (singles)
4.Venus 6 slams (singles)
5.Maria 2 slams 3 finals
6.Amelie 2 slams
7.Nicole 2 semi finals before she was 18- and injured all year not playing still top 15
8.Ana 1 final, 1 semi this year, hard court season champ last year
9. Jelena
10. Davenport (hello)
11. Elena Dementieva
12 Petrova
13 Hingis..



this is just a list of the top 10 I see, and its clearly over packed. I still believe there are players who will rank higher then Golovin and what about Szavey who just came up the latter half of the hard court season this year and is already number 20? or na li? I mean- I like tati- but she is what she is.

Paul.
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:06 PM
Golovin really isn't underrated in my opinion.

I really disagree about the "complete game" thing. She has a great forehand and first serve but her backhand is nowhere near a top 10 or possibly even top 20 backhand.

Take Ivanovic: Huge serve and forehand. Solid backhand that is rapidly improving.
Take Golovin: Big serve and great forheand. Backhand can sometimes look like it belongs to a completely different player.

I wish the best for the girl, but at this point, I don't see her achieving more in her career than Ana, Anna, Nicole etc.

But as we all know, a lot of Tatiana's lack of success is due to injury, and when she is fit, her game can damage every single WTA player. Take her win over Ana today as an example ( although Ana is in a mini-slump now :lol: ).

Take the first set against Justine in Stuttgart as a better example. It was the best set of tennis I have ever seen from her.

So who knows?

Iceland
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:07 PM
because she has absolutely no backhand and only beats the top players when they are playing bad tennis. even then sometimes she cant get the job done. you see what happened once justine stopped playing badly in stuttgart, golovin only held serve once in 15 games. ivanovic is better, chakvetadze can do more with ball and vaidisova has more firepower and a better serve.

It never came to your mind that Tati's tactics may be to cancel her opponent's game? Her match against Sveta was the perfect example. Martina is not a winner machine and she still is a Grand Slam Champion. Tati uses her mind on court, she knows how to adapt her game to conditions & opponent. There are so many different ways to play tennis!

Tati is part of this bunch, it's only a matter of time for you to realize it, like it or not.

Matt01
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:24 PM
because she has absolutely no backhand and only beats the top players when they are playing bad tennis. even then sometimes she cant get the job done.

Yeah, you can bash her how much you want, how much you like. It doesn't make your stupid opinion any more credible, though :rolleyes:

Slutiana
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:36 PM
Vaidisova and Ivanovic are just as "good" at net as Golovin.

And when you say variety, what are you talking about?
Because all three players hit angles, slice, do drop shots, etc.

Golovin doesn't do anything better than any of them besides maybe she's a bit better with her movement and footwork, but not by that much, to be honest. Oh and she's more consistent because her game is not as aggressive as them.

Yes, all three hit slice, angle, dropshots and not Ncoles but Ana's volleys are as 'good' as tati's but this variety is part of tati's everyday game. She can hit the ball hard but she chooses to build up a rally first. The difference is that when its not going well for them, this 'variety' is a last ditch desperate thing which i have never ever seen work for either of them. And as for movement and foot work - Tati has great footwork and her footwork is waaay better. Tati is no Jankovic movement wise but shes getting quicker and quicker and her movement is looking more and more impressive. Im sure most would agree that her movement is more than 'a bit' better than Ana's and nicole's

mankind
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:37 PM
I don't think being underrated is the issue. She's been propped up to be this great champion since she was 16 years old and never lived up to it while her peers have either won slams (Sharapova) or gone deep into a draw. She's managed that only once. until she steps it up when it counts, I don't think she's underrated at all. I've seen her play some really, really horrid matches. To be honest, this win against Ivanovic who has SO many weapons, astonishes me. Many of Tati's wins have astonished me. But many of her losses have been equally convincing, too. (I'm thinking Pratt R128 of Wimbledon, Ahsha Rolle 1st rd USO :help:)

woosey
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:39 PM
i like her. she's fun to watch. but she's inconsistent. that loss at the us open was pretty horrible for a player of her caliber and potential.

of the players in this next generation - tati, ivanovic, chak and even down the line to paszek - there isn't one that i think will clearly dominate. none of them may dominate like steffi, venus, serena or even henin.

Derek.
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Yes, all three hit slice, angle, dropshots and not Ncoles but Ana's volleys are as 'good' as tati's but this variety is part of tati's everyday game. She can hit the ball hard but she chooses to build up a rally first. The difference is that when its not going well for them, this 'variety' is a last ditch desperate thing which i have never ever seen work for either of them. And as for movement and foot work - Tati has great footwork and her footwork is waaay better. Tati is no Jankovic movement wise but shes getting quicker and quicker and her movement is looking more and more impressive. Im sure most would agree that her movement is more than 'a bit' better than Ana's and nicole's

Tati's volleys aren't really better, she just comes to net more.

If you saw Nicole's match against Serena or her win against Amelie at Wimbledon you'd see that she does just fine at net.

And of course Maria's, Ana's, and Nicole's gameplan is to hit hard, that's their game, they were blessed with powerful serves and groundstrokes. And they don't use them in desperate situations. All three of them having been trying to add to their games and they mix in those types or things here and there. Tati builds rallies because she can't hit winners right away like the others. Her game is about being consistent. Tati just uses her variety more, but she doesn't really have anything that the others don't. She is not Federer.

LindsayRulz
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:44 PM
Underrated? I've always thought that she was so overrated on the board. And yes recently she's been playing well. Hopefully she won't get injured.

UDACHi
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:44 PM
is this a joke thread? :spit:
golovin is one of the most overrated players around.

Bubba08
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:45 PM
Aces: I like Golovin primarily because I like her personality and demeanor. I'm sure it's the same for many on here. Though I probably should just speak for myself.
I'm on the same boat.

homogenius
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:53 PM
This thread is quite a good example of why she's underrated.

switz
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:03 PM
it's because most people on here can't think logically enough to realise that her inconsistency is primarily due to constant injury breaks she has had to take every time she's posted impressive results.

there understanding is such that they expect a player to take months off recovering and come back in exactly the same form :o

Gnaag
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:15 PM
Count me among those who believes Golovin is overrated on this board as a general rule. Many parts of her game are nice and solid, but she lacks a dominant weapon in her arsenal. Two of Golovin's peers in the same age group - Ivanovic and Vaidisova - do have dominant weapons, hence the reason their results have been significantly more impressive.

But the point I really want to make is this: I understand Golovin has had injury problems, as many of her supporters keep bringing up, but that is not an excuse. How many of the current top twenty players have a long history of injury problems? The answer is just about all of them. The bottom line is Golovin has a more limited game than many of the other top twenty players, let alone the top ten.

fangoria
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:16 PM
She's one of the few female players i really like to watch and follow her career.

I agree she's not the best player right now, but i really can see her potential. And she's improving a lot lately! Her game is getting more quick, and above all, she really is using her brain now. For example, she used to lead in her important matchs during two sets and suddenly start to loose her concentration and ending loosing the match. But now she holds her nerves and manages to close her victories quickly (like for exemple, during her win over Chakvetadze at Stuttgart). I think she's getting more mature.

Of course, she still has too much injuries and "bad days" (like this horrible 1st round against Rolle at the USOpen), but hopefully these are diminishing in the future.

Otherwise, i really like how she is outside the courts: nice, funny, friendly and generous with her fans. I think these are important features for a tennis player.

And yes, i'm french, so i might be biased too ;)

Rachel_
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:18 PM
She has bags of potential I think she can be top 3...hell if Jankovic and Kuzzy can do it!!!!!

Holding her back has been injury. 2008 if she stays injury -free she will surge up the rankings.

homogenius
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:19 PM
Count me among those who believes Golovin is overrated on this board as a general rule. Many parts of her game are nice and solid, but she lacks a dominant weapon in her arsenal. Two of Golovin's peers in the same age group - Ivanovic and Vaidisova - do have dominant weapons, hence the reason their results have been significantly more impressive.

But the point I really want to make is this: I understand Golovin has had injury problems, as many of her supporters keep bringing up, but that is not an excuse. How many of the current top twenty players have a long history of injury problems? The answer is just about all of them. The bottom line is Golovin has a more limited game than many of the other top twenty players, let alone the top ten.

If Bartoli was able to be in top10, I'm sure that Golovin can do it (even if she must working hard to have a game as comlete as Marion's game :rolleyes:).

blumaroo
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:22 PM
I'm not a fan but I think if she's healthy long enough she will have a nice career. I guess if I had to compare her with another youngster I would compare her with Szavay. Agnes hits/serves bigger but in general both play a high percentage game but allow some room for aggressiveness. Both can read the games of their opponents well and have above average movement because of good anticipation. These kind of players who don't excel or suck at anything are usually not grandslam winners, but are rewarded with their consistency. There's always room for allcourt players.

And I do see Tatiana's game maturing. I remember her from the early days and all she did was brainless hitting and she was clearly playing out of her comfort zone because most of her shots went all over the place. But she played really well in Amelia Island (tactically and the volleys) and seems very comfortable on these slow indoor courts (Stuttgart). And everytime she got some kind of momentum she got injured. That said, I'm pretty sure Nicole and Ana will stay/be more succesful. But that is in line with what I've said about grandslam winners/allcourt players.

switz
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:26 PM
But the point I really want to make is this: I understand Golovin has had injury problems, as many of her supporters keep bringing up, but that is not an excuse. How many of the current top twenty players have a long history of injury problems? The answer is just about all of them. The bottom line is Golovin has a more limited game than many of the other top twenty players, let alone the top ten.

no it really is an excuse. these aren't niggling little injuries they are serious ones that are putting her out of the game for months at time and making it very difficult for her to demonstrate her full potential. every time she stays on tour for a couple of months she starts to breakthrough with big results only to get injured again. obviously if she keeps getting injured that a big problem that will limit her chances of ever getting to the very top.

To me it just seems you only look at weapons as having a big serve or groundstroke. Golovin on her game controls the tennis ball better than anyone of the other girls in her group. she isn't just smacking the ball and hoping it that she's on her game. she thinks out there better than most and that's a strength that can't be underestimated (especially when you see the type of performance a player like Ivanovic regularly puts in against players she's 10 times better than).

Gnaag
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:16 AM
no it really is an excuse. these aren't niggling little injuries they are serious ones that are putting her out of the game for months at time and making it very difficult for her to demonstrate her full potential. every time she stays on tour for a couple of months she starts to breakthrough with big results only to get injured again. obviously if she keeps getting injured that a big problem that will limit her chances of ever getting to the very top.

To me it just seems you only look at weapons as having a big serve or groundstroke. Golovin on her game controls the tennis ball better than anyone of the other girls in her group. she isn't just smacking the ball and hoping it that she's on her game. she thinks out there better than most and that's a strength that can't be underestimated (especially when you see the type of performance a player like Ivanovic regularly puts in against players she's 10 times better than).

I am very aware Golovin has had more than just niggling little injuries. You are right, they have been very serious. But once again, look up and down the list of top twenty players. Many of them have had multiple long-term injuries which have kept them out of the game for weeks or months at a time. Hingis, Mauresmo, Petrova, both Williams sisters, Sharapova, Bartoli, Henin - and those are simply off the top of my head. There is something more than just injuries that has held Golovin back.

And you are also right that weapons in tennis are not limited to smacking the hell out of the ball. Yes, Golovin is a good thinker on the court, but there are other players who are better in that category than she is: Hingis, Chakvetadze, Justine Henin and even the Williams sisters. But even her ability to construct points well and use her brain on the court hasn't been enough to get her over the hump. She needs something else.

Having said that, Golovin is going to be a good, solid top twenty player for many years and will put together a very respectable career with some very good results here and there. But I neither see nor expect anything more than that in her future.

Mightymirza
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:18 AM
:worship:

and in an answer to your question - because shes not a 6ft + ball basher.

shes a 5 ft something ball basher :lol:

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Yes, Golovin is a good thinker on the court, but there are other players who are better in that category than she is: Hingis, Chakvetadze, Justine Henin and even the Williams sisters.

:drink: :spit:

AcesHigh
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Aces: I like Golovin primarily because I like her personality and demeanor. I'm sure it's the same for many on here. Though I probably should just speak for myself.

I think donnydarko asked that question, not me.

However, I think Tatiana is very likeable. She is very easy to root for and the Miami incident with Sharapova probably won her a lot of fans. I like her too.. I just think she's very overrated on this board.

AcesHigh
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:31 AM
If Bartoli was able to be in top10, I'm sure that Golovin can do it (even if she must working hard to have a game as comlete as Marion's game :rolleyes:).

Bartoli made the final of Wimbledon, something I doubt Golovin can do. HOwever, Tati can probably hit #8 or #9 at some point if some injuries happen. I expect the top 10 to be packed for the next few years.

Gnaag
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:32 AM
:drink: :spit:

I will assume you find it amusing I think the Williams sisters are good thinkers on the court. But if you watch them win tough matches, that's usually how they pull them out. But that's another argument for another thread.

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:50 AM
I will assume you find it amusing I think the Williams sisters are good thinkers on the court. But if you watch them win tough matches, that's usually how they pull them out.

:rolleyes: I wasn't only amused by your mention of the Williams'es. But since you are talking about them: They often pull their matches out by using their mental toughness, not by their "thinking". Have you seen Venus on clay lately? No tactical understanding whatsoever. :lol:

AcesHigh
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:53 AM
I will assume you find it amusing I think the Williams sisters are good thinkers on the court. But if you watch them win tough matches, that's usually how they pull them out. But that's another argument for another thread.

Some people can't see that... and I don't think you'll find a way to convince Matt01

AcesHigh
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:55 AM
:rolleyes: I wasn't only amused by your mention of the Williams'es. But since you are talking about them: They often pull their matches out by using their mental toughness, not by their "thinking". Have you seen Venus on clay lately? No tactical understanding whatsoever. :lol:

Have you seen all of Venus's matches on clay?? And clay is out of her comfort zone. Watch Venus on grass or hardcourt in a tough match and how she will change or adjust tactics, pick on an opponent's weakness. You're VASTLY underrating the tactical and strategic ability of both sisters.

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:57 AM
Have you seen all of Venus's matches on clay?? And clay is out of her comfort zone. Watch Venus on grass or hardcourt in a tough match and how she will change or adjust tactics, pick on an opponent's weakness. You're VASTLY underrating the tactical and strategic ability of both sisters.

I didn't say anything about Serena in this thread, so how exactly do you know that? :rolleyes:

AcesHigh
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:00 AM
I didn't say anything about Serena in this thread, so how exactly do you know that? :rolleyes:

Since you were amused by the mention of the Williamses

Donny
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:01 AM
I didn't say anything about Serena in this thread, so how exactly do you know that? :rolleyes:

You know, if you make a vague remark:

:drink: :spit:

Then others misunderstand it, the normal response would be to clarify what you meant. This would settle any confusion over the matter.

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:03 AM
I am very aware Golovin has had more than just niggling little injuries. You are right, they have been very serious. But once again, look up and down the list of top twenty players. Many of them have had multiple long-term injuries which have kept them out of the game for weeks or months at a time. Hingis, Mauresmo, Petrova, both Williams sisters, Sharapova, Bartoli, Henin - and those are simply off the top of my head. There is something more than just injuries that has held Golovin back.




Hingis, Mauresmo, Petrova, Venus, Serena, and Justine are all what? 6 years older then Golovin? None of them had the amount of serious injuries Golovin has had by the time they were 19 - they had time to establish themselves as top players by that time, something Tatiana has yet to do. Its much easier to return to the top after being there than it is to reach it for the first time after breaking your ankle and sitting on the sidelines for 4 months. Bottom line is that when she becomes more consistant, Golovin will definitely reach the top 10. She has yet to break through in a slam, true, but until this year she hadn't won a title. Now she has two. Next year, whos to say she doesnt surprise everyone and make a GS Semifinal or final somewhere?

Shepster
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:06 AM
Have you seen all of Venus's matches on clay?? And clay is out of her comfort zone. Watch Venus on grass or hardcourt in a tough match and how she will change or adjust tactics, pick on an opponent's weakness. You're VASTLY underrating the tactical and strategic ability of both sisters.
Venus played the exact same way in every single match at the US Open this year. Whenever there was anything remotely short she was pounding it then charging the net on the back of it. Did it in the first couple of rounds, did it against Ivanovic, did it against JJ - when JJ was making less mistakes and was going toe-to-toe did Venus change tactics when it got tight? No. She carried on playing exactly the same way, kept on plugging away, whenever anything was short she kept on ramming it and charging the net. Against Henin she tried to do it whenever she could but Henin's length was far more disciplined than the Serbians and she rarely gave Venus an opportunity. Nothing against how she played, it was ultra-aggressive and got her victories over top 10 players, but one thing she did not do in the tough matches was adjust tactics or pick on weaknesses, she played to her strengths all the time and stuck with that.

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:08 AM
You know, if you make a vague remark:

:drink: :spit:

Then others misunderstand it, the normal response would be to clarify what you meant. This would settle any confusion over the matter.

If some people didn't find it clear what I meant, they could have asked what I meant and not have assumed something which from my response I didn't mean.

And yes, I can see why some people cold have found my respones a bit vague.

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:13 AM
Hantuchova at her peak beat Hingis and Henin. That's it. Hantuchova beat multiple top ten players once. Golovin has more top ten wins than Vaidisova and (I believe) Jankovic. When she gets a string of tournaments without injury, she is a top 5 player.

altho to be fair Hantuchova peak coincided with the Williams and Clijsters peak periods and she got smoked more often than not.

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:13 AM
Have you seen all of Venus's matches on clay??


Oh, and I doubt that there is anyone on this board who has seen "all of Venus's matches on clay". :rolleyes: Obviously I can only judge the matches from her that I have seen, and trust me, I have seen some of her matches, and yes also on clay. Live and on TV.

Lunaris
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:13 AM
This thread shows how underrated she is on this board with many posters saying she's overrated. As for her weapons, am I the only one who thinks her return has improved lately?

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:19 AM
last time I saw her play was against Mauresmo at Sydney back in January.

that was a match she could of and should of won.

how much has she improved since then since we get bad tv coverage here :o

Ceri
Oct 18th, 2007, 02:11 AM
*shrugs* simple - she needs to show up at the slams in a far more impressive way. work on the weaknesses in her game. Otherwise she'll be another Daniela.

RenaSlam.
Oct 18th, 2007, 03:33 AM
*shrugs* simple - she needs to show up at the slams in a far more impressive way. work on the weaknesses in her game. Otherwise she'll be another Daniela.

What do you know? Nothing.

cellophane
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:14 AM
Underrated? :spit: If anything, it's the opposite here.

cellophane
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:20 AM
This thread shows how underrated she is on this board with many posters saying she's overrated. As for her weapons, am I the only one who thinks her return has improved lately?

How exactly does a few people saying she is overrated prove that she is underrated? :scratch:

switz
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:23 AM
Hingis, Mauresmo, Petrova, Venus, Serena, and Justine are all what? 6 years older then Golovin? None of them had the amount of serious injuries Golovin has had by the time they were 19 - they had time to establish themselves as top players by that time, something Tatiana has yet to do. Its much easier to return to the top after being there than it is to reach it for the first time after breaking your ankle and sitting on the sidelines for 4 months. Bottom line is that when she becomes more consistant, Golovin will definitely reach the top 10. She has yet to break through in a slam, true, but until this year she hadn't won a title. Now she has two. Next year, whos to say she doesnt surprise everyone and make a GS Semifinal or final somewhere?

:worship: you are stealing my thoughts word for word :scared:

Jakeev
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:22 AM
Have not read all the other posts but if she seems underrated it's because she hasn't had the big results her peers have had in bigger events until recently.

Yeah she has all the shots but has often lacked the confidence against to go the extra step which she almost had in Germany against Henin.

Thankfully, she seems to have gotten over her injury woes from 2006 and by this time next year we might be talking about a different Golovin.

pancake
Oct 18th, 2007, 07:51 AM
She's hardly underrated here at least.

Cat123
Oct 18th, 2007, 09:10 AM
I was glad when Tati beat Ana yesterday. I like her a lot, but I still don't think she's amazing. I hope 2008 will be the year she starts performing in GRand Slams

mckyle.
Oct 18th, 2007, 09:41 AM
I hate to sound negative, but she'll probably break her ankle this week :o

It never fails. Every time she plays well she lands on her ankle weird or something :o

Renalicious
Oct 18th, 2007, 09:58 AM
She's too inconsistent. I love her, but come on...8-6 in the last set to Hsieh, lost to Pratt in 06, lost to Paszek earlier, lost to Bammer and lost to Rolle in the USO...

Il Primo!
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:07 AM
I like her a lot but she's more overrated than anything. No weapons. Her FH is not that fantastic and her BH is horrendous. She distinguishes herself from the other good-not-great players with her on-court intelligence.

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:14 AM
I like her a lot but she's more overrated than anything. No weapons.

I'm really sick of this reasoning...
Some people said (and are still saying) the same about Jankovic, and look where she is now: Top 3 in the world.

Forehand_Volley
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:15 AM
But I think Tati is highly underrated on this board! People look at her like she is a Srebotnik or Sugiyama type player, just floating around the draws, making a few upsets a year. But from what I've seen, Tati has the most complete game compared to her compatriots. The only thing that has held her back is the inconsistency brought on by injuries. If Ivanovic can make it to the top 4, then I know Tatiana can surely be top 3. Ivanovic only has a big forehand. Tati has the complete package.

We'll see next year. Tati will begin to dominate like she should have been doing a year ago before all these injuries came on at such inconvenient times.
A lot of fans have been accustomed to using the injury excuse for their favorites when injury is an inherent part of the sport now.

Results matter. Tatiana plays inconsistently well.

Il Primo!
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:23 AM
I'm really sick of this reasoning...
Some people said (and are still saying) the same about Jankovic, and look where she is now: Top 3 in the world.

Deal with it. Actually I heard people saying that Janko's DTL BH is a huge weapon but that she doesn't play agressively enough to win a GS.
And you're comparing a top20 player to a top5 one. If Golovin had a huge weapon, she wouldn't be ranked that "low". Injuries don't explain it all. When you're good enough and you have a huge weapon, you make your way through the rankings. It's been 2/3 years for she doesn't manage to breakthrough in majors

frontier
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:27 AM
She is overrated and not consistent to beat a lot of girls.She should improve her fitness and movement otherwise she will be another Petrova a girl with a lot of potential but falls short all the time.I think Szavay Azarenka Tamira and Nicole are going to overshadow Tatiana look at Szavay from nowhere she is almost at the same ranking as Tatiana.

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:30 AM
If Golovin had a huge weapon, she wouldn't be ranked that "low".

Because being 19 years of age and still "only" being #18 in the rankings is really terrible...but yeah, obviously she is totally overrated and has no weapons, like you said :rolleyes:

alexia1huff
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:31 AM
I'd say because she isn't consistent enough, of course we have ivanovic who also has her moments but with her other results she reached top 5 and i think that's just the diffrence, constant injuries and she just doesn't pull away the Serena :lol:

Aravanecaravan
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:37 AM
Injuries. She has been riddled with them, sadly.

I do think that when she is healthy, she is a legit top 10 player. She really needs to beat the injury bug, though, and get in a rhythm over several months. I think then she'd produce some really strong results.

fangoria
Oct 18th, 2007, 10:54 AM
the problem is she spent almost the whole year without a coach, and made some weird decisions when choosing her tournaments... for exemple, after her fantastic win in amelia island, she rushed to play again in the fed cup and charleston, and ended injured...
she needs to organize her schedule better. hopefully matts wilander can help her with that.

Il Primo!
Oct 18th, 2007, 11:20 AM
Because being 19 years of age and still "only" being #18 in the rankings is really terrible...but yeah, obviously she is totally overrated and has no weapons, like you said :rolleyes:

Oh God.

You were comparing Tati to Jankovic who is ranked 3rd. 18th is low compared to 3rd? Isn't it? In the absolute, 18th is not low. That's why I used "" to write "low".

Matt01
Oct 18th, 2007, 11:29 AM
Oh God.

I'm not God. But thanks for the compliment anyway :wavey:

And didn't you call me a rat some weeks ago and said that you will never again reply to my posts? In that case I'm happy that you are still replying :D

Slutiana
Oct 18th, 2007, 05:53 PM
it's because most people on here can't think logically enough to realise that her inconsistency is primarily due to constant injury breaks she has had to take every time she's posted impressive results.

there understanding is such that they expect a player to take months off recovering and come back in exactly the same form :o

Yeah, its true. People talk about her bad slam form but minus the rolle loss it was kinda understandable:

Tati's Injuries in the past year (:o)
In 06, she had mps vs the no.1 and no.2 players in the world in succesive weeks.
Gets to miami, gets to the sf and from a set and 5-1 down, starts playing some of the best tennis of her career and then in the third has that horrible ankle injury.
Rushed back to play FO and lost 1r, still injured. Plays wimbledon but is really unfit and not herself (i was there, live :o) loses in 2r to pratt:o. doesnt find her form until stanford in USO Series.
Starts playing better and then gets her best GS Finish ever - QF USO
Starts playing even better yet with a final at stuttgart and then beats Vaidisova 6-2 6-0. Playing great but then gets injured vs Kirilenko 4-2 up in 2r. Year Ended

07: Again should have beaten world no.1 (mps?)
AO 3r and squanders mps AGAIN :o
tier 2 qf and then sf then tier 1 qf
After miami finally gets her first title. Def.ing Venus, Petrova and Ivanovic
Gets to a tier 1 qf and hyped for the title and beyond - has to retire with a 'small ankle problem'
Plays the fed cup winning both ties but at the same time injuring herself even more. Out for ages. Misses the whole clay season and comes back at Wimbly but again shouldn't have gone - although she was fit this time - she had no forehand (again, i was there :o)
Hingis, Mauresmo, Petrova, Venus, Serena, and Justine are all what? 6 years older then Golovin? None of them had the amount of serious injuries Golovin has had by the time they were 19 - they had time to establish themselves as top players by that time, something Tatiana has yet to do. Its much easier to return to the top after being there than it is to reach it for the first time after breaking your ankle and sitting on the sidelines for 4 months. Bottom line is that when she becomes more consistant, Golovin will definitely reach the top 10. She has yet to break through in a slam, true, but until this year she hadn't won a title. Now she has two. Next year, whos to say she doesnt surprise everyone and make a GS Semifinal or final somewhere?

agreed.

This thread shows how underrated she is on this board with many posters saying she's overrated. As for her weapons, am I the only one who thinks her return has improved lately?

and on the backhand side too. :eek:

whoever says her forehand isnt a weapon needs to be lined up and shot :o
*shrugs* simple - she needs to show up at the slams in a far more impressive way. work on the weaknesses in her game. Otherwise she'll be another Daniela.

No, she needs to show up at the slams injury free (she wasnt injured at USO though.. Im still conviced that was an imposter playing that day:o)

I hate to sound negative, but she'll probably break her ankle this week :o

It never fails. Every time she plays well she lands on her ankle weird or something :o

:o:o:o:o:o:o :sad: lets hope and pray that doesn't happen

Injuries. She has been riddled with them, sadly.

I do think that when she is healthy, she is a legit top 10 player. She really needs to beat the injury bug, though, and get in a rhythm over several months. I think then she'd produce some really strong results.

agreed.

goldenlox
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:24 PM
She's not underrated because she hasn't done anything. It's like saying Zvonareva is underrated. Vera has tons of big wins, beat Serena, Sharapova 3 times, Ivanovic twice this year.
You have to do it at a major. I don't mean beat someone good. Vera buried Ivanovic at the AO. You have to go deep into the major.
Golovin lost a Tier III final to Sharapova in June 2004. Over 3 years ago.
Since then Sharapova has won 2 majors and reached about 10 slam semis.
Golovin is still looking for that first slam semi.

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:24 PM
I'd say that Golovin is overrated by her staunch fans (me included) and severely underrated by everyone else. :p

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:26 PM
She's not underrated because she hasn't done anything. It's like saying Zvonareva is underrated. Vera has tons of big wins, beat Serena, Sharapova 3 times, Ivanovic twice this year.
You have to do it at a major. I don't mean beat someone good. Vera buried Ivanovic at the AO. You have to go deep into the major.
Golovin lost a Tier III final to Sharapova in June 2004. Over 3 years ago.
Since then Sharapova has won 2 majors and reached about 10 slam semis.
Golovin is still looking for that first slam semi.

Maybe...















but she still owns Kuzy :devil:

goldenlox
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:27 PM
And Vera owns Golovin.

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:30 PM
And Vera owns Golovin.

That's why I find Vera underrated too :)

AcesHigh
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:34 PM
Wow, what excuses. Yes, she's been injured, but as far as I can remember, she's only missed one slam since she started a full schedule, and except for after Miami last year, I can't remember her missing a huge chunk of the schedule.
Everyone gets injured. True top players find ways to overcome injuries and other issues. She's reached the fourth round of a slam ONCE in the last 3 years.. 1 out of 11 slams she's competed in and she lost in the first round of 4 of those slams.
She is VERY overrated if she is compared to the likes of Ivanovic and Chakvetadze. There are no signs of her reaching the top 10. Maybe she will...who knows. But to make these comparisons now.. and for some people to think she'll be top five?? :rolls:

Let's wait and see ;)

mboyle
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:39 PM
She's not underrated because she hasn't done anything. It's like saying Zvonareva is underrated. Vera has tons of big wins, beat Serena, Sharapova 3 times, Ivanovic twice this year.
You have to do it at a major. I don't mean beat someone good. Vera buried Ivanovic at the AO. You have to go deep into the major.
Golovin lost a Tier III final to Sharapova in June 2004. Over 3 years ago.
Since then Sharapova has won 2 majors and reached about 10 slam semis.
Golovin is still looking for that first slam semi.

Vera gets one good win per tournament. Golovin has beaten several top ten players in succession on multiple occassions.

Melly Flew Us
Oct 18th, 2007, 06:51 PM
the problem is she spent almost the whole year without a coach, and made some weird decisions when choosing her tournaments....

i forgot that she didn't have a coach for a long time. but i'm not certain that having a former great player as a coach always works, but hopefully it will.

obviously she is not doing as well as some of her peers, but she is better than most.

it is true that injuries have held retarded her development - maybe her backhand would be better if she had been lucky and less scrooge like in terms of coaching.

Slutiana
Oct 18th, 2007, 07:07 PM
oh well. Only time will answer this question...

Lunaris
Oct 19th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Underrated? :spit: If anything, it's the opposite here.
How exactly does a few people saying she is overrated prove that she is underrated? :scratch:
Not a few but many. At least many of those who bothered to respond in this thread (aka those who care enough to even start thinking whether Tatiana is or isn't underrated over here). You are one of those many obviously. I think you can figure out the rest as I think you are an intelligent poster. ;)

and on the backhand side too. :eek:
From what I noticed I would say mainly on the backhand side. But you probably saw more from her matches than I ever will.

oh well. Only time will answer this question...
as always

btw. If I were you I wouldn't think too much about the Vaidisova win last year. Nicole was totally brainless in that match. She couldn't hit a single ball into the court to save her skin.

If anything is overrated on this board it's the Slams. Many people here act like tennis is a totally different game at Slams. I am sure most players try to give their best at Slams and are more motivated there, but beating top players there isn't that different from beating them at Tier I's for example. It's still tennis and they're still the same top players with the same game and shots. In my opinion.

heytennis
Oct 19th, 2007, 12:36 AM
I like her a lot but I think she's overrated. She needs to perform better on the big stage before I can start to think of her as a serious contender at most tournies.

tonybotz
Oct 19th, 2007, 12:38 AM
I think she has tremendous potential, however, injuries have really halted what could have been a meteoric rise. Perhaps in the long term this is a good thing.

sfselesfan
Oct 19th, 2007, 01:04 AM
I like her, but she's inconsistent.

SF

Donny
Oct 19th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Not a few but many. At least many of those who bothered to respond in this thread (aka those who care enough to even start thinking whether Tatiana is or isn't underrated over here). You are one of those many obviously. I think you can figure out the rest as I think you are an intelligent poster. ;)


From what I noticed I would say mainly on the backhand side. But you probably saw more from her matches than I ever will.


as always

btw. If I were you I wouldn't think too much about the Vaidisova win last year. Nicole was totally brainless in that match. She couldn't hit a single ball into the court to save her skin.

If anything is overrated on this board it's the Slams. Many people here act like tennis is a totally different game at Slams. I am sure most players try to give their best at Slams and are more motivated there, but beating top players there isn't that different from beating them at Tier I's for example. It's still tennis and they're still the same top players with the same game and shots. In my opinion.

Obviously it is different. Look at the FO final: Would Ivanovic have choked that badly had it been the final of a Tier 1? I doubt she would've. The outcome might've been vastly different had it been a "regular" clay court event final.

Point is, though, that slams are the standard of quality in tennis. Any rational player would try their best their and make it their top priority. For whatever reason, Golovin can't do well at slams. So this means one of two things: She either plays worst at slams, or opponents play better. Either way, it's not the same.

cellophane
Oct 19th, 2007, 01:54 AM
Not a few but many. At least many of those who bothered to respond in this thread (aka those who care enough to even start thinking whether Tatiana is or isn't underrated over here). You are one of those many obviously. I think you can figure out the rest as I think you are an intelligent poster. ;)

Um, I actually meant "a few", not "few". ;) I can't really figure out what you mean though... I'm actually surprised so many people think she is overrated, but that doesn't really mean the opposite is true. ::confused:

Volcana
Oct 19th, 2007, 02:34 AM
Simply put, Golovin ISN'T 'underrated'. If anything, based on results, she OVER-rated. She's never had top ten type results.

matty
Oct 19th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Nope- she's a 5ft 5 in+ ball basher.

I though she was 5'9"?

Lunaris
Oct 19th, 2007, 03:56 AM
Obviously it is different. Look at the FO final: Would Ivanovic have choked that badly had it been the final of a Tier 1? I doubt she would've. The outcome might've been vastly different had it been a "regular" clay court event final.
How can you choke when you barely win games? Ivanovic didn't choke, she was crushed. I get your point however but the answer to your hypothetical question will remain a mystery.
Ivanovic was crushed by worse players than Justine this year even at some "Mickey Mouse" tourneys, there is no reason to think it would have been different if Justine and Ana had played their final elsewhere. But the answer to this hypothesis will remain a mystery as well.

Point is, though, that slams are the standard of quality in tennis. Any rational player would try their best their and make it their top priority. For whatever reason, Golovin can't do well at slams. So this means one of two things: She either plays worst at slams, or opponents play better. Either way, it's not the same.
I actually did write that players are more motivated and try to do their best at Slams. But in my opinion there is only a handful of players who really can bring their best to Slams at will. So it really doesn't make that much difference. As for Golovin's performances at Slams, I could use that injury excuse again. Look at Vaidisova, a player who already done well at Slams. At this years US Open she came back after a long pause caused by illness and she lost in the third round to Peer whic is pretty subpar for her standarts. Golovin is a similar case but it happens to her more often. A long break after which she comes back at a Slam or a warm-up tournament before a Slam and has to compete immediately which is never easy. I think we should discuss her performances at Slams after a season in which she didn't suffer any injury that could affect her performance there. Another thing is that she's still a teenager who aren't famous for consistent performances in any sport.

Um, I actually meant "a few", not "few". ;) I can't really figure out what you mean though... I'm actually surprised so many people think she is overrated, but that doesn't really mean the opposite is true. ::confused:
I did mean "a few". ;)
There is a big difference between "a few" and "many", don't you think? If I get it wrong you can correct me though. English never was my strongest point. :tape:
To explain myself, we could count how many posters in this thread defended Tatiana and how many wrote she was overrated. I didn't count it but noticed many posters saying the latter. Thus I came up with a theory that more than anything she is underrated over here. I believe that if so many people thought she was underrated they would come to this thread to prove it and to defend her from you and those who agree with you (note that I respect your opinion), but not so many did so it seems. And if anyone thinks her fans overrate her they're wrong. In fact to me it looks like some people in her fanbase don't even believe she is a top 10 material themselves, if I can take their posts seriously.
Maybe we could make a poll where people would vote whether Tatiana is underrated or overrated on this message board. It surely would be more interesting than threads about Hantuchova's face when serving or threads no. 455 and 456 concerning the WTA Champs and how Maria is going to get destroyed there. I would gladly accept my fault if the poll proved Tatiana is really overrated on this board.

AcesHigh
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:00 AM
A good thread would be whether people think Tatiana is potential top 5, top 10, top 20 quality or to rank her among her peers.

I think she is overrated and many other do here because she has been hyped up so much in the past by most people..and now by fans as top 10, top 5 potential, when there aren't really any results that attest to that. Top 10 these days isn't too difficult(ex. Hantuchova) so who knows about that. However, with her numerous 1st round slam exits and lack of results compared to the top 10 now, I dont see a reason to believe in her ATM.

Donny
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:14 AM
A good thread would be whether people think Tatiana is potential top 5, top 10, top 20 quality or to rank her among her peers.

I think she is overrated and many other do here because she has been hyped up so much in the past by most people..and now by fans as top 10, top 5 potential, when there aren't really any results that attest to that. Top 10 these days isn't too difficult(ex. Hantuchova) so who knows about that. However, with her numerous 1st round slam exits and lack of results compared to the top 10 now, I dont see a reason to believe in her ATM.

It really is confusing to me. People on this board group her with Ivanovic, Jankovic, Sharapova, routinely, as if her achievements is anywhere near those three. She's easily the most overrated player here.

rocksania
Oct 19th, 2007, 04:17 AM
Just wait for her time to come.tati will soon be big than now.

Harju.
Oct 19th, 2007, 07:00 AM
lol i know this thread will bring all the haters out in full force. boy i was right. that's why i tried to avoid this thread at first..

i don't think there are a lot of people, apart from a couple of bandwagonners and delusional tati fans, have constantly bragged that tati is going to be the future star of the tennis.

but, you've got to admit that she's underranked. she's only #18. and i know it may sound like an excuse, but that was mostly because of injury. she was injured after winning her first title and that was a huge impact for a player who is on roll. (ask petrova. after great clay season last year, her results were sub-par , losing first rounds weeks after weeks, until the indoor season). as for tati, she missed the WHOLE clay season and RG and made her comeback only at wimbledon. she was struggling and finally she found her form back at portoroz. (actually with one decent showing at Grand Slam this year, she could easily reach top 10.)

for someone who's beaten 3 top 6 players in the world in the past 2 tournaments and managed to steal a set from justine which 19 others players failed to do (which included jankovic, williams sisters, sveta, dementieva), she did get a lot of craps by a lot of posters in this thread.

homogenius
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:12 AM
It really is confusing to me. People on this board group her with Ivanovic, Jankovic, Sharapova, routinely, as if her achievements is anywhere near those three. She's easily the most overrated player here.

I think it's more that people who like her group her with Vaidisova and Ivanovic.Sharapova is another story and Jankovic is bit older.When she had her breathrough in 2004 (at 16)she started the year n°345 and finished n°27.She was the younger player in top300,200,100,50 etc...at that time.Sure she had some bad losses since then, but I think that her progression was really stopped several times with bad injuries (ankles...).Atm, Ivanovic has reached another level, and Vaidisova had some good streaks at slams but I don't see why Golovin couldn't have the results they had (even Bartoli was able to reach a slam's final).I think that Golovin and Ivanovic are the youngsters with the most top10 wins (needs AnnaK on this one...)atm so Golovin must have some game because all these wins weren't "lucky".She'll be most certainly top10 next year and for the rest only time will tell.

Helen Lawson
Oct 19th, 2007, 08:47 AM
I think you're overreacting, Miss Crawford. And I think you're underreacting, Mrs. Chadwick!

Ballbasher
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:19 AM
Can only repeat the fact that without injuries she COULD be a lot higher I hope she makes Top10 next season and finally stays injury free she got all what it takes to be there in my eyes I don't think she'll dominate or anything delusional but I think she got a good chance to win a slam if she's Injury Free for a longer period.

mc8114
Oct 19th, 2007, 09:26 AM
dont know, but she's great :D

vettipooh
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:28 AM
Tati's a late bloomer..give her time. Once she develops her game further and stays injury free, it will be 'look out and move over'. :D

Dexter
Oct 19th, 2007, 11:48 AM
She can't be underrated as she is yet to break top15. She's surely underranked.

fangoria
Oct 19th, 2007, 12:10 PM
Tati's a late bloomer..give her time. Once she develops her game further and stays injury free, it will be 'look out and move over'. :D


Actually, all french players are late bloomers.

Amélie got to the AO final young, but she won her first GS tournaments pretty late comparing to other players.

Mary won the AO soon too, but she really got to her best level temporaly in 2000 when she won Roland Garros, and most of all, in 2005 being 30 years old.

Nathalie Tauziat reached the 3rd rank in her thirties too.

Top 10 players like Testud or Halard-Decugis also got their best years at the end of their careers.
Dechy reached her only GS Semi in 2005 (at the AO)




I don't really know why, though...

DA FOREHAND
Oct 19th, 2007, 12:13 PM
because she has thick ankles?

Forever More
Oct 25th, 2007, 07:54 AM
Oh dear... :(

Slutiana
Oct 25th, 2007, 08:58 AM
Fuck.