PDA

View Full Version : Agnieszka Radwanska-creep, creepin' up the rankings-what are your thoughts on her?


hankqq
Jul 9th, 2008, 04:50 PM
Agnieszka Radwanska has zoomed up the rankings in the last 2 years, and she's been snatching up a bunch of (mostly) smaller titles this year. As she's entered in Stockholm and New Haven, I wouldn't be surprised if won 2 more titles by the USO, which might bring her up to #8!! Along the way, however, she has notched numerous quality wins. I know some love her game, some hate it. What's your opinion of how far she can go in the game? Is she a future slam winner, or just a highly consistent top 10 player?

Wiggly
Jul 9th, 2008, 04:58 PM
She will never beat a top player who's game A is on.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 9th, 2008, 05:01 PM
My thoughts on Radwanska : :zzz: :yawn:

hankqq
Jul 9th, 2008, 05:03 PM
My thoughts on Radwanska : :zzz: :yawn:


:lol::lol: Sorry I didn't include an option for that :lol::lol:

Broken Racquet
Jul 9th, 2008, 05:06 PM
I think it is too early to know how far she will go. She is only 19 and these days girls need to train couple years to compete with top players, as today's tennis requires lots of stamina and muscle power. I think she is very talented, but still lacks power to reach slam finals (she is able to beat top player, but not more than that in a row). Yet, she is by far the most successful young player on the tour, so we will see how she will develop. I think the next two years will decide.

aguy9797
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:26 PM
there are some obvious improvement areas, if her father is smart and lets other specialists work with Aga on her serve, strenght, her future should be very bright...what i like about her the most is that she is such a down to earth person, no BS, very cool girl who knows what she wants

Slumpsova
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:29 PM
She will never beat a top player who's game A is on.
right, bc top players will only lose when their game A doesn't work out :rolleyes:
at least she has plenty of top ten wins in her record though :ras:

Dawn Marie
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:30 PM
This girl has some serious game. With improveent and big stage matches she will continue to gain alot of scalps. She needs upper body strength. I like her game. Top 5 with no slams. A power babe when on the A game will beat her.

AnywhereButHome
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:31 PM
future #1, Winner - RG - 5,WImbledon - 5,US - 5,AO - 5

A'DAM
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:40 PM
future #1, Winner - RG - 5,WImbledon - 5,US - 5,AO - 5

Well many have made such jokes about Henin when she was 19 :rolleyes:

jonny84
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:40 PM
She's 19, has won four titles so far (and on three different surfaces) and has already reached 2 QF at Grand Slams. She is definitley on her way up!

Denise4925
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:41 PM
The choices are so far from what I think, I can't vote. She reminds me a weak and faded copy of Martina Hingis. I'd be surprised if she can beat any top 10 power player who is playing 70% of their game potential. I wasn't impressed in her match against Serena.

Slutiana
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:46 PM
She will never beat a top player who's game A is on.
:worship:
My thoughts on Radwanska : :zzz: :yawn:
:yeah:
I think it is too early to know how far she will go. She is only 19 and these days girls need to train couple years to compete with top players, as today's tennis requires lots of stamina and muscle power. I think she is very talented, but still lacks power to reach slam finals (she is able to beat top player, but not more than that in a row). Yet, she is by far the most successful young player on the tour, so we will see how she will develop. I think the next two years will decide.
Isn't Ana, Maria, Chak, Peer, and Tats young? :p

Elwin.
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:50 PM
My thoughts on Radwanska : :zzz: :yawn:

exactly!!

She is the most boring player ever in my opinion :yawn:

Dodoboy.
Jul 9th, 2008, 06:53 PM
She has a lot of impressive wins in her 52 week ranking.

So she definitely deserves #9 atm.

LudwigDvorak
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:03 PM
I love her. Her game is as close to pure tennis as you can get it, especially nowadays.

Top three wouldn't surprise me at all with a couple of slams here and there.

AndreConrad
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:06 PM
Off course almost every of the above options is possible. She needs to improve some areas to truly get to the top with some Grand Slam wins. Not only as her fan, but as an objective observer I believe she is capable of doing that. Most of doubters will point out her 2nd serve and insufficient power. I agree with the first objection and at this same time I am convinced that she is able to address it. To be at the top you don't have to be super powerful ball basher (I don't mean it here in negative way), but you have to have strong and decisive hit. Agnieszka today focuses more on precision and this is why her second serve lacks power, at this same time she is capable of a serve with quite of a pop. I think as her body naturally strengthens and she plays precise game with continuously improved confidence she may become an opponent that is very hard to beat. In any event, a lot has to happen, but I think she is on her way and fully capable to achieve what is required to become the top player in every way.

Keaka
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:08 PM
top 3 player with 1-2 slams

Broken Racquet
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:10 PM
:worship:

:yeah:

Isn't Ana, Maria, Chak, Peer, and Tats young? :p

these girls are young, but not 19 anymore, and there is a big difference between 19 and 20 or 21. That is why is said: in a year or two we will see.
Also, Aga is the only 19 in the top 10, which shows how hard is it now for a teenager to get to that point.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Ever since Aga first came on the scene she has done nothing but get better and better and better. And there is absolutely no indication that she has stopped getting better. She is smart. She has a cool varied game with a lot of options. She can't hit as hard as a lot of the girls do but she does hit harder than she did when she started. She can still put decent pace on the ball when she needs to. What she can do is vary pace and spin and she can disguise her shots well. She also generally handles other players pace well and anticipates shots extremely well. Her lobs and dropshots are as good as anyone in the game. Her volleys are easily top 10 standard too.

I see Aga as a player who could be in the top 10 for a good 10 years providing she stays motivated and healthy. During that period I see no reason why she shouldn't visit the top 3 as well. As for slams, I don't believe Aga will ever be the top favourite to win a slam but as someone who is capable on producing upsets, and who rarely loses to players she shouldn't lose to, I am pretty confident the opportunity to win a Slam will present itself to her 3 or 4 times over her career. As a player who is very tough mentally I would be surprised if she doesn't grab the chance with both hands at least once and possibly more over her career. In short the girl has got a great future.

Viktymise
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:22 PM
I think it is too early to know how far she will go. She is only 19 and these days girls need to train couple years to compete with top players, as today's tennis requires lots of stamina and muscle power. I think she is very talented, but still lacks power to reach slam finals (she is able to beat top player, but not more than that in a row). Yet, she is by far the most successful young player on the tour, so we will see how she will develop. I think the next two years will decide.

She's actually older than Vaidisova.

Broken Racquet
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:23 PM
exactly!!

She is the most boring player ever in my opinion :yawn:

It is interesting how extreme opinions about her game can be. My friend and a long time tennis player who usually watches only ATP, watched this year Wimbledon WTA for the first time, and saw Radwanska in action. He said she was one of the few players worth to watch.

SOA_MC
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Well many have made such jokes about Henin when she was 19 :rolleyes:

williams_fan is a genuine Aga fan

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:31 PM
She's actually older than Vaidisova.

True, by about 6 weeks, but surely you can detect a subtle difference in the direction their careers have been going in. Radwanska has been moving up and up consistantly throughout her career. Vaidisova's ranking basically stalled a couple of years ago and has actually been in reverse of late. It is currently not much better than it was three years ago. In contrast Radwanska only entered the top 300 26 months ago and she has never looked back.

SOA_MC
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:32 PM
She will never beat a top player who's game A is on.

But yet she keeps beating them except Serena

Lennval
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:35 PM
Agnieszka is a nice girl i like her tennis!!

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Pros:

has a unique game among current crop of WTA players, great variety of shots, highly intelligent, good tactician, skilfully constructs her points, has very good anticipation, uses her brain on the court better than most, capable of adapting her game to the conditions, moves well, stays focused, possess champion's mentality (tough like steel), fights until the last point, takes losses very well, very consistent, constantly improves her game, good behavior on the court

Cons:
not a ballbasher, doesn't blast her opponent off the court, second serve vulnerable to attack, the first serve while well placed rarely brings her free points

She is still growing (I noticed how much she grew since US Open 2007), becomes physically stronger, hopefully her shots develop more power and acquire even greater precision. She needs to work on her serve (perhaps a serving coach could help).

With her demonstrated tendency for constant improvement she may perfect shots that could dismantle even the most powerful players playing their game.

It may take her some time before she consistently beats top power players who play at their best throughout the whole match (there are by the way very few at the moment who can do this more or less consistently).

Her current ranking is well deserved. Only time will tell how much she can achieve but based on what I have been seeing so far, I don't see any reason why she could not in the future fight for the main trophies.

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:02 PM
I love her. Her game is as close to pure tennis as you can get it, especially nowadays.

Top three wouldn't surprise me at all with a couple of slams here and there.

Thank you Ludwig. Perhaps the best short answer to the question why Agnieszka became my favorite player.

My friend and a long time tennis player who usually watches only ATP, watched this year Wimbledon WTA for the first time, and saw Radwanska in action. He said she was one of the few players worth to watch.

I love that.

Viktymise
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:03 PM
True, by about 6 weeks, but surely you can detect a subtle difference in the direction their careers have been going in. Radwanska has been moving up and up consistantly throughout her career. Vaidisova's ranking basically stalled a couple of years ago and has actually been in reverse of late. It is currently not much better than it was three years ago. In contrast Radwanska only entered the top 300 26 months ago and she has never looked back.

Radwanska has limited potential. There is no doubting that she is one of the best retrievers on womens tennis right now, or that she is one of the steadiest players mentally on the tour. She does however, lack the ability to hit outright winners from the baseline. Her serve is a liability against practically every top player. Her supposed variety is rendered useless against top players. The Wimbledon QF against Serena was the perfect example of her limitations. The match at no point was in her hands, and that's the way it is almost every time she plays someone of that callibre.

The post I replied to exclaimed Radwanska is the most successful young player on the tour. This statement is not true because Vaidisova is younger and has already achieved much more than Radwanska. The only thing which Radwanska has over Vaidisova is a TierII title, which came in Eastbourne, with one of the most depleted fields in its history.

adam_ads_n
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:08 PM
IMO she will remain in top 10, but nothing more until she gets a bit more power.

Irute
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:13 PM
Barring unexpected incidents she will be #1 with at least one slam title by the end of next year without a question (I am bookmarking this post). However this will be just the beginning of her domination. :yeah:

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:16 PM
Radwanska has limited potential.

Jealousy is speaking through. You are in self denial because your favorite, nicknamed by the press room cohort Matt Cronin, 'I, Robot', (the quote in the most recent Wertheim's article) stalled where she was three years ago.

Only a competent expert who has been observing Radwańska over a sufficiently long period of time could possibly tell something about the limits of her potential.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:20 PM
Radwanska has limited potential. There is no doubting that she is one of the best retrievers on womens tennis right now, or that she is one of the steadiest players mentally on the tour. She does however, lack the ability to hit outright winners from the baseline. Her serve is a liability against practically every top player. Her supposed variety is rendered useless against top players. The Wimbledon QF against Serena was the perfect example of her limitations. The match at no point was in her hands, and that's the way it is almost every time she plays someone of that callibre.

The post I replied to exclaimed Radwanska is the most successful young player on the tour. This statement is not true because Vaidisova is younger and has already achieved much more than Radwanska. The only thing which Radwanska has over Vaidisova is a TierII title, which came in Eastbourne, with one of the most depleted fields in its history.

Vaidisova has achieved much more that Radwanska? Yes perhaps marginally. I think that can basically be attributed to the fact that Vaidisova has been in the top 30 for 3 plus years. Radwanska has been in the top 30 for only 9 months. In other words she has been a top player for only a quarter the length that Vaidisova has. And already the difference in their accomplishments between is small and the gap is closing fast. For example Radwanska has defeated top 5 ranked players in 3 out of her last 4 Grand Slams. Vaidisova has only 2 top five scalps in her entire career. It won't be long before Radwanska surpasses Vaidisova for titles, for quality titles or for ranking either.

Vaidisova may have the marginally better past, but it seems pretty clear to me that Radwanska has the very substantially better future ahead of her.

Viktymise
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:25 PM
Jealousy is speaking through. You are in self denial because your favorite, nicknamed by the press room cohort Matt Cronin, 'I Robot', (the quote in the most recent Wertheim's article) stalled where she was three years ago.

Only a competent expert who has been observing Radwańska over a sufficiently long period of time could possibly tell something about the limits of her potential.

And who might that be? Her fans I'm guessing.

Anyway, considering I find Radwanska the most boring player game-wise and personality-wise on the tour, I really don't know how I could be jealous.

Viktymise
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:29 PM
Vaidisova has achieved much more that Radwanska? Yes perhaps marginally. I think that can basically be attributed to the fact that Vaidisova has been in the top 30 for 3 plus years. Radwanska has been in the top 30 for only 9 months. In other words she has been a top player for only a quarter the length that Vaidisova has. And already the difference in their accomplishments between is small and the gap is closing fast. For example Radwanska has defeated top 5 ranked players in 3 out of her last 4 Grand Slams. Vaidisova has only 2 top five scalps in her entire career. It won't be long before Radwanska surpasses Vaidisova for titles, for quality titles or for ranking either.

Vaidisova may have the marginally better past, but it seems pretty clear to me that Radwanska has the very substantially better future ahead of her.

Marginally?

2 slam SF's + 3 slam QF's > 1 slam QF
#7 ranking > #9 ranking
6 titles > 4 titles

Still quite a big gap.

Serenidad.
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:30 PM
:worship:


:rolls: Says the Overratedolovin fan. Are you bitter Tatiana still hasn't graced the top 10 while more and more younger players are? Aww, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Radwanska. Hmm, how to say this. She has talent, obviously. I think other people have equal or more talent than here, but the primary reason she is where she is now is :

:drumroll:

THE BITCH IS PUT TOGETHER MENTALLY.

Agnieszka shows what you can do if you're not a mental headcase.

Back to topic, she strikes me as the player who will hold her seeding at events 95% of more of the time. There is a reason Serena demolishes her and it is because if the big hitting girls are on their game against Radwanska, she can only chase. Her second serve invites players to dictate against her and Radwanska isn't going to blow anyone off the court. She's far from boring though. :rolleyes:

The Dawntreader
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:36 PM
The thing with Aga is, she is the one of those players on the cusp of greatness rather than the player who will achieve it. She'll always be the thorn in a top player's side, but never quite a serious rival or contender to them. Sure she'll have the wins and the upsets occasionally, but how much can she bring to the table in a big math situation?

I dont actually dislike her game per se, but at times she's very reliant on just getting the ball back to a length. That would've been fine 15 years ago on the tour, but she's playing the game now where players arent submissive and every element of the game is honed on attacking, attacking, attacking. Even players like Justine and Mauresmo, despite the preconception that they were tactile non-hard hitting players, they're overall aim was to be aggressive with the ball. Aga doesnt seem to have it quite yet, yet i have seen her take the ball more ealier at times. Just doesnt do it often enough.

Still think her game is to be admired at times though. Very tactically astute and i think her passing shots are the most underated in the women's game as she seems to have so much control on them, despite often being in awkward positions when playing them. Think she has plenty of potential, just a bit more aggression though:)

Wojtek
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:36 PM
exactly!!

She is the most boring player ever in my opinion :yawn:
Great post from like always

Wojtek
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:39 PM
Do Polaków bo po english nie wchodzi w gre bo juz zostałem zbanowany przez Holandra. Czy wszyscy Holandrzy sa tacy pojebani na tym forum? Elwin, ta lezba z 30 postami na dzien fanka Krajicek dzieki ktorej zostałem zbanowany, CooCoo..... i ten admin. No same pomaranczowe posrance.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:40 PM
:pMarginally?

2 slam SF's + 3 slam QF's > 1 slam QF
#7 ranking > #9 ranking
6 titles > 4 titles

Still quite a big gap.

Err...2 slam QFs thank you very much. No not much of a gap at all. The two titles should come pretty soon, probably by the end of the year, as well the ranking. And as for the difference in Slam achievements I think I explained that is more to do with Vaidisova having been around at the top 30 level for longer. Even you would have to acknowledge all gaps are being closed. And fast.

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:41 PM
the primary reason she is where she is now is :

:drumroll:

THE BITCH IS PUT TOGETHER MENTALLY.

Agnieszka shows what you can do if you're not a mental headcase.


This is only one element why she is where she is. Necessary, but not sufficient.

There is a reason Serena demolishes her and it is because if the big hitting girls are on their game against Radwanska, she can only chase.

And Serena knows that against Radwańska she must be at her best. I can only applaud that since there are few joys greater in ladies' tennis than watching Serena playing at her very best.

Viktymise
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:45 PM
:p

Err...2 slam QFs thank you very much. No not much of a gap at all. The two titles should come pretty soon, probably by the end of the year, as well the ranking. And as for the difference in Slam achievements I think I explained that is more to do with Vaidisova having been around at the top 30 level for longer. Even you would have to acknowledge all gaps are being closed. And fast.

Really? LOL, I totally forgot about that AO run. :p

Whether Vaidisova has been in the top 30 for longer is completely immaterial to the point I was making. Just because it took Radwanska 2 extra years to make the top 30, doesn't mean Vaidisova's results don't count. I was just saying that currently Vaidisova has achieved more than Radwanska, and is younger. Radwanska would still have to win a TierI or make two slam SF to pass out Nicole.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:47 PM
The thing with Aga is, she is the one of those players on the cusp of greatness rather than the player who will achieve it. She'll always be the thorn in a top player's side, but never quite a serious rival or contender to them. Sure she'll have the wins and the upsets occasionally, but how much can she bring to the table in a big math situation?

I dont actually dislike her game per se, but at times she's very reliant on just getting the ball back to a length. That would've been fine 15 years ago on the tour, but she's playing the game now where players arent submissive and every element of the game is honed on attacking, attacking, attacking. Even players like Justine and Mauresmo, despite the preconception that they were tactile non-hard hitting players, they're overall aim was to be aggressive with the ball. Aga doesnt seem to have it quite yet, yet i have seen her take the ball more ealier at times. Just doesnt do it often enough.

Still think her game is to be admired at times though. Very tactically astute and i think her passing shots are the most underated in the women's game as she seems to have so much control on them, despite often being in awkward positions when playing them. Think she has plenty of potential, just a bit more aggression though:)

I love this post. You write about Agnieszka as if she has been around knocking on the door trying to get in for many years and not quite succeeding. Fact is just one year ago she wasn't ranked in the top 30 and now she is in the top 10. And for some reason that isn't terribly apparent you are making the asumption that this rapid improvement is just going to stop dead cold. Get back to me in two years time. ;)

ViennaCalling
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:51 PM
I like her game very much, pity she shows no emotions on court :sad:

That´s the only thing i don´t like at her ;)

@Topic: Top 5 without a Slam.

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:03 PM
Just because it took Radwanska 2 extra years to make the top 30

The time is counted from the moment one becomes a pro, and not from the moment one is born.

And Radwańska took less time to get to the Top 10 than Vaidišová, even less time than Sharapova, and only one month longer than Hénin and Clijsters.

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:09 PM
I like her game very much, pity she shows no emotions on court :sad:

That´s the only thing i don´t like at her ;)

@Topic: Top 5 without a Slam.

Then look at her face -- her face is always thoughtful and shows how concentrated she is. I like that a lot more than seeing grimaces, anger, or uncontrolled outbursts.

The Dawntreader
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:09 PM
I love this post. You write about Agnieszka as if she has been around knocking on the door trying to get in for many years and not quite succeeding. Fact is just one year ago she wasn't ranked in the top 30 and now she is in the top 10. And for some reason that isn't terribly apparent you are making the asumption that this rapid improvement is just going to stop dead cold. Get back to me in two years time. ;)

Dnt take it as a personal affront, it's not like i badmouthed your mother or something:lol:

When did i ever say the improvement is going to wane? I actually think her game is improving quite nicely:)

Mission for Chris- Be less defensive:)

slamchamp
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:14 PM
Her serve needs power, as well as her whole game......Malva don't hurt me:scared:

shap_half
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:15 PM
She's got a great game, but I think she does need to add the power dimension to it.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:15 PM
Dnt take it as a personal affront, it's not like i badmouthed your mother or something:lol:

When did i ever say the improvement is going to wane? I actually think her game is improving quite nicely:)

Mission for Chris- Be less defensive:)

Err...please do help me here. Where am I being defensive? I am stating my case clearly and I am ammused rather than threatened by your assessment.

The Dawntreader
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:23 PM
Err...please do help me here. Where am I being defensive? I am stating my case clearly and I am ammused rather than threatened by your assessment.

Well so was i and you just decided to piss all over it by saying that i said she was going to stop improving. I never said that:lol:

I said she needed more weapons, but i didnt say it wasnt going to happen.

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:23 PM
Her serve needs power, as well as her whole game......Malva don't hurt me:scared:

Why would I? First, hurting anybody is not my habit.

Second, I always try to be reasonable.

Third, I agree with you.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:25 PM
Well so was i and you just decided to piss all over it by saying that i said she was going to stop improving. I never said that:lol:

I said she needed more weapons, but i didnt say it wasnt going to happen.

Okay. Fair enough. I might have misinterpreted you then. :)

The Dawntreader
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:29 PM
Okay. Fair enough. I might have misinterpreted you then. :)

That's ok, it happens a lot:lol:

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:56 PM
:worship:

:yeah:



Jebi se Jebi Se!

Broken Racquet
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:13 PM
Really? LOL, I totally forgot about that AO run. :p

Whether Vaidisova has been in the top 30 for longer is completely immaterial to the point I was making. Just because it took Radwanska 2 extra years to make the top 30, doesn't mean Vaidisova's results don't count. I was just saying that currently Vaidisova has achieved more than Radwanska, and is younger. Radwanska would still have to win a TierI or make two slam SF to pass out Nicole.

Regardless Vaidisova's past achievements, Radwanska has brighter future IMO. Her progress is less rapid but more steady. Her father preferred to take it easier when she was 15, 16 and 17, and this way Agnieszka avoided injuries and mental pressure - the two fatal factors that destroy many young talents.

gaja kesari
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:17 PM
Jebi se Jebi Se!

Malva, this is the first time I see you post a rather rude message! :lol: :devil:

gaja kesari
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:20 PM
PS Regarding Agnieszka's future achievements, I have no doubt she'll get to number one. As for the number of slams, hmmmm, let me think... :cool:

oleada
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:21 PM
She's wonderful, and a breath of fresh air among all the brainless ballbashers nowadays. I don't really care, nor do I know how well she'll do in the future, I just enjoy watching her lovely game.

Apoleb
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:26 PM
The girl has undoubtedly a gorgeous game. Excellent shot selection, great touch and she's someone who won't collapse at the first mental hurdle. I also think her forehand is a very pretty stroke and as the match against Kuzzy has shown, it can be quite a weapon. She absorbs pace very well with it and uses the pace to direct the ball.

Her biggest flaw is that second serve. It NEEDS to go. It's just embarrassing for a pro. You can count to 5 from the moment she hits it till the ball bounces in the service box.

Malva
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:26 PM
Malva, this is the first time I see you post a rather rude message! :lol: :devil:

I agree. And not just `a rather rude message', but `a disgustingly vulgar message'. Like its addressee...

I allowed myself a very limited licence in this case only.

Note that I left 'Jebi se' untranslated. Without your post, Gaja, the majority of forum members would have never learnt...

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Vinny Ice Spadea game looks exciting compared to Radwanksa

Corswandt
Jul 9th, 2008, 10:43 PM
Radwanska has limited potential. There is no doubting that she is one of the best retrievers on womens tennis right now, or that she is one of the steadiest players mentally on the tour. She does however, lack the ability to hit outright winners from the baseline. Her serve is a liability against practically every top player. Her supposed variety is rendered useless against top players. The Wimbledon QF against Serena was the perfect example of her limitations. The match at no point was in her hands, and that's the way it is almost every time she plays someone of that callibre.

Not much to add. Maybe only remarking that IMO she isn't "one of the best" retrievers in the game, but the best. And that some of her touch shots defy description.

But yes, she is quite underpowered in a Tour where baseline firepower is becoming a pre-requisite for success at virtually every level. 2nd serve is Pin-esque.

The beatings Radwanska has taken from the elite when they're on their game (AO QF vs Danka, IW QF vs Kuznetsova, Berlin and Wimbledon QF vs Serena) are self-explanatory.

In terms of career I'd say she'll probably end up being like a saner version of Patty Schnyder, whom she already resembles in her relentless hogging (of the players currently in the top 10, she's the one with more tournaments played over the past 12 months, more events entered so far this season, and more matches played in 2008) - only with less game. May achieve more or less the same in the end though.

gumoll
Jul 9th, 2008, 11:10 PM
Do Polaków bo po english nie wchodzi w gre bo juz zostałem zbanowany przez Holandra. Czy wszyscy Holandrzy sa tacy pojebani na tym forum? Elwin, ta lezba z 30 postami na dzien fanka Krajicek dzieki ktorej zostałem zbanowany, CooCoo..... i ten admin. No same pomaranczowe posrance.

so true! :o

OsloErik
Jul 9th, 2008, 11:30 PM
She will never beat a top player who's game A is on.

You know, there's an interesting discussion to be had here.

One of the biggest fallacies I can think of in women's tennis is that players are entirely in control of how well they play. Early on, one of my big turn-offs to the Williams sisters was their inability to acknowledge that another player fed them different pace and spin, and that their unforced errors weren't entirely unforced. In time, I've recognized that fewer and fewer players do this (and, coincidentally, I like the Williams sisters much more now ;) ), but it still does happen.

Radwanska's groundstrokes remind me of Chris Evert. Not that she hits them the same way, because she doesn't, but in what she does with them. Billie Jean King once stated that the toughest thing about playing Chris Evert isn't something you can see from the stands. What Evert did was change the pace, spin, angle of the ball very, very gradually. In Norwegian, I called it "articulated baseline" (I translated, obviously), and it's an attribute I look for in young players. It can't be taught after a certain point.

When Radwanska is playing someone with a quality, top-5 game, and HER game is really on, she doesn't hit a ton of winners. She absolutely wrecks her opponents quality. It's not the same thing as winning ugly, a la Brad Gilbert, because HER game doesn't look ugly while executing the game plan. And it's not the same as forcing an opponent down to your level, because again, you aren't playing the same style. It's not even the quite same as throwing off rhythm. It's just a radically different approach to the game. And Radwanska does it better than a majority of players. Chakvetadze does a similar thing, to an extent, but she also unleashes some firepower with those flat groundies of hers. Szavay does a similar thing, but also relies a little on the 1-2 punch, serve-backhand combo. Cornet might be another practitioner, but I haven't seen her play enough to really know. Wozniacki's another one who could be an articulated baseliner, but I haven't seen her play enough either.

Basically, what I'm arguing is that Radwanska doesn't have to rely on her opponent having an off day. She can force her opponent to have an off day. And we've see her do it, too. She is capable of changing tactics, and her matches against Kuznetsova have been clear examples of it. She takes apart Kuznetsova's consistency from the baseline, which is her foundation for everything. Against Sharapova, she didn't feed her the same stuff each point, and we saw the wheels fall off of Sharapova's game. There are two ways to beat Sharapova. Blitz her, or wreck her. Only a few players can (consistently) blitz her (Williams, Williams, Ivanovic), and a few do a combination (Kuznetsova, Safina, Henin, etc.), but we haven't seen anyone consistently win big matches by wrecking their opponents in 15 years or so.

Radwanska might be the one to fill that vacancy. At any rate, she has a fan in me, and I hope I see her win some huge titles in the next two years to prove her critics wrong.

blumaroo
Jul 9th, 2008, 11:55 PM
A Myskina type of career (or should have been if she was still playing)
Some big titles here and there and some Tier II's. Consistent slam results and perhaps a fluke slam.

Malva
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:11 AM
You know, there's an interesting discussion to be had here.

One of the biggest fallacies I can think of in women's tennis is that players are entirely in control of how well they play. Early on, one of my big turn-offs to the Williams sisters was their inability to acknowledge that another player fed them different pace and spin, and that their unforced errors weren't entirely unforced. In time, I've recognized that fewer and fewer players do this (and, coincidentally, I like the Williams sisters much more now ;) ), but it still does happen.

Radwanska's groundstrokes remind me of Chris Evert. Not that she hits them the same way, because she doesn't, but in what she does with them. Billie Jean King once stated that the toughest thing about playing Chris Evert isn't something you can see from the stands. What Evert did was change the pace, spin, angle of the ball very, very gradually. In Norwegian, I called it "articulated baseline" (I translated, obviously), and it's an attribute I look for in young players. It can't be taught after a certain point.

When Radwanska is playing someone with a quality, top-5 game, and HER game is really on, she doesn't hit a ton of winners. She absolutely wrecks her opponents quality. It's not the same thing as winning ugly, a la Brad Gilbert, because HER game doesn't look ugly while executing the game plan. And it's not the same as forcing an opponent down to your level, because again, you aren't playing the same style. It's not even the quite same as throwing off rhythm. It's just a radically different approach to the game. And Radwanska does it better than a majority of players. Chakvetadze does a similar thing, to an extent, but she also unleashes some firepower with those flat groundies of hers. Szavay does a similar thing, but also relies a little on the 1-2 punch, serve-backhand combo. Cornet might be another practitioner, but I haven't seen her play enough to really know. Wozniacki's another one who could be an articulated baseliner, but I haven't seen her play enough either.

Basically, what I'm arguing is that Radwanska doesn't have to rely on her opponent having an off day. She can force her opponent to have an off day. And we've see her do it, too. She is capable of changing tactics, and her matches against Kuznetsova have been clear examples of it. She takes apart Kuznetsova's consistency from the baseline, which is her foundation for everything. Against Sharapova, she didn't feed her the same stuff each point, and we saw the wheels fall off of Sharapova's game. There are two ways to beat Sharapova. Blitz her, or wreck her. Only a few players can (consistently) blitz her (Williams, Williams, Ivanovic), and a few do a combination (Kuznetsova, Safina, Henin, etc.), but we haven't seen anyone consistently win big matches by wrecking their opponents in 15 years or so.

Radwanska might be the one to fill that vacancy. At any rate, she has a fan in me, and I hope I see her win some huge titles in the next two years to prove her critics wrong.

Erik, I always approach your posts with interest. Here again, you are making some very lucid and refreshing remarks, not just in relation to Radwańska but to ladies' game in general.

Jakeev
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:42 AM
I have seen her play alot and wasn't overly impressed until the Eastbourne final when she beat Nadia Petrova. Granted Petrova is still getting her groove back, Radwanska played amazing tennis on the big points.

People like to compare her to Martina Hingis, but I actually think she has a more complete game than that. She is a great young player who I think is destined for bigger things.

BUT, while there is one thing in my mind that makes her different from most of the women her age, there is one major blight that makes her just the same.

Her attitude on court makes her interesting. That steely, determined look. The accurate consistency. You can just tell she wants it badly and she is gonna try to get it at all costs. I love that in a tennis player.

But her serve, ugh, awful. If there is an issue with the women's game I guess I would have to agree with is that the up coming women don't use the serve enough to win big and quick points. Aga has the ability I think to serve big and she definitely needs to improve that second serve.

Until then, she is not unique in that aspect.

Wimbledon proved she can still get overwhelmed on court by players like Serena. So she will definitely need to beef up her physique.

Other than that, Aga is definitely the one to watch out for.

PLP
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:42 AM
She is a future top 5 and maybe top 3, I don't think she will be #1 though.
She will most likely win a few slams I think, 1-3 maybe?

Malva
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:03 AM
Agnieszka's ranking during the last 52 weeks

http://www.coretennis.net//rgraph/p5002.png

rose575
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:54 AM
I love this girl. She has the ability to get inside the other players mind and create havoc, as she prooved in the 2007 US Open against Sharapova.

Mentally she is ine of the toughest on the tour and I love her attitude on the court.

She is a breath of fresh air amongst the many ball bashers already present on tour. Just needs a little more time on certain areas like her serve but then she is the complete package.

Here is to her having a good hard court season and beating some more Top 5 players and causing some more upsets.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:05 AM
she has the capacity to beat top players...she just needs follow up a good top win with another one and she wil be a slam winner...that will need experience...

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 10th, 2008, 11:41 AM
A Myskina type of career (or should have been if she was still playing)
Some big titles here and there and some Tier II's. Consistent slam results and perhaps a fluke slam.

I don't get it. If a player wins big titles here and there, wins several Tier II events and makes it deep into slams draws consistently how could her possible Slam title be a fluke?

And by the way, Myskina was anything but consisent player.

Lucas
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:02 PM
She's a very nice player, and somewhat different from the rest. Love her inclination to dropshots :).

But harsh reality is, she has to put some more muscles on, hoping that this won't affect her witty playing style.

She reminds me of Daja Bedanova; Agnieszka already achieved more than her, hope she has better luck than the poor czech.

OsloErik
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:09 PM
I don't get it. If a player wins big titles here and there, wins several Tier II events and makes it deep into slams draws consistently how could her possible Slam title be a fluke?

And by the way, Myskina was anything but consisent player.

I think the fact that she wasn't particularly young (22 or 23, right?), wasn't particularly noted on clay (she had won 2 matches at RG before hand?) and never made it past the QF before or after makes her RG win look a little odd. Don't get me wrong, I totally think she's a worth slam champion, and I was pulling for her big-time in 2003 and 2004, but there's no denying that her Roland Garros win is one of the most surprising slam wins in tennis.

iPatty
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:11 PM
First of all, I want to commend Malva, ChrisCHorse, and OsloErik for their posts in this thread. I feel you guys are some of the best fans/posters on this board, your posts are refreshing and provide reasonable arguments.

I think it is true that a top notch player playing close to their best tennis will beat Agnieszka everytime...for now. We have seen this year, players like Hantuchova and Schnyder, who are not the very top players in the WTA, dismantle Radwanska by playing great tennis. I am one of the few people on this board who saw her play Schnyder, and it was obvious how far Agnieszka has to go. Patty had all the time in the world to set up for those sweeping forehands that have enamored me over the years and she just pulled Agnieszka left, right, forward, and back in an endless cycle. It was a joy to watch as a Schnyder fan.

Sorry to get off topic, the point I wanted to make is simple. It is obvious that Agnieszka has improved so much every day since she started her career. I think it would be foolish of us to think she is going to stop improving. She will get to the point where a top player is not going to be able to beat Agnieszka just by playing close to their best, they are going to have to play out of their mind to beat her easily. Of course Agnieszka is going to have bad days too, but with her game I don't see that happening too often. Her serve will improve, her groundstrokes will get more pop on them, but I think she will reserve that cool, calm consistency that she has shown us.

I used to think her game was boring until I sat down and really watched one of her matches and noticed the look on her face. That says it all to me. She is thinking after every point, focusing not on what happened in the past, but what is going to happen in the next point. She has a gameplan for what she wants to do on the court and I find that so rare in today's game.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:30 PM
First of all, I want to commend Malva, ChrisCHorse, and OsloErik for their posts in this thread. I feel you guys are some of the best fans/posters on this board, your posts are refreshing and provide reasonable arguments.

I think it is true that a top notch player playing close to their best tennis will beat Agnieszka everytime...for now. We have seen this year, players like Hantuchova and Schnyder, who are not the very top players in the WTA, dismantle Radwanska by playing great tennis. I am one of the few people on this board who saw her play Schnyder, and it was obvious how far Agnieszka has to go. Patty had all the time in the world to set up for those sweeping forehands that have enamored me over the years and she just pulled Agnieszka left, right, forward, and back in an endless cycle. It was a joy to watch as a Schnyder fan.

Sorry to get off topic, the point I wanted to make is simple. It is obvious that Agnieszka has improved so much every day since she started her career. I think it would be foolish of us to think she is going to stop improving. She will get to the point where a top player is not going to be able to beat Agnieszka just by playing close to their best, they are going to have to play out of their mind to beat her easily. Of course Agnieszka is going to have bad days too, but with her game I don't see that happening too often. Her serve will improve, her groundstrokes will get more pop on them, but I think she will reserve that cool, calm consistency that she has shown us.

I used to think her game was boring until I sat down and really watched one of her matches and noticed the look on her face. That says it all to me. She is thinking after every point, focusing not on what happened in the past, but what is going to happen in the next point. She has a gameplan for what she wants to do on the court and I find that so rare in today's game.

Thanks. And yup, that is why her fans are excited about her. Aga isn't yet the finished article, but what she has got are things very few other players have. The ability to focus clearly on each point, to mix up ones spins and pace so regularly and to absorb power like she can is very rare. She has a great tactical feel for the game that can't be learnt. Neither can her great feel for hitting perfect lobs and dropshots time and time again. Abilities like that are there or they are not. Things like building up strength to hit with more pace and improving the 2nd serve on the other hand are very doable tasks that no doubt will occur. Aga still has more work to do but everything is moving along very nicely. :)

OsloErik
Jul 10th, 2008, 12:40 PM
Isn't Ana, Maria, Chak, Peer, and Tats young? :p

She's younger than all of those, and she's accomplished more than Peer or Golovin.

The age-group that Radwanska competed in as a junior consisted of herself, Szavay, Vaidisova, Azarenka, and Krajicek (and a couple others, but those ones are the standouts). Of those, only Vaidisova has a case to be made for being the better player, and she's regressing. Radwanska has progressed steadily, whereas Vaidisova stalled and regressed, Szavay improves in fits and starts, Azarenka progresses slowly, and Krajicek is crazy.

Whether she wins a slam or not, up in the air. But she's steady enough and good enough to carve out a top 10 spot for another 8-10 years. No doubt about it.

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2008, 01:21 PM
:rolls: Says the Overratedolovin fan. Are you bitter Tatiana still hasn't graced the top 10 while more and more younger players are? Aww, whatever helps you sleep at night.

:haha: You're still calling her by that ridiculous name? :lol: You're just embarassing yourself. :help:

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Jebi se Jebi Se!
:unsure: If you can't take any criticism of Radwanska's game then you need to get out more. :kiss::wavey:

Elwin.
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Great post from like always

Yeah i know :worship:
that's my opinion, deal with it!

Vincey!
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Low top ten...only because she's playing alot of tournment :shrug:....

LUXXXAS
Jul 10th, 2008, 05:46 PM
top 3 player with a few slams
but she needs to add more power to her shots and improve her service!!!

Adrian.
Jul 10th, 2008, 07:29 PM
Do Polaków bo po english nie wchodzi w gre bo juz zostałem zbanowany przez Holandra. Czy wszyscy Holandrzy sa tacy pojebani na tym forum? Elwin, ta lezba z 30 postami na dzien fanka Krajicek dzieki ktorej zostałem zbanowany, CooCoo..... i ten admin. No same pomaranczowe posrance.

:haha::haha:
What happened?;)

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 10th, 2008, 08:38 PM
I think the fact that she wasn't particularly young (22 or 23, right?), wasn't particularly noted on clay (she had won 2 matches at RG before hand?) and never made it past the QF before or after makes her RG win look a little odd. Don't get me wrong, I totally think she's a worth slam champion, and I was pulling for her big-time in 2003 and 2004, but there's no denying that her Roland Garros win is one of the most surprising slam wins in tennis.

I was talking not about Myskina but about Radwanska who, according to the poster, would win a bunch of Tier I titles, make a bunch of slam semis and quarters -- yet her possible slam win would be a fluke.

LindsayRulz
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:11 PM
She's climbing the ranking just like Chakvetadze did last year by playing a smart shedule. However, I don't think she's a threat in slams right now.

AndreConrad
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:14 PM
Not much to add. Maybe only remarking that IMO she isn't "one of the best" retrievers in the game, but the best. And that some of her touch shots defy description.

But yes, she is quite underpowered in a Tour where baseline firepower is becoming a pre-requisite for success at virtually every level. 2nd serve is Pin-esque.

The beatings Radwanska has taken from the elite when they're on their game (AO QF vs Danka, IW QF vs Kuznetsova, Berlin and Wimbledon QF vs Serena) are self-explanatory.

In terms of career I'd say she'll probably end up being like a saner version of Patty Schnyder, whom she already resembles in her relentless hogging (of the players currently in the top 10, she's the one with more tournaments played over the past 12 months, more events entered so far this season, and more matches played in 2008) - only with less game. May achieve more or less the same in the end though.

You are definitely a good writer, and the highlighted passage is very nice. Despite your not very optimistic finish I hope that you don't assume that Agnieszka is incapable of addressing her shortcomings. :wavey:

Malva
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:50 PM
She's climbing the ranking just like Chakvetadze did last year by playing a smart shedule. However, I don't think she's a threat in slams right now.

Bullshit: two Quarterfinals and two 4th Rounds in the grand slams over the last 12 months with all the players she beat in order to get there is not 'playing a smart schedule', her win over Top 5 player, Dementieva, in the Istanbul Final was not 'playing a smart schedule' either.

And by the way, this thread is not about whether Radwańska is going to win a grand slam right now.

@Sweet Cleopatra
Jul 10th, 2008, 09:58 PM
she is perfect i lately found myself cheering for her , she just needs the good finishing and she will win , God bless her ..

Malva
Jul 10th, 2008, 10:26 PM
she is perfect i lately found myself cheering for her , she just needs the good finishing and she will win , God bless her ..

And she is as sweet as you are, Sweet Cleo.

http://www.tennisforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24216&d=1087584662

blumaroo
Jul 10th, 2008, 10:46 PM
I was talking not about Myskina but about Radwanska who, according to the poster, would win a bunch of Tier I titles, make a bunch of slam semis and quarters -- yet her possible slam win would be a fluke.


Chakvetadze and Hantuchova win some big titles here and there and have had pretty consistent slam results. But they aren't slam threats. Thats what I meant. At the time Myskina wasn't a slam threat either but when the stars aligned she won one. The same could happen for Radwanska.

spriwi
Jul 10th, 2008, 10:59 PM
She's climbing the ranking just like Chakvetadze did last year by playing a smart shedule. However, I don't think she's a threat in slams right now.

:spit: irrelevant for me. consistency morelike than "smart schedule". it's not that she wins the tourneys where noone worthy plays f.e. beating elena in istanbul & petrova (coming back after the huuuge slump) in eastbourne. in addition 3 top10 wins in last 4 slams!!! :wavey:

AndreConrad
Jul 10th, 2008, 11:05 PM
Chakvetadze and Hantuchova win some big titles here and there and have had pretty consistent slam results. But they aren't slam threats. Thats what I meant. At the time Myskina wasn't a slam threat either but when the stars aligned she won one. The same could happen for Radwanska.

I would partially agree with you if Agnieszka was not showing consistent improvement. She is not only consistent in her game but consistent in her improvement. In fact she is determined to improve. This is why I believe she will go much further than some people here think. Having said that she is due for a slump sometime soon (I hope after USO). Slumping is often a side effect of improvement; it is like ones newly acquired capabilities have settle. I keep my fingers crossed for her :)

OsloErik
Jul 10th, 2008, 11:26 PM
I was talking not about Myskina but about Radwanska who, according to the poster, would win a bunch of Tier I titles, make a bunch of slam semis and quarters -- yet her possible slam win would be a fluke.

OH! my bad, I get it now.

Cp6uja
Jul 11th, 2008, 12:17 AM
#1 race and number of GS titles depending on many different factors. For example Lindsay Davenport reach 3 GS titles, and Venus Williams reach 7 GS titles (so far). On other hand Lindsay is #1 about 100 weeks and Venus just about 10 weeks. Explanation is actualy not so complicate: Lindsay is 1976 born and if we look all WTA players from 1974-1978 (1976 +/- 2) which is able to reach #1 we will see just Jennifer Capriati. On other hand if we look 1978-1982 girls (Venus is 1980) we will see except Venus also Hingis, Henin, Serena and Mauresmo. This is generalization of course, because all career is individual, but shows different situation for this two players. Also, which is very important, b/c injuries and other reasons Venus already at 23 "finished" with full season shedules and just become fastest surface specialist, so whatever is good her results between Wimbledon and USO, three months is for sure not enough to contending for #1. On other hand Davenport successfuly managed to play almost 10 seasons in the row with "full shedule" on similar level.

So when we talking about Aga case and looks at 1987-1991 opponents (she is 1989) we already see two long-term future big problems - Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic (which both already reach #1). Venus 4 years in the row finished like TOP3 but still have just about 10 weeks at #1, so its not problem imagine Aga ahead Maria or Ana at some point - but ahead both in same time it will be much harder problem. About her ability to win slam crucial question is how long she will still improve. She improve very much in 2006, in 2007 and in 2008 which is very good sign and also we already know that she have ability to use all opportunity against any opponent and not have mental problem to win big match. Best stats by far which i find about her ability to win some slam somewhere in future is for sure her h2h against former slam winners (about 30%, which is fantastic for such young player) and for ranking position will be very helpful fact that she is almost same good at all surfaces.

starin
Jul 11th, 2008, 12:42 AM
I could see her winning a couple slams.

NeeemZ
Jul 11th, 2008, 03:59 AM
She's climbing the ranking just like Chakvetadze did last year by playing a smart shedule. However, I don't think she's a threat in slams right now.

In only one tournament was Aga the top seed when she won the tournament, Anna was the top seed in 4 of the last 5 tournaments she won

Also, she's not a threat? She defeated Masha at US Open and Sveta at Aus Open, who were both the No.2 seed, in a row. I don't see how that is not being a threat at all. She was singlehandedly the most dangerous 25-32 seeded player that a top seed could have faced in my opinion, when she was seeded low.

Brengle_Nation
Jul 11th, 2008, 08:23 AM
I can't fault her on her attitude or professionalism. I don't know if it was tactical or not but at Eastbourne she seemed to be not hitting the ball as hard as she can.

I wish her well though - she should get into the top ten.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 11th, 2008, 09:04 AM
Chakvetadze and Hantuchova win some big titles here and there and have had pretty consistent slam results. But they aren't slam threats. Thats what I meant. At the time Myskina wasn't a slam threat either but when the stars aligned she won one. The same could happen for Radwanska.

Chakvetadze and Hantuchova each won only three Tier II+ titles and reached one GS semis without facing a Top-15 player.
If Radwanska wins multiple Tier I AND Tier II titles, reaches multiple Slam SFs AND QFs -- like you said she would -- I don't see how her Slam title will be a fluke.

OsloErik
Jul 11th, 2008, 09:29 AM
Chakvetadze and Hantuchova win some big titles here and there and have had pretty consistent slam results. But they aren't slam threats. Thats what I meant. At the time Myskina wasn't a slam threat either but when the stars aligned she won one. The same could happen for Radwanska.

Well, Chakvetadze and Hantuchova were at one point in their careers consistent 2nd weekers. Hantuchova made 3 straight quarterfinals. Problem is, that's 75% of her slam QF and ups. She's not consistently getting DEEP in slams, she's consistently getting to the MIDDLE of slams. Chakvetadze as well; three slams QFs or better, but that's it. Both are still young, but neither AS young as Radwanska, and neither really improving. In the past season, Radwanska's already coming close to the single-season results of both. And she's not yet 20.

That's the main thing; with a lot of players (Chakvetadze and Jankovic being right on the border) in their early-mid 20's, their career isn't going to improve dramatically enough to carry them to a slam win. I've run the numbers SO many times, and the only multiple slam winner who didn't make a slam semifinal before their 20th birthday in the open era is Davenport, and the only recent single-slam winners who didn't are Novotna, Myskina, and Martinez (I think...), which gives the improvement rate pretty distinctly cut-off at the 19-22 range. And Radwanska is still improving along the bottom edge of that age cut-off, whereas Chakvetadze and Hantuchova aren't improving (although Chakky was up until the US Open semifinal...) anymore.

StephenUK
Jul 11th, 2008, 09:49 AM
With the current state of the top 5 being quite shaky, I can see Agnieszka even making the top 3 if she carries on being consistent and taking advantage of the struggling top players. I don't think she has enough fire power to win a slam as I think there will always be someone better left to win the final.

Broken Racquet
Jul 11th, 2008, 02:56 PM
I can't fault her on her attitude or professionalism. I don't know if it was tactical or not but at Eastbourne she seemed to be not hitting the ball as hard as she can.

I wish her well though - she should get into the top ten.

She is in the top ten :lol:
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/singles_numeric.asp

sammy01
Jul 11th, 2008, 03:25 PM
i think she will get to about #6 will make a couple of slam semis , pick off a few big tournaments ect. i hope she does well because she is in the mold of chaky (not an outright ballbasher, though chaky is trying her best to be) and chaky seems to have her number at clever tennis.
shes probably my 4th or 5th favourite right now!

M&M
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:18 PM
aga will surprise everyone!!!

debopero
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:24 PM
I think that it is folly to doubt a player's abiltiy to win Grand Slams and play ont he big stages. I mean, how many people thought the Williams Sisters would not make it out of Compton? How many thought that Davenport would not? Steffi Graf even had people (Tracy Austin) who did not think that she would be succesful. So, in the end of the day one just has to wait and see how she progresses before claiming that she is nothing more than a boring second-rate player.

Malva
Jul 11th, 2008, 07:35 PM
So, in the end of the day one just has to wait and see how she progresses before claiming that she is nothing more than a boring second-rate player.

For the record, very few are claiming that.

And those few who are, do so precisely because she plays better than what they are ready to admit. And this makes them sick and bitter...

Juju4ever
Jul 12th, 2008, 11:52 AM
I think she can do it(being a contender in Slams) if she'll improve a couple of things in her game.

IMO she has one of the best baseline games in the tour. She moves extremly well, she can hit Backhand's all over the place, and her forehand down-the-line is fantastic. Not to mention her lob and drop-shot abilities. The only thing that is lacking a bit is her cross-court forehand. She should put up some work on that.

Other than that, she has an average 1st serve, and a crappy 2nd. Of course she can't match the Williams's power, but she can use variety to gain free points and get the short balls. If she'll improve her slice serve outwide, and the slice body serve, she can become a tough player to break.

But the most important thing IMO, which will determine whether she can or can't be a contender in slams, is her transition game. IMO, her volleys are incredible. She's gifted with an amazing touch and ability at the net. The thing is, she's usually not doing enough on the approach shot, which causes her to get passed by her opponent.

If she'll improve the variety of her serve and the transition game, I expect her to win a slam or two and reach top 3 in the future.

Malva
Jul 12th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Good points, Juju4ever.


IMO she has one of the best baseline games in the tour. She moves extremly well, she can hit Backhand's all over the place, and her forehand down-the-line is fantastic. Not to mention her lob and drop-shot abilities. The only thing that is lacking a bit is her cross-court forehand. She should put up some work on that.


You may be amused to learn that in 2007, in Miami, she beat #5 seed Martina Hingis while serving 4 aces, and playing on matchpoint an out-of-this-world passing cross-court forehand winner from an extremely difficult position.

I never saw her more emotional than after that shot. By the way, she was still 17. As expected, the arrogant Swiss gave absolutely zero credit to her opponent for her win. [The whole match has been uploaded by one of French posters.]

Juju4ever
Jul 12th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Good points, Juju4ever.



You may be amused to learn that in 2007, in Miami, she beat #6 seed Martina Hingis while serving 4 aces, and playing on matchpoint an out-of-this-world passing cross-court forehand winner from an extremely difficult position.

I never saw her more emotional than after that shot. By the way, she was still 17. As expected, the arrogant Swiss gave absolutely zero credit to her opponent for her win. [The whole match has been uploaded by one of French posters.]

Thanks, I didn't know that(never saw the match).

Malva
Jul 12th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Thanks, I didn't know that(never saw the match).

It's a good match with a lot of unforced errors on both sides and a lot of splendid winners on both sides. Worth downloading.

Martina was showing in that match all her fabulous qualities, by the way. I am pretty sure she was surprised she lost.

Vefci Y
Jul 12th, 2008, 12:26 PM
I hope she can improve her serve!

Juju4ever
Jul 12th, 2008, 12:29 PM
It's a good match with a lot of unforced errors on both sides and a lot of splendid winners on both sides. Worth downloading.

Martina was showing in that match all her fabulous qualities, by the way. I am pretty sure she was surprised she lost.


I would love to download the match. Where can I find it exactly?

Malva
Jul 12th, 2008, 01:44 PM
I would love to download the match. Where can I find it exactly?

It took me some ingenuity to find it. Here it is

Radwanska / Hingis Miami 2007
from 4/2 in the first set to the end(thx eurosport :fiery: )
(language fr)

part 1 > http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=TTQI42EN
part 2 > http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=05JMJI8C
part 3 > http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=R0FC3WAH
part 4 > http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=OI98IPZ0
part 5 > http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=VGO8NR2A
part 6 > http://www.megaupload.com/fr/?d=GRYTOUN3

High quality video/audio. The files are big. They are independent of each other.

Viktymise
Jul 12th, 2008, 02:18 PM
I think that it is folly to doubt a player's abiltiy to win Grand Slams and play ont he big stages. I mean, how many people thought the Williams Sisters would not make it out of Compton? How many thought that Davenport would not? Steffi Graf even had people (Tracy Austin) who did not think that she would be succesful. So, in the end of the day one just has to wait and see how she progresses before claiming that she is nothing more than a boring second-rate player.

Pointless argument considering Radwanska plays nothing like the players you mentioned.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2008, 03:45 PM
She'll get a slam if she goes through her career without major injury.

Juju4ever
Jul 12th, 2008, 04:32 PM
It took me some ingenuity to find it. Here it is



High quality video/audio. The files are big. They are independent of each other.

Thanks, Malva. I appreciate that! :worship:

baleineau
Jul 12th, 2008, 04:45 PM
she has a good tennis brain and temperament. as she matures, she'll stronger physically and develop a stronger serve. i think she has a future and will make the top-5 and win a slam or two. there's still about 6-10 years of playing for her.

Serenita
Jul 12th, 2008, 05:29 PM
She has great game and is still young she has room to improve. Also her serve is pretty good, it's not hard but she can put some good placement on it.

she needs a weapon tho.

Matt01
Jul 12th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Good points, Juju4ever.



You may be amused to learn that in 2007, in Miami, she beat #6 seed Martina Hingis while serving 4 aces, and playing on matchpoint an out-of-this-world passing cross-court forehand winner from an extremely difficult position.

I never saw her more emotional than after that shot. By the way, she was still 17. As expected, the arrogant Swiss gave absolutely zero credit to her opponent for her win. [The whole match has been uploaded by one of French posters.]


I remember that match. Hingis lead 40:0 in almost every game and then chocked her leads away :help: Horrible performance by the Swiss Miss.

Malva
Jul 12th, 2008, 09:36 PM
I remember that match. Hingis lead 40:0 in almost every game and then chocked her leads away :help: Horrible performance by the Swiss Miss.

One word: bullshit.

Morrissey
Jul 12th, 2008, 10:04 PM
Radwanska is clearly a more thoughtful player on the court then Nicole. Nicole is the one getting all the hype but NOT the results this year. Radwankska is slowly but surely rising up the rankings. She is definitely for real she actually THINKS on the court she will WIN SLAMS.

nelsondan
Jul 12th, 2008, 10:05 PM
It is a struggle to find an organized selection of pictures. When I found what was offered on this site---which I usually prefer---it is a mixture of the sisters, for pictures and videos, or a cheering thread---with a haphazrd offering.

Lunaris
Jul 12th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Reading through this thread she surely is a bandwagon player of the month. I am starting to like her too. :tape:

Ryan
Jul 12th, 2008, 10:16 PM
One word: bullshit.



Not true. Hingis played like CRAP in that match - Aga did play well, but Martina by this point was injured and clearly on her way out.

Malva
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:15 AM
Not true. Hingis played like CRAP in that match - Aga did play well, but Martina by this point was injured and clearly on her way out.

What is not true? I responded to a guy who claimed that Hingis was 40:0 in almost every game and then choking. And then he said that her performance was horrible. That is bullshit. There were plenty of unforced errors on both sides and plenty of beautiful winners on both sides. I watched the whole match just yesterday.

By the way, there was no trace of any injury anywhere in the match -- one toilet break, no injury time.

So please read first, then reply.

iPatty
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:25 AM
Reading through this thread she surely is a bandwagon player of the month. I am starting to like her too. :tape:

I feel the same way. I never thought I would like Radwanska but here I go...

hankqq
Jul 7th, 2012, 07:47 PM
Time to bump this :lol: It was fun reading through the various replies from 4 years ago. In that time, Radwanska stalled a bit in 2009 and 2010 before getting back on track in 2011. She has won Carlsbad, Tokyo (Pan Pacific), Beijing (all 2011), Dubai, Miami and Brussels (all this year) in addition to reaching her 1st slam final and of course will be #2 in the rankings on monday.

gaja kesari
Jul 7th, 2012, 08:42 PM
I remember this thread :D

Yes, it is funny to read through these old posts. After this thread was published she did not win a tournament until Carlsbad 2011 – injuries plus I don't think she was enjoying playing tennis for quite a while. Changes were needed and she made them, it's a different story now.

For the record, I have not changed my mind :devil: (but some posts surprised me today)

C. Drone
Jul 7th, 2012, 09:19 PM
lol @ all the VIP posters and half of them are banned. :crying2: :spit:

aguy9797
Jul 8th, 2012, 12:03 AM
there are some obvious improvement areas, if her father is smart and lets other specialists work with Aga on her serve and strenght, her future should be very bright

ha ha, I do not remember writing this, but apparently, I knew 4 years ago that Wiktorowski was coming :)

Nivellen
Jul 8th, 2012, 12:22 AM
ha ha, I do not remember writing this, but apparently, I knew 4 years ago that Wiktorowski was coming :)
:worship::worship:

Brad[le]y.
Jul 8th, 2012, 02:52 AM
The girl has undoubtedly a gorgeous game. Excellent shot selection, great touch and she's someone who won't collapse at the first mental hurdle. I also think her forehand is a very pretty stroke and as the match against Kuzzy has shown, it can be quite a weapon. She absorbs pace very well with it and uses the pace to direct the ball.

i miss you :tears: