PDA

View Full Version : Yanina has a big chance to break top 10 iafter Miami


rhz
Mar 27th, 2010, 01:55 PM
Wow, I never thought we see another Belgian entering the Top 10 after Kim & Justine retired. Now these 2 are back, We have a chance to see 3 Belgians at the end of the year.

croat123
Mar 27th, 2010, 01:57 PM
she played great in her second round, but, for me, she's annoying to watch. she celebrates her opponents errors at 6-1 3-0 as if she just won a slam :o

Ferg
Mar 27th, 2010, 02:02 PM
she played great in her second round, but, for me, she's annoying to watch. she celebrates her opponents errors at 6-1 3-0 as if she just won a slam :o

Yeah, I noticed that when I saw her first, shes like a female Murray in that regard.

Slutiana
Mar 27th, 2010, 02:24 PM
Would she be the first player to break the top 10 without a top10 win?

Uranus
Mar 27th, 2010, 02:25 PM
She needs a very good performance and a quick loss for Stosur in order to do so. She's more likely to be #11.

Would she be the first player to break the top 10 without a top10 win?
She has one. Radwanska in FC.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 27th, 2010, 03:07 PM
She has one. Radwanska in FC.

Fed Cup wins have nothing to do with WTA rankings.

Julian.
Mar 27th, 2010, 03:08 PM
But it counts towards H2H right?

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 27th, 2010, 03:18 PM
Anyway, she won't be the first Belgian to break into top-10 thanks to a bunch of MM titles and one weak ass slam draw. Henin did the same in 2001.

is1531
Mar 27th, 2010, 03:36 PM
Take the title in Miami, Yanina.

Slutiana
Mar 27th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Take the title in Miami, Yanina.
lol.



And yeah, the WTA doesn't aknowledge fed cup on a player's activity. :shrug:

fufuqifuqishahah
Mar 27th, 2010, 03:59 PM
Anyway, she won't be the first Belgian to break into top-10 thanks to a bunch of MM titles and one weak ass slam draw. Henin did the same in 2001.

maybe Yanina will win many GS too :crazy:

LoLex
Mar 27th, 2010, 04:09 PM
And yeah, the WTA doesn't aknowledge fed cup on a player's activity. :shrug:

Results from World Group I count for the player's activity and official H2H statistics.

Uranus
Mar 27th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Fed Cup wins have nothing to do with WTA rankings.
She defeated a top 10 player, period :shrug:.

roelc
Mar 27th, 2010, 04:43 PM
to begin she needs to reach semifinals here.
and she also depends on the results of stosur, clijsters, bartoli

she better does it sooner than later, because i expect henin and clijsters in top-10 very soon

Uranus
Mar 27th, 2010, 04:56 PM
Well, she should be able to do it. Let's hope so, at least. She only has Estoril to defend in the next few weeks, and has plenty of points to take at RG, Wimbledon and doesn't have much to defend this summer before the US Open either.

youizahoe
Mar 27th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Yanina please win dat shit, i would love to read the reactions afterwards :rolls:

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 27th, 2010, 05:20 PM
She defeated a top 10 player, period :shrug:.

She could be the first player to break into the top-10 without defeating a top-tenner at a tour event. :shrug:

Slutiana
Mar 27th, 2010, 05:24 PM
She could be the first player to break into the top-10 without defeating a top-tenner at a tour event. :shrug:
:happy:

youizahoe
Mar 27th, 2010, 05:30 PM
She could be the first player to break into the top-10 without defeating a top-tenner at a tour event. :shrug:

And? She can beat top 10 players whenever she wants, within or not in the top 10.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 27th, 2010, 05:38 PM
And?

What "and"? That would be a medical fact, that's it.

She can beat top 10 players whenever she wants, within or not in the top 10.

So now W:rolleyes:ckmayer defeats top-tenners at will? Ok then...

roelc
Mar 27th, 2010, 05:49 PM
What "and"? That would be a medical fact, that's it.



So now W:rolleyes:ckmayer defeats top-tenners at will? Ok then...

medical :confused:

fact is what it is, but another fact is that this year she is 1-0 against top-10 players

it's just that she didn't get a lot of opportunity to play against top-10 players (and she came really close to winning against zvonareva and kuznetsova last year)

SoClose
Mar 27th, 2010, 05:50 PM
Yes, this is why rankings doesn't matter anymore :tape: Far better players like Golovin weren't able to beark into the top ten before, now Stosur, Pennetta, Li were in the top 10, and the Pusher number 2 :help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::h elp::help::help::tape:

Temperenka
Mar 27th, 2010, 06:21 PM
She doesn't have a Top 10 win!? :lol: :haha: :help:

She's a good player... but I'd like to see her take a few more steps in her career BEFORE reaching the top 10. :shrug:

nfl46
Mar 27th, 2010, 06:22 PM
WHO?!?! is Yanina?

youizahoe
Mar 27th, 2010, 06:33 PM
So now W:rolleyes:ckmayer defeats top-tenners at will? Ok then...

You don't get it, nvm :lol:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 27th, 2010, 07:28 PM
Hopefully not

Slutati
Mar 27th, 2010, 07:32 PM
RIP WTA indeed. :eek:

Elwin.
Mar 27th, 2010, 07:53 PM
People laughing bout Yanina not having a top10 win :rolleyes:
Top 10 players she played.

Antwerp 08 #163
R2 lost vs. Hantuchova #6: 4-6/3-6

LA 09 #57
R3 lost vs. Zvonareva #7: 6-7(5)/6-4/4-6

Cincinatti 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Dementieva #4: 3-6/4-6

New Haven 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Kuznetsova #6: 4-6/7-5/6-7(2)

USO 09 #50
SF lost vs. Wozniacki #8: 3-6/3-6


Wickmayer only has played 5 top10'ers so far.( not including fedcup ) She took a couple of sets against them and never was slammed of the court.

Let's see how many encounters all the top10 players needed, to win their first match against a top10 player.
Serena: 1 match.
Wozniacki: 6 matches.
Safina: 10 matches.
Kuznetsova: 8 matches.
Venus: 4 matches.
Dementieva: 6 matches.
Azarenka: 7 matches.
Jankovic: 2 matches.
Radwanska: 3 matches.
Clijsters: 5 matches.
Henin: 11 matches.
Sharapova: 8 matches.

So at some people saying ''she still doesn't have top10 wins :haha: ''
Take a look at the list above :)
Nina only has played 5 top10'ers so far and it's not her fault that top10 players tend to lose, so they can't meet :hysteric:

Andrew Laeddis
Mar 27th, 2010, 07:59 PM
Yes, this is why rankings doesn't matter anymore :tape: Far better players like Golovin weren't able to beark into the top ten before, now Stosur, Pennetta, Li were in the top 10, and the Pusher number 2 :help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::h elp::help::help::tape:

:lol:

In The Zone
Mar 27th, 2010, 08:00 PM
People laughing bout Yanina not having a top10 win :rolleyes:
Top 10 players she played.

Antwerp 08 #163
R2 lost vs. Hantuchova #6: 4-6/3-6

LA 09 #57
R3 lost vs. Zvonareva #7: 6-7(5)/6-4/4-6

Cincinatti 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Dementieva #4: 3-6/4-6

New Haven 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Kuznetsova #6: 4-6/7-5/6-7(2)

USO 09 #50
SF lost vs. Wozniacki #8: 3-6/3-6


Wickmayer only has played 5 top10'ers so far.( not including fedcup ) She took a couple of sets against them and never was slammed of the court.

Let's see how many encounters all the top10 players needed, to win their first match against a top10 player.
Serena: 1 match.
Wozniacki: 6 matches.
Safina: 10 matches.
Kuznetsova: 8 matches.
Venus: 4 matches.
Dementieva: 6 matches.
Azarenka: 7 matches.
Jankovic: 2 matches.
Radwanska: 3 matches.
Clijsters: 5 matches.
Henin: 11 matches.
Sharapova: 8 matches.

So at some people saying ''she still doesn't have top10 wins :haha: ''
Take a look at the list above :)
Nina only has played 5 top10'ers so far and it's not her fault that top10 players tend to lose, so they can't meet :hysteric:

This is a great post. Thank you for posting. It really puts things into context.

Slutati
Mar 27th, 2010, 08:01 PM
:lol:
:rolleyes:
You know it's true!

Dor Y
Mar 27th, 2010, 08:05 PM
Hopefully she can gain some top 10 wins this week :yeah:

tea
Mar 27th, 2010, 08:06 PM
Do it, girl. No one deserves it more.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 27th, 2010, 10:36 PM
People laughing bout Yanina not having a top10 win :rolleyes:
Top 10 players she played.

Antwerp 08 #163
R2 lost vs. Hantuchova #6: 4-6/3-6

LA 09 #57
R3 lost vs. Zvonareva #7: 6-7(5)/6-4/4-6

Cincinatti 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Dementieva #4: 3-6/4-6

New Haven 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Kuznetsova #6: 4-6/7-5/6-7(2)

USO 09 #50
SF lost vs. Wozniacki #8: 3-6/3-6


Wickmayer only has played 5 top10'ers so far.( not including fedcup ) She took a couple of sets against them and never was slammed of the court.

Let's see how many encounters all the top10 players needed, to win their first match against a top10 player.
Serena: 1 match.
Wozniacki: 6 matches.
Safina: 10 matches.
Kuznetsova: 8 matches.
Venus: 4 matches.
Dementieva: 6 matches.
Azarenka: 7 matches.
Jankovic: 2 matches.
Radwanska: 3 matches.
Clijsters: 5 matches.
Henin: 11 matches.
Sharapova: 8 matches.

So at some people saying ''she still doesn't have top10 wins :haha: ''
Take a look at the list above :)
Nina only has played 5 top10'ers so far and it's not her fault that top10 players tend to lose, so they can't meet :hysteric:

On the contrary, it's not top-players' fault Wickmayer struggled to win a match at non-MM events before her fluke run at the USO.
And since we're talking about breaking into top-10, it's not about how many matches they had to play to finally score the first top-10 win. It's about how many top-10 wins they needed to break into top-10.

37 players debuted in the top-10 since 1997.
Serena and Kournikova had 9 top-10 wins, Clijsters, Chakvetadze and Pennetta had 7 top-10 wins, Tauziat, Van Roost, Mauresmo, Schett, Jankovic, Na Li had 6 top-10 wins, Habsudova, Coetzer, Schnyder, Halard, Testud, Dementieva, Hantuchova, Myskina, Molik, Safina, Ivanovic, Radwanska, Stosur had 5 top-10 wins, Venus, Sugiyama, Petrova, Azarenka, Wozniacki had 4 top-10 wins, Dokic, Suarez, Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Bartoli had 3 top-10 wins, Zvonareva, Vaidisova had 2 top-10 wins over the preceding 52 weeks alone. Heck, even the biggest opportunists (#11 Cornet, for example) had some quality wins in their bags when they were knocking the door.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe Wickmayer is gonna score a couple of big wins sooner or later, maybe at Miami already. But right now she has nothing to show us in this regard, yet she's ranked as high as #14 (#11 in TBE rankings) in the world.

youizahoe
Mar 27th, 2010, 10:51 PM
People laughing bout Yanina not having a top10 win :rolleyes:
Top 10 players she played.

Antwerp 08 #163
R2 lost vs. Hantuchova #6: 4-6/3-6

LA 09 #57
R3 lost vs. Zvonareva #7: 6-7(5)/6-4/4-6

Cincinatti 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Dementieva #4: 3-6/4-6

New Haven 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Kuznetsova #6: 4-6/7-5/6-7(2)

USO 09 #50
SF lost vs. Wozniacki #8: 3-6/3-6


Wickmayer only has played 5 top10'ers so far.( not including fedcup ) She took a couple of sets against them and never was slammed of the court.

Let's see how many encounters all the top10 players needed, to win their first match against a top10 player.
Serena: 1 match.
Wozniacki: 6 matches.
Safina: 10 matches.
Kuznetsova: 8 matches.
Venus: 4 matches.
Dementieva: 6 matches.
Azarenka: 7 matches.
Jankovic: 2 matches.
Radwanska: 3 matches.
Clijsters: 5 matches.
Henin: 11 matches.
Sharapova: 8 matches.

So at some people saying ''she still doesn't have top10 wins :haha: ''
Take a look at the list above :)
Nina only has played 5 top10'ers so far and it's not her fault that top10 players tend to lose, so they can't meet :hysteric:

Justine needed 11? Serena just 1? :rolls:

terjw
Mar 27th, 2010, 10:52 PM
All this crap about needing top 10 wins to make the top 10 when she hasn't had the chances to meet them. If she gets results to go deep in tournaments - she deserves to go high in the rankings. Let me ask If Yanina made the semis here at Miami and Sam doesn't get far - just which ranked players would be more "deserving" of a place ahead of Yanina in the rankings.

Richie's
Mar 27th, 2010, 10:59 PM
I don;t think she is able to defend her US Open SF points...

SAISAI-GOAT
Mar 27th, 2010, 11:08 PM
how is Golovin a better player than Na :confused: :happy:

leebeasy
Mar 27th, 2010, 11:22 PM
I'm certainly not a Wickmayer hater but a player being in the top 10 who has only been 5 finals, all of them international-level tournaments seems a bit wrong. Like a poster pointed in another thread Alicia Molik had to win a tier 1 title, reach the QF of a grand slam and win a bronze medal before she could reach the top 10. Quite a difference from what Wickmayer has achieved so far. Still maybe Wickmayer will prove her haters wrong again like she nearly did at AO and have a decent run in the French and be considered a bit more "worthy" of her high ranking.

tennisforadults
Mar 27th, 2010, 11:51 PM
Yes, this is why rankings doesn't matter anymore :tape: Far better players like Golovin weren't able to beark into the top ten before, now Stosur, Pennetta, Li were in the top 10, and the Pusher number 2 :help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help::h elp::help::help::tape:

Your definition of 'better' is simply based on your own liking and judgement. How about some elaboration or evidence? :rolleyes:

Stosur and Li had wins against many top 10 players (including Serena and Venus) before breaking into top 10 (not sure about Pennetta). Rankings may not matter for you (which is perfectly fine with me) but they are important to all tennis players and countless other fans.

Loudman
Mar 28th, 2010, 12:56 AM
I know I'm dreaming but has a country ever had the first 3 spots of the WTA ranking or is that going to be a first?

shap_half
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:17 AM
Anyway, she won't be the first Belgian to break into top-10 thanks to a bunch of MM titles and one weak ass slam draw. Henin did the same in 2001.

Beating Capriati en route to the Wimbledon final isn't exactly "one weak ass slam draw." Plus a SF showing the previous slam. With wins over Rubin, Testud, Williams, Martinez and Clijsters -- all top 10 and 20 players throughout the season leading into her top 10 debut.

Joana
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:29 AM
Beating Capriati en route to the Wimbledon final isn't exactly "one weak ass slam draw." Plus a SF showing the previous slam. With wins over Rubin, Testud, Williams, Martinez and Clijsters -- all top 10 and 20 players throughout the season leading into her top 10 debut.

She got to top 10 after Roland Garros, where she didn't face any top 20 players on her way to the semis. At that time her only top 10 win was against Venus in Berlin, although she did push Davenport to the limit twice before.
Anyway, I don't see why it's relevant.

missvarsha
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:30 AM
I know I'm dreaming but has a country ever had the first 3 spots of the WTA ranking or is that going to be a first?

In the early 80s with Evert, Navratilova, Shriver, Jaeger, Austin and assorted others, I wouldn't be surprised if the USA held the Top 5 ranks together.
Of course Belgium is a much smaller country with a more recent tradition, so it might be more impressive, but so far Wickmayer, Enna and Lard-Ass are all out of the top 10 so they have a way to go.

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:30 AM
Anyway, she won't be the first Belgian to break into top-10 thanks to a bunch of MM titles and one weak ass slam draw. Henin did the same in 2001.

:spit:

Berlin is an MM title? And you think she reached the RG semi because of a "weak ass slam draw"? She was one of the favorites coming to RG, having had to retire while being up against Capriati in another clay warm up (I think it was Rome, but I'm unsure).

Joana
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:35 AM
:spit:

Berlin is an MM title? And you think she reached the RG semi because of a "weak ass slam draw"? She was one of the favorites coming to RG, having had to retire while being up against Capriati in another clay warm up (I think it was Rome, but I'm unsure).

You're mixing it up a bit. ;) Justine didn't win Berlin in 2001, she had to retire against Capriati in the semis. Her two titles were those AO warm-ups, Gold Coast and something else.

Looking back to it, Justine's road to top 10 does seem somewhat underwhelming, in that sense that she didn't have to beat a bunch of top players to achieve it. But like I said, I don't know why it should matter. Once she got there, she clearly showed she was there to stay.

roelc
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:38 AM
Beating Capriati en route to the Wimbledon final isn't exactly "one weak ass slam draw." Plus a SF showing the previous slam. With wins over Rubin, Testud, Williams, Martinez and Clijsters -- all top 10 and 20 players throughout the season leading into her top 10 debut.

i guess he's talking about justine's semifinal run at roland garros (where she didn't face a top-20 player), because that's when she entered top-10.

yanina didn't beat a top-10 player in a wta-tournament yet, but nowadays it's different than 5 years ago. i mean, we have tournaments where half of the top-10 loses in R2 (after R1 bye of course...).
also because of that semifinal run she got that high in the rankings that it is impossible to have an early round clash with a top-10 player (except in a tournament like sydney)
and let's not forget she won 3 times against pennetta, unfortunately not in the period she was top-10.

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:40 AM
You're mixing it up a bit. ;) Justine didn't win Berlin in 2001, she had to retire against Capriati in the semis. Her two titles were those AO warm-ups, Gold Coast and something else.

Looking back to it, Justine's road to top 10 does seem somewhat underwhelming, in that sense that she didn't have to beat a bunch of top players to achieve it. But like I said, I don't know why it should matter. Once she got there, she clearly showed she was there to stay.

Yeah. :o I just looked it up. Clearly I need to work better on my Justine stanning. :tape:

I just wouldn't put her RG semi to a "weak ass draw", even though she did end up with a weak draw. I think by 2001 she was already an established (big) threat on clay with a breakthrough perf in Berlin, cruised her way to the SF and really shouldn't have choked away the Clijsters semi.

Dave.
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:44 AM
Fed Cup wins have nothing to do with WTA rankings.

Neither do top-10 wins.

Fact is, she has beaten a top 10 player in tour-level competition. Anyway, for all the talk about how crap the top 10 is these days, I don't see why it's important.

Slutiana
Mar 28th, 2010, 01:59 AM
Neither do top-10 wins.

Fact is, she has beaten a top 10 player in tour-level competition. Anyway, for all the talk about how crap the top 10 is these days, I don't see why it's important.
Fed Cup can't be classed as a tour-level tournament, really... :scratch:


Anyway no one was saying that she doesn't deserve to make the top 10, I was just curious. :lol:

rhz
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:04 AM
This thread is about Yanina guys! stay focused!!

The Dawntreader
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:05 AM
I thought after the Australian Opem match against Henin, the natural progression was to the top 10.

Needs a string of top 10 wins to really validate such a position though.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:09 AM
Yeah. :o I just looked it up. Clearly I need to work better on my Justine stanning. :tape:

I just wouldn't put her RG semi to a "weak ass draw", even though she did end up with a weak draw. I think by 2001 she was already an established (big) threat on clay with a breakthrough perf in Berlin, cruised her way to the SF and really shouldn't have choked away the Clijsters semi.

People tend to forget how embarrassingly helpless (particularly on hardcourts and indoors) Justine used to be against top-players before winning her first non-MM title at 2002 Berlin. By then she had already made it to GS final, semifinal and quarterfinal and reached No.5 in the rankings, yet her top-10 record was 4-25.

Dave.
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:09 AM
Fed Cup can't be classed as a tour-level tournament, really... :scratch:


Anyway no one was saying that she doesn't deserve to make the top 10, I was just curious. :lol:


If the Olympics can be, then so can Fed Cup. Why wouldn't you count it?

(actually personally I think Hopman Cup could qualify too, even if it is a semi-exho).

moby
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:20 AM
People tend to forget how embarrassingly helpless (particularly on hardcourts and indoors) Justine used to be against top-players before winning her first non-MM title at 2002 Berlin. By then she had already made it to GS final, semifinal and quarterfinal and reached No.5 in the rankings, yet her top-10 record was 4-25.This is true. But she was also remarkably consistent at holding her rank/seed in the major tournaments. In her first 6 slams (before RG 01) she lost to: Davenport, Mauresmo, Hingis, Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport, Seles. All these before she turned 19 (Wickmayer is 20 and counting.) The top ten was incredibly strong at the turn of the century, and given Henin's somewhat more complex game and rather fragile frame back then, it's not surprising that it took her some time before she could overcome the hurdle.

Wickmayer is already built like an Amazon, and the shape of her game is pretty much the finished product. The comparison is superficial.

roelc
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:21 AM
If the Olympics can be, then so can Fed Cup. Why wouldn't you count it?

(actually personally I think Hopman Cup could qualify too, even if it is a semi-exho).

olympics have wta-points, fed cup not

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:25 AM
People tend to forget how embarrassingly helpless (particularly on hardcourts and indoors) Justine used to be against top-players before winning her first non-MM title at 2002 Berlin. By then she had already made it to GS final, semifinal and quarterfinal and reached No.5 in the rankings, yet her top-10 record was 4-25.

Yes, which is why her improvements on fast courts are all the more impressive. I think even Hantuchova overpowered her up till 02. But she was already one of the best clay court players by 2001.

And let's not forget she had to deal with early 00 Serena, Venus and Davenport week in week out, actually playing great in non-slams. WHich is why I find it funny when people say that there's more depth now on the tour. :tape:

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:29 AM
This is true. But she was also remarkably consistent at holding her rank/seed in the major tournaments. In her first 6 slams (before RG 01) she lost to: Davenport, Mauresmo, Hingis, Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport, Seles. All these before she turned 19 (Wickmayer is 20 and counting.) The top ten was incredibly strong at the turn of the century.

That's not quite true.
The top-3 (Martina, Lindsay, Venus) was strong but the other top-tenners were rather inconsistent.

Joana
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:30 AM
I wouldn't exactly say she was "embarrassingly helpless" against top players. She played them close most of the time, but yeah, she never found a way to beat them. I think it finally changed at Dubai '03 when she won the title beating Capriati and Seles in a row on hardcourt.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:39 AM
Yes, which is why her improvements on fast courts are all the more impressive. I think even Hantuchova overpowered her up till 02. But she was already one of the best clay court players by 2001.

Disagreed.
By 2001 she had only played one non-MM tournament on the surface and defeated only one top-50 player.

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:45 AM
Disagreed.
By 2001 she had only played one non-MM tournament on the surface and defeated only one top-50 player.

Well yes, if you will stick to match statistics to make your points, which hardly show the big picture.

Her Berlin performance, straight-setting Venus who I recall playing well, followed by a tight match with Capriati in which she had to withdraw in the start of the third set. And then cruising in the RG draw and literally choking away the match to Clijsters after a set and a break lead. She beat Capriati on grass in the next couple of weeks (the FO champion), so actually RG was very much within her reach by 2001.

moby
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:46 AM
That's not quite true.
The top-3 (Martina, Lindsay, Venus) was strong but the other top-tenners were rather inconsistent.I'd add Seles to that list? I was thinking relative to now. Most of the top 10 players back then were perennial top tenners, and they did try to show up for smaller events. Nowadays it is no longer surprising when top 10 players drop like flies against non-top 50 opposition in the same tournament. Were they really as upset prone as they are now? Did Pennettas, Lis, Stosurs get to have their day in the sun in consecutive months?

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:54 AM
Well yes, if you will stick to match statistics to make your points, which hardly show the big picture.

Her Berlin performance, straight-setting Venus who I recall playing well, followed by a tight match with Capriati in which she had to withdraw in the start of the third set. And then cruising in the RG draw and literally choking away the match to Clijsters after a set and a break lead. She beat Capriati on grass in the next couple of weeks (the FO champion), so actually RG was very much within her reach by 2001.

Sorry, you meant by the end of 2001?
Cos on the eve of RG-2001 nobody talked about Justine. That should have been a Mauresmo tournament actually.

youizahoe
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:58 AM
Fed Cup can't be classed as a tour-level tournament, really... :scratch:


Anyway no one was saying that she doesn't deserve to make the top 10, I was just curious. :lol:

Uhm yes it can. A tour level is simply a tournament with players from the tour (wta). Since all legends have played the fedcup, it pretty much shows the established value of it. Not to mention everyone tries their hardest in fedcup matches, more so than on regular wta events.

moby
Mar 28th, 2010, 02:58 AM
Sorry, you meant by the end of 2001?
Cos on the eve of RG-2001 nobody talked about Justine. That should have been a Mauresmo tournament actually.She was a darkhorse for the tournament. I think she was expected to hold her seed and reach the fourth round at the least, where she would play Venus who she had routed a few weeks prior. (Reaction of my Venus-stan friend when the draw came out: Oh NOooooo!) When Venus and Amelie dropped in R1, a lot of people saw her a favourite to reach the semi and beyond.

Territory
Mar 28th, 2010, 03:00 AM
I think all this bitching and debate about how good or crappy the top 10 is and how much/little Li, Stosur, Pennetta and now Wickmayer deserve is all because of the funny situation the ranking are in at the moment.

There is only 500 points separating #10 from #17, so there's a big group of good, but not great, players all bunched up and it just so happens that the woman at the top of that pile is a Top 10 player. It's just a funny place we're at with the rankings points at the moment, imho. So the poor old #10 is probably always going to be criticised for her place in the 10 because the #17 is only a couple of good tournaments away from the same spot.

Until someone breaks ahead of this 10-17 pack and edges up towards where Radwanska and Azarenka are at the moment, we'll keep on perceiving the #10 as undeserving.

Meh. Good luck to Yanina. She plays good tennis.

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 03:04 AM
Sorry, you meant by the end of 2001?
Cos on the eve of RG-2001 nobody talked about Justine. That should have been a Mauresmo tournament actually.

She came to RG 2001 as an outsider, but a threat nonetheless. Regardless, my point is that her run at both RG and Berlin already established her as one of the best clay court players. You may think she didn't beat enough top 10 players or that she had an easy draw, but that's just too shortsighted and does not look at additional details. For example, she had her clay season cut short after her Berlin final. You need to watch the matches to see the overall level of play. She mentally choked against Clijsters after being in total control, and Capriati was most certainly within her grasp.

Joana
Mar 28th, 2010, 03:05 AM
She was a darkhorse for the tournament.

She was, I remember it well, together with Dokic and to a lesser extent Clijsters, since Kim's previous results on clay that year weren't exactly stellar. She wasn't a sure lock to make the semis by any means, but she wasn't a Clarisa Fernandez either.

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 03:21 AM
You are looking at the "big picture" backwards (in hindsight) so AnnaK does have a point.

I don't remember you (pretend to be a stand-in for "anyone" =) predicting at that time that Juju would not only progress further up the rankings but also up the notch in her game to such an extent that she would literally beat the crap out of Lindsey and Capriati and Hingis and dispatch them to retirement.

No I'm not. I'm only making that point in regards to clay. I said completely otherwise in regards to hard courts/indoor/grass, despite her later successes on those surfaces (and ironically her Wimbledon final). I would not have foreseen that she would be such a good player on hard courts if I watched her in 2001/2002. Of course, she's one of the very few players who was able to implement so many changes in her game at relatively late levels.

However, it's different on clay. If you watched her in 2001, you could have very much made a close prediction about her later dominant results. As I said again, RG 01 was already within her grasp. Actually the biggest issue in 2001 was her mental strength. It was the most doubtful part of her game on clay, and I quite remember the commentator saying how Clijsters it the fighter from those two. :tape:

Joana
Mar 28th, 2010, 03:23 AM
You are looking at the "big picture" backwards (in hindsight) so AnnaK does have a point.

I don't remember you (pretend to be a stand-in for "anyone" =) predicting at that time that Juju would not only progress further up the rankings but also up the notch in her game to such an extent that she would literally beat the crap out of Lindsey and Capriati and Hingis and dispatch them to retirement.

It's true that pretty much nobody thought she was going to win the US Open and YEC twice, I certainly didn't. Her later success on hardcourt was a big surprise for most everyone, probably including herself. But that's not the point. What Apoleb is saying is that by 2001 it already became clear that: 1) Justine was an excellent clay court player with high chances of winning RG some day and 2) that she was going to be a permanent fixture in top 10.

Apoleb
Mar 28th, 2010, 03:27 AM
It's true that pretty much nobody thought she was going to win the US Open and YEC twice, I certainly didn't. Her later success on hardcourt was a big surprise for most everyone, probably including herself. But that's not the point. What Apoleb is saying is that by 2001 it already became clear that: 1) Justine was an excellent clay court player with high chances of winning RG some day and 2) that she was going to be a permanent fixture in top 10.

Yeah, this.

hellas719
Mar 28th, 2010, 07:10 AM
she played great in her second round, but, for me, she's annoying to watch. she celebrates her opponents errors at 6-1 3-0 as if she just won a slam :o

Most players get excited during long rallies when their opponent makes an unforced error :shrug:

Anyway, she won't be the first Belgian to break into top-10 thanks to a bunch of MM titles and one weak ass slam draw. Henin did the same in 2001.

Well she deserved that draw after all the terrible draws she got before the US Open :shrug:. And she came so close to beating Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Dementieva, Zvonareva, Hantuchova (in IW), ...

She defeated a top 10 player, period :shrug:.

People act like Fed Cup isn't a real tournament :spit:

Yanina please win dat shit, i would love to read the reactions afterwards :rolls:

OMG! :hearts:

People laughing bout Yanina not having a top10 win :rolleyes:
Top 10 players she played.

Antwerp 08 #163
R2 lost vs. Hantuchova #6: 4-6/3-6

LA 09 #57
R3 lost vs. Zvonareva #7: 6-7(5)/6-4/4-6

Cincinatti 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Dementieva #4: 3-6/4-6

New Haven 09 #53
R2 lost vs. Kuznetsova #6: 4-6/7-5/6-7(2)

USO 09 #50
SF lost vs. Wozniacki #8: 3-6/3-6


Wickmayer only has played 5 top10'ers so far.( not including fedcup ) She took a couple of sets against them and never was slammed of the court.

Let's see how many encounters all the top10 players needed, to win their first match against a top10 player.
Serena: 1 match.
Wozniacki: 6 matches.
Safina: 10 matches.
Kuznetsova: 8 matches.
Venus: 4 matches.
Dementieva: 6 matches.
Azarenka: 7 matches.
Jankovic: 2 matches.
Radwanska: 3 matches.
Clijsters: 5 matches.
Henin: 11 matches.
Sharapova: 8 matches.

So at some people saying ''she still doesn't have top10 wins :haha: ''
Take a look at the list above :)
Nina only has played 5 top10'ers so far and it's not her fault that top10 players tend to lose, so they can't meet :hysteric:

EXACTLY! :worship:
This is what I've been trying to explain for ages! She hasn't had many chances and she always comes soo close. Don't forget her 3 setters with Henin at the AO and with Sharapova at Birmingham in 2009 ;)

Uhm yes it can. A tour level is simply a tournament with players from the tour (wta). Since all legends have played the fedcup, it pretty much shows the established value of it. Not to mention everyone tries their hardest in fedcup matches, more so than on regular wta events.

This. ;)

Lachy
Mar 28th, 2010, 08:36 AM
http://i41.tinypic.com/dh3393.gif