PDA

View Full Version : Peak Wozniacki vs Peak Testud


liuxuan
Mar 29th, 2010, 01:42 PM
Testud 6-2 6-2 in 2 hours 45 minutes!:devil:

debby
Mar 29th, 2010, 01:45 PM
:yawn:

TennisFan66
Mar 29th, 2010, 01:51 PM
Wozniacki or Wozniak?

No idea what this poll/thread is about though.

Koon
Mar 29th, 2010, 02:18 PM
I forgot about Testud :o

MyskinaManiac
Mar 29th, 2010, 02:29 PM
Testud was perhaps the very first modern day pusher. In her peak, like Wozniaki, she whored herself out in as many tournaments as the rules would permit. Testud did nothing during a match, other than to merely chase down balls only to return them mid court. And yes of course, she was equally as boring as Wozniaki.

hdfb
Mar 29th, 2010, 02:32 PM
Wozniaki could only ever dream of beating someone like Lindsay Davenport.

Sammm
Mar 29th, 2010, 02:44 PM
Testud was good at attacking from her forehand wing, so I wouldn't call her a pusher, per se. Wozniacki would probably win though.

TennisFan66
Mar 29th, 2010, 02:56 PM
So assuming this is just someone not even old enough to spell 'Wozniacki' or know the difference between Caroline Wozniacki and Alex Wozniak, we are just dealing with the Nth hate thread?

Isn't there something else better to open a new thread about? Something? Anything? Anything at all? ..

Caro :hearts: :worship:

kman
Mar 29th, 2010, 03:16 PM
close but Wozniacki

volta
Mar 29th, 2010, 04:31 PM
Testud was perhaps the very first modern day pusher. In her peak, like Wozniaki, she whored herself out in as many tournaments as the rules would permit. Testud did nothing during a match, other than to merely chase down balls only to return them mid court. And yes of course, she was equally as boring as Wozniaki.

hmm... Sandrine could actually do some damage with her forehand and sure wasn't just "pushing" with it.

Testud all the way

Temperenka
Mar 29th, 2010, 04:34 PM
General Messages needs a new subforum under the doubles one... "We hate Caroline."

Seriously... there has never been so much attention and hate towards a player as there is towards her.

But for sake of the thread.... Caroline in 2.

brickhousesupporter
Mar 29th, 2010, 04:39 PM
Testud was perhaps the very first modern day pusher. In her peak, like Wozniaki, she whored herself out in as many tournaments as the rules would permit. Testud did nothing during a match, other than to merely chase down balls only to return them mid court. And yes of course, she was equally as boring as Wozniaki.
You obviously never saw Sandrine play...........
Testud was good at attacking from her forehand wing, so I wouldn't call her a pusher, per se. Wozniacki would probably win though.

hmm... Sandrine could actually do some damage with her forehand and sure wasn't just "pushing" with it.

Testud all the way
You guys are also missing one of her biggest weapons....her second serve was a good kick serve that was hard to attack. She was then able to attack with the forehand.

Also, Sandrine is sort of a giant killer.......She has been able to defeat several players after they got the number 1 ranking, if I recall correctly.

So Disrespectful
Mar 29th, 2010, 04:40 PM
Testud in two tight sets.

brodle1
Nov 17th, 2010, 10:20 PM
Sandrine was actually one of my favorite players - saw her play several time and she really was a lot better than people seem to remember. How I miss the days when she played...and can you really compare the era Sandrine played in to now?

Jankarenka
Nov 17th, 2010, 10:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XH8Zr2kqo
Sandrine

Miss Amor
Nov 17th, 2010, 10:28 PM
Sandrine would win on mid-paced Hardcourts and clay, Wozniacki will probably win on grass. Its too tough to tell on relatively faster Hardcourts, but I will say Testud.

Overall Testud.

New_balls_please
Nov 17th, 2010, 10:38 PM
I remember Sandrine had such big (.)(.) :hearts:
Too bad she got surgery to reduce the volume of her tits :sobbing:

New_balls_please
Nov 17th, 2010, 10:38 PM
By the way, I'd say Sandrine something like 7-6 6-3 :worship:

Miracle Worker
Nov 17th, 2010, 10:48 PM
General Messages needs a new subforum under the doubles one... "We hate Caroline."


General Messages needs a new season ;) It's the biggest problem. In new season the subforum "We hate Caroline" won't be needed. Everything will back to normal.

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:08 PM
Sandrine wasn't a pusher. :p

Anyway Sandrine in 3.

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:09 PM
General Messages needs a new season ;) It's the biggest problem. In new season the subforum "We hate Caroline" won't be needed. Everything will back to normal.
I heard that 'back to normal' was going to happen when Caroline's USO points from 2009 came off.

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:13 PM
I heard that 'back to normal' was going to happen when Caroline's USO points from 2009 came off.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2n0z9h.jpg

justineheninfan
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:14 PM
It is funny to say but I really dont know. Testud beat all the greatest players of her very strong generation (or atleast playing peers during her good years, most who were younger) at some point, except for Hingis who she took to 3 sets nearly everytime they played it seemed. And to those who say Testud was a pusher you obviously never saw her play. She was mostly a power baseliner with some all court abilities. She certainly wasnt a retriever, she wasnt even that quick or good a defender so she had to play agressively. She wasnt as good at her game as some of the others played it so of course she never reached the very top of that difficult time in womens tennis but she was a very dangerous opponent.

Come to think of it I might say Testud. She certainly had more offensive weapons in her game than Wozniacki at this point. Wozniacki I am sure will surpass Testuds playing ability in the future though (she has already far surpassed her achievements, but that isnt what we are talking about I dont think).

Tezuka.
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:15 PM
Who cares!

Timariot
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:28 PM
Testud was one of those "Playstation players". Someone who keeps the elite players honest. She was consistent and strong, but not quite strong to truly threaten the very best players. But if the best were off their games just a bit, Sandrine would beat them. Except Hingis, poor Sandrine was her pigeon. Martina beat her 16 times in a row, though half of them were three-setters and I think Sandrine had match points at some.

Wozniacki would beat her, though. But it would be close match.

Tezuka.
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:30 PM
and what is peak wozniacki anyway? peak wozniaki is nothing special! she always on and gives her best tennis in most of her matches but that isn't enough against good ballstrikers when they are on hot form.Her best isn't even enough to beat Kim at her worset so peak Wozniacki is nothing special for me at least.

justineheninfan
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:37 PM
Wozniacki hasnt had her peak yet. She probably hasnt even entered her prime yet in fact. We already know what peak Testud was. And 20 year old Wozniacki would kill 20 year old Testud. Testud didnt start to play her best tennis until well into her 20s. So that is an unfair comparision in a way really.

That said it does show how much better womens tennis was in the late 90s and early 2000s that many of us think just a top 20 player from then was better than the #1 ranked now.

Miracle Worker
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:41 PM
I heard that 'back to normal' was going to happen when Caroline's USO points from 2009 came off.

I didn't think about something like this, or maybe... :devil: I rather thought about back to competition between players...

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:50 PM
That's how Caro got to #1 by over 1000 points.
Competition between players...

Matt01
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:51 PM
and what is peak wozniacki anyway? peak wozniaki is nothing special! she always on and gives her best tennis in most of her matches but that isn't enough against good ballstrikers when they are on hot form.Her best isn't even enough to beat Kim at her worset so peak Wozniacki is nothing special for me at least.


Wozniacki's "best" (that we have seen so far, she has still lots of room for improvement) was good enough to reach a Slam final and reach the #1 ranking, which are things that Testud (who was a very good player herself, I still remember her formidable win in Filderstadt) never ever got even close to. So it would be nice if you, even though this is clearly a Wozniacki bashing thread, could show some respect to Wozniacki ;)

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:52 PM
That said it does show how much better womens tennis was in the late 90s and early 2000s that many of us think just a top 20 player from then was better than the #1 ranked now.I remember when Kournikova was ranked #8 for 2000 with no titles.
This romantic nonsense, about how great the top 20 was, is bull

Timariot
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:52 PM
Wozniacki hasnt had her peak yet. She probably hasnt even entered her prime yet in fact. We already know what peak Testud was. And 20 year old Wozniacki would kill 20 year old Testud. Testud didnt start to play her best tennis until well into her 20s. So that is an unfair comparision in a way really.

That said it does show how much better womens tennis was in the late 90s and early 2000s that many of us think just a top 20 player from then was better than the #1 ranked now.

Maybe...but to play devil's advocate, maybe it's just us old grumpy ones complaining as the modern game is not aesthetically to our tastes. In balance of "current era is always the best and players of the past sucked" there is always the nostalgy group "these clowns would be no match to champions of old". Even some supposedly esteemed commentators are guilty of it. Cliff Drysdale once wrote an article how the current greats (at the time, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander etc) would have been no match to '50/60s stars like Laver, Pancho etc. Jack Kramer thought that Ellsworth Vines was the best player of all time, better than Laver or Open era greats...etc. It's hard to let go of the past...

Nah, scratch all that. Today's WTA sucks.

Temperenka
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:53 PM
General Messages needs a new season ;) It's the biggest problem. In new season the subforum "We hate Caroline" won't be needed. Everything will back to normal.

As much as you, or anyone else, like or dislike Caroline or her game.. you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that while Caroline might not stay #1 for a long time, she will be near the top playing consistent tennis.

Deal with it or be ready to be filled with a late of hate for years to come.

Timariot
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:54 PM
I remember when Kournikova was ranked #8 for 2000 with no titles.
This romantic nonsense, about how great the top 20 was, is bull

Well...the present #2 player has ONE lowest tier title. ;)

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:55 PM
But Vera was in the last 2 slam finals and beat Kim 3 of the last 4 times they faced.

justineheninfan
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:57 PM
Wozniacki's "best" (that we have seen so far, she has still lots of room for improvement) was good enough to reach a Slam final and reach the #1 ranking, which are things that Testud (who was a very good player herself, I still remember her formidable win in Filderstadt) never ever got even close to. So it would be nice if you, even though this is clearly a Wozniacki bashing thread, could show some respect to Wozniacki ;)

What would Testud at her best have achieved vs the current field though. When Testud was playing her best she had Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Pierce, Seles, Graf, Sanchez Vicario, Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Novotna, and Mauresmo, usually atleast 2/3rds of those at once, blocking her path.

Temperenka
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:58 PM
Vera is a really awkward exception. She and Kim were the best players of the second half of the year. Normally, she is deserving of her #2 ranking, but in finals, she would probably deserve a ranking of #40 instead.

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:59 PM
Now you got Serena, Caro, Kim, Venus, Vera, Sam, Jelena, Vika, Fran, Sveta, Maria, Ana, Li, Aga,
and players like Nadia, who is 3-0 in 2010 against Serena, Kim, and Venus, and could beat anyone from 2000.

madmax
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:00 AM
I remember when Kournikova was ranked #8 for 2000 with no titles.
This romantic nonsense, about how great the top 20 was, is bull

I also remember the days when TOP players were mostly healthy and motivated to play the full schedule...the good ol' days I guess

Ryan
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:03 AM
Testud was good, but not as good as Caro IMO. The game back then was "softer", the average player was much less athletic (despite Steffica Greles' FAT obsession), and Testud's game was quirky but not all that effective.

She has beaten more big names that Caro - definitely. But in a head-to-head match I'd pick Caro, even with her forehand.

G-Ha
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:08 AM
Sandrine a pusher? :lol: Sandrine actually had weapons, most notably her serve. Her kick second serve used to give Lindsay all sorts of problems. In fact, Hingis, Seles and Davenport have all said that Sandrine had one of the most underrated serves.

At their peaks, Sandrine beats Wozniaki. But if they played on tour at the same time, day in day out, Wozniaki would score more wins. Sandrine had trouble with players who just spit the ball back, which is what Wozniaki would do to her. Sandrine actually fared better against the Serenas, Lindsays, Monicas of the world, than she did pushers.

Matt01
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:11 AM
What would Testud at her best have achieved vs the current field though. When Testud was playing her best she had Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Pierce, Seles, Graf, Sanchez Vicario, Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Novotna, and Mauresmo, usually atleast 2/3rds of those at once, blocking her path.


Wozniacki has Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Safina and lots of other great players as competition. It's not her fault that some of them are often injured these days but that (partially) happened durng Testud's days as well. :p

The overall field nowaydays is a bit tougher and at the very top it's a bit weaker than it was than when Testud played so it's rather difficult (and pointless) to speculate what Testud would have achieved in today's field.

Timariot
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:22 AM
Now you got Serena, Caro, Kim, Venus, Vera, Sam, Jelena, Vika, Fran, Sveta, Maria, Ana, Li, Aga,
and players like Nadia, who is 3-0 in 2010 against Serena, Kim, and Venus, and could beat anyone from 2000.

Hmmm...Davenport-Petrova H2H: 7-0. :angel:

justineheninfan
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:23 AM
Ivanovic, Jankovic, Safina, and even probably Kuznetsova are not of the caliber of players as those I listed. I dont care if those first 3 reached the #1 ranking which is a hollow stat the last few years anyway. If you are going to list those I might as well add to all those I already listed Martinez, Myskina, Majoli, Fernandez, even Huber, as people Testud faced while at her best.

And most of those players I listed were at or near their best for a period of a few years atleast while Testud was in the good phase of her career, except for Seles but Seles not at her best is still a 3 slam champion caliber player anyway. Henin, Venus, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, and Safina are not anywhere near their best ever since Woznaicki began her rise at last years U.S Open.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:25 AM
I think the depth is better now. But they are inconsistent.
A top player can be challenged hard by Safarova, Rezai, Kanepi, Kvitova, Pennetta, Bartoli, Martinez Sanchez, Safina, Peer, Petrova, Cibulkova, Hantuchova, Pironkova, Kirilenko, Vesnina, Petkovic, and a bunch of others, who can play good tennis on a given day.

Miracle Worker
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:26 AM
As much as you, or anyone else, like or dislike Caroline or her game.. you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that while Caroline might not stay #1 for a long time, she will be near the top playing consistent tennis.

Deal with it or be ready to be filled with a late of hate for years to come.

I know this. It's a fact we can't denied. But it's weird that if only someone tell he/she don't like Caroline's tennis, in the same time appear message "You hate Caroline".

Timariot
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:33 AM
I also remember the days when TOP players were mostly healthy and motivated to play the full schedule...the good ol' days I guess

It is unwise to cling in the obsolete dogmas of the past. Nowadays, showing up for 3 events in a year is a mark of a true champion... :rolleyes:

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:38 AM
It's not because they dont want to play.
The sport has become very physical, and the injury rate is 100%, like the NFL.
No one goes deep in a lot of tournaments and stays healthy.

Timariot
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:43 AM
I think the depth is better now. But they are inconsistent.
A top player can be challenged hard by Safarova, Rezai, Kanepi, Kvitova, Pennetta, Bartoli, Martinez Sanchez, Safina, Peer, Petrova, Cibulkova, Hantuchova, Pironkova, Kirilenko, Vesnina, Petkovic, and a bunch of others, who can play good tennis on a given day.

It's pointless to make lists like that as the perception can easily become biased. Why, for example, is Petkovic "dangerous" player? She has beat no top 10 opponents this year. There were "dangerous" players 10 years ago too - Schnyder, Likhovtseva, Maggie, Van Roost etc.

brickhousesupporter
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:51 AM
Now you got Serena, Caro, Kim, Venus, Vera, Sam, Jelena, Vika, Fran, Sveta, Maria, Ana, Li, Aga,
and players like Nadia, who is 3-0 in 2010 against Serena, Kim, and Venus, and could beat anyone from 2000.

Wozniacki has Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Safina and lots of other great players as competition. It's not her fault that some of them are often injured these days but that (partially) happened durng Testud's days as well.
In her best year, how often has Wozniaki played these top players. Don't act like she is competing day in and day out with the top players.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:51 AM
When people say the sport is bad, they ignore that a lot of these players can beat very good players.
I left out a lot, like Kleybanova, who gave Henin a very tough AO match.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:53 AM
In her best year, how often has Wozniaki played these top players. Don't act like she is competing day in and day out with the top players.Caro just won a super tier 1, 2 tier i's and made the YEC final and USO SF.
If she didn't meet any top players, its not her fault.

madmax
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Caro just won a super tier 1, 2 tier i's and made the YEC final and USO SF.
If she didn't meet any top players, its not her fault.

you can call these events however you like - SuperDuper Mega Tier I's or whatever, but as long as Top players are not participating in them, they are just glorified MM events

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:59 AM
You can only play who comes thru the draw.
Serena doesn't win these non majors anyway.
So if she is at a super tier I, its not that much stronger. Except Miami

Timariot
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:08 AM
When people say the sport is bad, they ignore that a lot of these players can beat very good players.


Yeah, maybe, but when it has been any different? Not for over 20 years, as I see it.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:14 AM
Yeah, maybe, but when it has been any different? Not for over 20 years, as I see it.
People in these threads are saying everyone sucks now. But 10 years ago, everyone was great.

Nicolás89
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:20 AM
This thread is as stupid as saying Sharapova will win a slam in 2011 is. :help:

DownInAHole
Nov 18th, 2010, 02:33 AM
I apologise if someone else already pointed this out but it seems likely that Wozniacki has not reached her peak yet so the premise of this thread may be flawed. If we don't know what peak Wozniacki is how can it be compared to peak Testud?

Caralenko
Nov 18th, 2010, 02:40 AM
Sandrine Testud in 3.

Hurley
Nov 18th, 2010, 03:03 AM
And to those who say Testud was a pusher you obviously never saw her play.

Ding ding ding.

For some lunatic to call her "the first modern-day pusher" or whatever moronic statement is just pure idiocy, considering she played in an era where players like Coetzer or Smashnova were ranking/accomplishment peers.

Revisionist history is NEVER proper, in any field. Get your facts straight or keep your mouth shut.

Hurley
Nov 18th, 2010, 03:03 AM
P.S. Sandrine :hearts: :worship: :hearts:

Scotso
Nov 18th, 2010, 03:12 AM
Sandrine would have blown her off the court.

Vincey!
Nov 18th, 2010, 03:20 AM
From what I've seen of Sandrine in that other thread against Majoli :o Caroline WozniaCKI should win rather easily lol but I said there I doubt Testud was that bad all the time.

Spiritof42
Nov 18th, 2010, 07:31 AM
I'll bet some of the people who voted for Testud have never even seen her play. They just want "Woznianki" to lose another poll. :lol:

Mr.Sharapova
Nov 18th, 2010, 09:46 AM
Testud IMO..

PushWoz
Nov 18th, 2010, 09:50 AM
What did Peak Testud achieve?
NOTHING only a Tier 1 final in Tokyo

madmax
Nov 18th, 2010, 10:33 AM
I apologise if someone else already pointed this out but it seems likely that Wozniacki has not reached her peak yet so the premise of this thread may be flawed. If we don't know what peak Wozniacki is how can it be compared to peak Testud?

and what makes you believe that Wozniacki hasn't reached her peak yet? Gotta love these armchair analysts with their crystal ball predictions...one thing is for sure - Wozniacki doesn't have a natural shotmaking talent to overcome her pushing tendencies, so whenever she is forced to do something out of her comfort zone she fails miserably. Her FH sucks, volleys suck and she can't do much else but grind - this playing style will take a toll on her body sooner rather than later, just like history showed us in the past too.

Marionated
Nov 18th, 2010, 10:50 AM
What did Peak Testud achieve?
NOTHING only a Tier 1 final in Tokyo

Wins over Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport (and in an indoor tier 2 final), the Williams sisters, Iva Majoli, Conchita Martinez, Jennifer Capriati, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Mary Pierce etc...

Martian Jeza
Nov 18th, 2010, 11:05 AM
I'm waiting for another Caroline Wozniacki bashing thread involving a player of the 80ies : will be also fun for the Haters !

Apples and Pears again here ! :help:

DownInAHole
Nov 18th, 2010, 11:09 AM
and what makes you believe that Wozniacki hasn't reached her peak yet? Gotta love these armchair analysts with their crystal ball predictions...one thing is for sure - Wozniacki doesn't have a natural shotmaking talent to overcome her pushing tendencies, so whenever she is forced to do something out of her comfort zone she fails miserably. Her FH sucks, volleys suck and she can't do much else but grind - this playing style will take a toll on her body sooner rather than later, just like history showed us in the past too.

Well, she did seem to play much better in the second half of the year as opposed to the first half. I think that most people would agree that she improved her game, in particular her serve seemed much more effective post Wimbledon. I'm not saying it's a huge weapon but it's not as much of a weakness as it once was. I'm sure that she and her team know the areas of her game that need improvement and they are working on them in the offseason. Plus, she is still fairly young. At her age if she keeps working it seems logical that her game will get better.

brodle1
Nov 18th, 2010, 11:11 AM
Wow - didn't think this would spark such interest (it's clearly the off season!) Also I'm not a Caroline basher in the least - I'm not really a fan either, but I'm a fan of tennis and she plays a pile, so I'm a fan of that

Libertango
Nov 18th, 2010, 11:15 AM
I LOVED Testud. Loved 'er.

Matt01
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:06 PM
you can call these events however you like - SuperDuper Mega Tier I's or whatever, but as long as Top players are not participating in them, they are just glorified MM events


:lol: I know the facts are hard to swallow for th Caro haters.
Of course you are allowed to consider all the tourneys Caro has won as irrelevant MM tournaments, the reality is very different, though :hug:

TennisFan66
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:24 PM
Peak ...

I wonder how people define 'peak'.

The best serve ever = serve ace. Peak John Isner would be difficult to beat. Peak Venus = 130mph serve. Serve ace! .. As a minimum she'll win every match 7-6; 7-6 with her 'peak' serve.

Peak serve Vs opponents peak return. Now we're talking. Can you pick and chose how you collect those 'peaks'? 'I'd like her serve at 30-15, 4-2, 2nd set Vs XYZ and her return from 15-15, 3-2, 1st Vs ABC .. 'Oh and the FH cross court winner from the 2nd deuce at 3-4, 1st set Vs TRE.

Or is peak the best ever point played in general? Best ever game? Best ever set? Best ever match? Best ever tournament? Best ever season? .. and how do you settle the 'Best ever'? ...

Neah... I don't buy it. For me 'Peak' will be a place in Hong Kong :) ..

Claycourter
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:33 PM
Wozniacki is not at her peak yet. Dumb thread :rolleyes:

DefyingGravity
Nov 18th, 2010, 05:06 PM
Testud was the shit back then, because she was (along with Maggie Maleeva and Dementieva 1.0 and Dokic) one of those players that brought excitement and good tennis to big events, and could cause an upset. Testud's issues stemmed from playing people who hit with not a lot of pace (Hingis, Coetzer) rather than someone who can club the ball, as you can see from her list of scalps. She needed pace to do well, which is why I think she didn't do as well at the French Open as she could have had she not been thrown off that significantly by no pace.

Wozniacki on the other hand, doesn't necessarily have issues with too little pace or too much pace. It's how flat the ball is, or if you can move her in angles around the court (which Sandrine could do). I would predict that on a grass court, Sandrine would lose to Wozniacki. At Roland Garros, with the crowd right on top of Caroline, I think that Sandrine would have won that match because clay is still Wozniacki's arguably worst surface, but it would be like 9-7 in the third or something on Chatrier in the afternoon. At the Australian Open, Wozniacki would probably spank that on the new court surface. On the older court surface (Rebound Ace), I think Sandrine would have won that. At the USO, Sandrine didn't do particularly well if I recall correctly. And indoor, Sandrine would win.

What I don't like is that people are assuming neither girl can bring heat. Wozniacki's backhand and Testud's forehand may not be obviously, shocking-screaming winners type of weapons, but they do a lot of damage. And Sandrine and Caroline's use of depth on the court really force people to have to move them completely off the court.

So, if I had to pick out of 8 matches on the 4 Grand Slam surfaces (2 each), I would say Wozniacki would get the head to head advantage 5-3, with none of those wins coming at Roland Garros

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 18th, 2010, 11:01 PM
Wozniacki is not at her peak yet. Dumb thread :rolleyes:

Wozniacki's peak level was Sydney 2009 QF against Serena Williams. She's yet to reach that level again. :devil:

Randy H
Nov 19th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Sandrine a pusher? :lol: Sandrine actually had weapons, most notably her serve. Her kick second serve used to give Lindsay all sorts of problems. In fact, Hingis, Seles and Davenport have all said that Sandrine had one of the most underrated serves.

At their peaks, Sandrine beats Wozniaki. But if they played on tour at the same time, day in day out, Wozniaki would score more wins. Sandrine had trouble with players who just spit the ball back, which is what Wozniaki would do to her. Sandrine actually fared better against the Serenas, Lindsays, Monicas of the world, than she did pushers.

This is pretty well what I would say. Sandrine could score some wins against Wozniacki, but if they played against one another numerous times I would expect Wozniacki would lead the overall head to head.

Sandrine preferred and thrived off of playing against pace. She moved well enough that she could get a lot of balls in play, but she had the weapons to flatten her shots out and use the pace to counterpunch with some nice winners. Her backhand was actually my preferred groundstroke of hers, she used to hit some stunning backhands up the line on the run :yeah:

Someone like Wozniacki who doesn't give you much to feed off of, would frustrate Sandrine more - She never played as well against the more defensive minded top players of her generation as she did the power hitters.

treufreund
Nov 19th, 2010, 08:53 AM
Testud was quite aggressive with her serve too at times.

Beat
Nov 19th, 2010, 10:19 AM
Testud was perhaps the very first modern day pusher. ... Testud did nothing during a match, other than to merely chase down balls only to return them mid court.

WTF? :help:

DefyingGravity
Nov 19th, 2010, 02:04 PM
cskr61STP_0

Yes, Sandrine lost this match, but you can see she could really play. Paola Suarez was another one that I missed, because she was really quite tricky, and quite good.

Juju Nostalgique
Nov 19th, 2010, 04:56 PM
Sandrine was a way better player than Push-Push. But Frenchies have a hard time at hitting the top ranking! :sobbing:

Allez Sandrine! :bowdown:

WTAtennisfan15
Nov 19th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Caro would win :lol:
I like her anyway, but to all her haters i'll say that she wouldn't be #1 player in the world without huge amount of talent and skill!
She's called as a pusher, but it doesn't matter if you win ugly, but just that you win!

WozLolz
Nov 19th, 2010, 05:35 PM
Caro would win :lol:
I like her anyway, but to all her haters i'll say that she wouldn't be #1 player in the world without huge amount of talent and skill!
She's called as a pusher, but it doesn't matter if you win ugly, but just that you win!

Ban this member for making actual sense. It's not allowed here.;)

Yorker
Nov 19th, 2010, 06:32 PM
Caro would win :lol:
I like her anyway, but to all her haters i'll say that she wouldn't be #1 player in the world without huge amount of talent and skill!She's called as a pusher, but it doesn't matter if you win ugly, but just that you win!



While number 1 needs some skill to reach, this is mainly due to caro's number of tourneys compared to the other top players.

Matt01
Nov 19th, 2010, 08:10 PM
While number 1 needs some skill to reach, this is mainly due to caro's number of tourneys compared to the other top players.


No. :tape:

brickhousesupporter
Nov 19th, 2010, 09:55 PM
No. :tape:
Matt,

How many tournaments did Clijsters, Henin and WS play vs Caro. I am talking about actual tournaments played not commitments and withdrawals.

Nicolás89
Nov 19th, 2010, 10:40 PM
lol @ at the 3 people who really think Wozniacki is reached her peak. :lol:

Matt01
Nov 19th, 2010, 11:01 PM
Matt,

How many tournaments did Clijsters, Henin and WS play vs Caro. I am talking about actual tournaments played not commitments and withdrawals.


Caro's number of tournaments she can play are limited since she is a Top 10 player. And only 16 tournaments of them count for the rankings anyway.
We don't know what happened if other top playes would have played more tournaments :shrug:

TennisFan66
Nov 19th, 2010, 11:06 PM
Caro's number of tournaments she can play are limited since she is a Top 10 player. And only 16 tournaments of them count for the rankings anyway.
We don't know what happened if other top playes would have played more tournaments :shrug:

One would have thought people on a tennis board knew this most basic of rule for calculating WTA ranking and points. Guess not ..

KBlade
Nov 20th, 2010, 01:44 AM
Wozniacki's peak level was Sydney 2009 QF against Serena Williams. She's yet to reach that level again. :devil:

And even then, Serena was playing "OH MY GOD, MY EYES ARE VOMITING"-ly bad Tennis.

brickhousesupporter
Nov 20th, 2010, 01:50 AM
Caro's number of tournaments she can play are limited since she is a Top 10 player. And only 16 tournaments of them count for the rankings anyway.
We don't know what happened if other top playes would have played more tournaments :shrug:

One would have thought people on a tennis board knew this most basic of rule for calculating WTA ranking and points. Guess not ..

So in essence, the statement below that you disagreed with was actually correct. Caro played more tournaments than the other top players. Also, although 16 count to the rankings, you get a lot of do overs when you play more, as you can pad your bad performances.

While number 1 needs some skill to reach, this is mainly due to caro's number of tourneys compared to the other top players.

Burisleif
Nov 20th, 2010, 02:00 AM
And even then, Serena was playing "OH MY GOD, MY EYES ARE VOMITING"-ly bad Tennis.

Sorry I'm confused... Your saying she was playing her normal game then? :devil:

KBlade
Nov 20th, 2010, 02:02 AM
Sorry I'm confused... Your saying she was playing her normal game then? :devil:

Well, If that's how you describe Serena's regular game, how would you describe Carolines' regular game? Or the rest of the Tour's for that matter?

Burisleif
Nov 20th, 2010, 02:19 AM
Well, If that's how you describe Serena's regular game, how would you describe Carolines' regular game? Or the rest of the Tour's for that matter?

Ohhh let me see... I'd say Caroline's normal game induces "OH MY GOD, MY EYES ARE VOMITING"-ly bad Tennis, from her opponents... :devil:

Rest of the tour? you want me to make a list? sorry i thought this was the GM forum where people post all manner of opinionated dross, hate, and vitriol?

sammy01
Nov 20th, 2010, 02:51 AM
I think the depth is better now. But they are inconsistent.
A top player can be challenged hard by Safarova, Rezai, Kanepi, Kvitova, Pennetta, Bartoli, Martinez Sanchez, Safina, Peer, Petrova, Cibulkova, Hantuchova, Pironkova, Kirilenko, Vesnina, Petkovic, and a bunch of others, who can play good tennis on a given day.

any top player worth her ranking should be beating all these players 9/10 times at the least. i mean half of the girls on this list you only need to put the ball in court to beat them.

BarsonlyOne
Nov 20th, 2010, 06:53 AM
I love sandrine. So feisty and emotional. She was so good frustrating the top players. She had a great first and second serve, mainly the second. Groundies were good, but can never really over power you. She had a good, all-around, consistent game. But to pick, I pick sandrine. tight tight 3 setter.

KBlade
Nov 20th, 2010, 07:03 AM
Ohhh let me see... I'd say Caroline's normal game induces "OH MY GOD, MY EYES ARE VOMITING"-ly bad Tennis, from her opponents... :devil:

Rest of the tour? you want me to make a list? sorry i thought this was the GM forum where people post all manner of opinionated dross, hate, and vitriol?

Um, seriously, what is the point of your argument?

I said Serena was playing Terribly, and you implied that Serena plays terribly most of the time. The fact that Serena now pretty much regularly wins at least a slam a year playing, as you say, her regular terrible game is an insult to the rest of the tour. What does that mean for those who can't win slams?

The fact of the matter is, Serena played horrible Tennis that whole tournament, due to the fact that she had to retire at the end of last year with a stomach strain, and it was a MM tournament so as if she cared. That was the only way Caroline could touch her, Caroline was playing good Tennis, but I don't believe that was anywhere near her peak. Truth is, she looked like she was playing better than she was because Serena was playing far below her regular level. Serena was rusty as all hell, and had come off playing a Marathon match against Stosur earlier in the tournament. Frankly, if you look at high-lights, she looks bored out there.

And if Carolines game induces "OH MY GOD MY EYES ARE VOMITING"-ly bad Tennis from her opponents, then you've pretty much directly insulted her, because you've pretty much said that Serena can beat Caroline playing terrible Tennis.

Caralenko
Nov 20th, 2010, 07:47 AM
Um, seriously, what is the point of your argument?

And if Carolines game induces "OH MY GOD MY EYES ARE VOMITING"-ly bad Tennis from her opponents, then you've pretty much directly insulted her, because you've pretty much said that Serena can beat Caroline playing terrible Tennis.

He was implying she is a pusher who forces errors.

And yes, Serena can beat Caroline playing terribly.

VeeJJ
Nov 20th, 2010, 08:57 AM
I this a serious thread? She hasn't even come close to hitting her peak with her game yet. She is only 20. We don't even know what Caro will be like in her peak.

terjw
Nov 20th, 2010, 12:00 PM
So in essence, the statement below that you disagreed with was actually correct. Caro played more tournaments than the other top players. Also, although 16 count to the rankings, you get a lot of do overs when you play more, as you can pad your bad performances.

Caro played more tournaments than other top players - but that was not the reason she was year end #1. You are promoting a lie. If you persist with this nonsense that this is the reason Caro is #1 - you are ignorant or a liar. I've already explained elsewhere that if you just count slams, YEC premier mandatory, and premiier 5 - the big tournaments the WTA wants and expects the top players to play - Caro is still #1. She loses over 1300 points but gains 250 points on two premier 5 tournaments she dropped in the actual rankings - so she's still ahead.

And that's letting all the other top players have all their ranking points as they stand and don't take away their points from lower than premier 5 tournaments which they all have including Serena. I mean on the rankings she's a massive 1300 points clear of #2 and over 2000 points above #5. Her number of tournaments just makes a difference as to how far ahead she is - it's not the reason she's got #1.

Second the crap and BS in your post about padding bad performances. Her large number of tournaments played is really due to her playing all those tournament while injured on clay in Europe after that nasty turning her ankle at Charleston. Playing injured did nothing for her ranking and anyone but a complete moron should know before she even entered and played those tournaments that they weren't going to help her in any way by giving her choice and padding out bad scores :rolleyes:. It's obvious that if she had to reduce the number of tournaments she played - the sensible thing would be not to play the ones she was injured and surprise surprise - those were here worst ones. So that did NOT help her in the least ranking wise and was never going to.

The main reason she played injured was not to give herself ranking points but because she had to for the WTA to allow her to play in Copenhagen.

terjw
Nov 20th, 2010, 12:17 PM
I this a serious thread? She hasn't even come close to hitting her peak with her game yet. She is only 20. We don't even know what Caro will be like in her peak.

Yeah and Caro translates her play into results. Sandrine didn't. Who of any significance really cares if Sandrine at her best woulda coulda beat Caro when they've never played given the disparity of their achievments. Bottom line:

Caro has won 12 titles in the last 3 years and is only 20 while Sandrine has like 3 in 15 seasons.
.
Caro's slam record of SF and F at USO in 15 slam appearances and when she's 20 is already better than Sandrine's best is a couple of QFs in what 45 slam appearances.

So Disrespectful
Nov 20th, 2010, 12:26 PM
Yeah and Caro translates her play into results. Sandrine didn't. Who of any significance really cares if Sandrine at her best woulda coulda beat Caro when they've never played given the disparity of their achievments. Bottom line:

Caro has won 12 titles in the last 3 years and is only 20 while Sandrine has like 3 in 15 seasons.
.
Caro's slam record of SF and F at USO in 15 slam appearances and when she's 20 is already better than Sandrine's best is a couple of QFs in what 45 slam appearances.

Yes, but it seems that nowadays all you need is speed and consistency, and if you remain uninjured you can become an elite player. Now I'm not saying that Wozniacki is as good as Coetzer because that would just be stupid, but the two have loosely similar strengths and Amanda never made it to number 1. 1995-2002 was a much tougher era than the one we're in now. It's not Caroline's fault she's competing in a weak era and taking advantage of her opponent's incompetence, but it's hardly fair to compare her results with those of someone like Testud's, is it?

That considered, all we have to go by is talent.

-J6Vw1ihq1E
tDqIYw203kg

I think we have a winner.

DownInAHole
Nov 20th, 2010, 12:46 PM
Yes, but it seems that nowadays all you need is speed and consistency, and if you remain uninjured you can become an elite player. Now I'm not saying that Wozniacki is as good as Coetzer because that would just be stupid, but the two have loosely similar strengths and Amanda never made it to number 1. 1995-2002 was a much tougher era than the one we're in now. It's not Caroline's fault she's competing in a weak era and taking advantage of her opponent's incompetence, but it's hardly fair to compare her results with those of someone like Testud's, is it?

That considered, all we have to go by is talent.

-J6Vw1ihq1E
tDqIYw203kg

I think we have a winner.

No doubt about it, that was a terrible shot by Caroline but every player hits the odd bad shot. I don't see what your point is.

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 20th, 2010, 01:17 PM
tDqIYw203kg


Wow, Caro even tries to push overheads. :lol:

Matt01
Nov 20th, 2010, 01:24 PM
Yes, but it seems that nowadays all you need is speed and consistency, and if you remain uninjured you can become an elite player. Now I'm not saying that Wozniacki is as good as Coetzer because that would just be stupid, but the two have loosely similar strengths and Amanda never made it to number 1. 1995-2002 was a much tougher era than the one we're in now. It's not Caroline's fault she's competing in a weak era and taking advantage of her opponent's incompetence, but it's hardly fair to compare her results with those of someone like Testud's, is it?

That considered, all we have to go by is talent.


I hope this is ironic. :weirdo:

alfonsojose
Nov 20th, 2010, 01:24 PM
Caro :drool:

So Disrespectful
Nov 20th, 2010, 01:34 PM
Wow, Caro even tries to push overheads. :lol:

I hear that during the off-season she's working on getting her overheads halfway up the net, which I think is smart. No need to push things along too quickly.

TennisFan66
Nov 21st, 2010, 12:07 AM
Yes, but it seems that nowadays all you need is speed and consistency, and if you remain uninjured you can become an elite player. Now I'm not saying that Wozniacki is as good as Coetzer because that would just be stupid, but the two have loosely similar strengths and Amanda never made it to number 1. 1995-2002 was a much tougher era than the one we're in now. It's not Caroline's fault she's competing in a weak era and taking advantage of her opponent's incompetence, but it's hardly fair to compare her results with those of someone like Testud's, is it?

That considered, all we have to go by is talent.


It all sounds so easy and the money is great! .. I also read in this thread that Caro has already peaked. She peaked in early 2009 in that match Vs Serena and its been going down-hill ever since.

See here is what I dont get.

Considering how easy it is. Why wouldn't someone wanna make great money? Since her peak less than 2yr ago, Caro has earned just shy of $25mio ... Thats her 2009+2010 total earnings. Your grandma can beat Caro, so why don't you buy her a tennis racket? Or you sister. You could probably even coach her.

Or maybe the reason why no-one with no talent, no game, no skills, no nothing cannot earn those $25mio for less than 2yr of work is that many posters on TF are talking out their arse and it really isnt that 'easy' after all .. :lol:

PS How do you measure 'talent'? Because obviously it has nothing to do with winning tennis matches. Can you buy it in Tesco?

So Disrespectful
Nov 21st, 2010, 12:58 AM
It all sounds so easy and the money is great! .. I also read in this thread that Caro has already peaked. She peaked in early 2009 in that match Vs Serena and its been going down-hill ever since.

See here is what I dont get.

Considering how easy it is. Why wouldn't someone wanna make great money? Since her peak less than 2yr ago, Caro has earned just shy of $25mio ... Thats her 2009+2010 total earnings. Your grandma can beat Caro, so why don't you buy her a tennis racket? Or you sister. You could probably even coach her.

Or maybe the reason why no-one with no talent, no game, no skills, no nothing cannot earn those $25mio for less than 2yr of work is that most posters on TF are talking out their arse and it really isnt that 'easy' after all .. :lol:

PS How do you measure 'talent'? Because obviously it has nothing to do with winning tennis matches. Can you buy it in Tesco?

I think you know what I mean. If Wozniacki came up against an in-form Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Venus, Jankovic, even Ivanovic, she would be lucky to get a set off most of those girls. The sad thing is, none of those players have been consistently in-form over the last 2 years. And that really is my problem with Wozniacki's slamless "dominance". She's consistent enough to gain enough points for the number one ranking, but she's not talented enough to overcome anyone who can outhit when they're having a good day. We saw it against Jankovic at Indian Wells, we saw it against Li at the Australian Open, and we saw it against Kvitova at Wimbledon.

Wozniacki is content to rest on her laurels, which is disappointing. It's not entirely her fault because she hasn't needed to do anything special in most of her matches, and while her tactics may work against 90% of the tour, she hasn't shown pro-activity in changing things up when that tactic doesn't work. She appears totally clueless whenever she comes up against an opponent who is playing great tennis. There may be some more talent there and despite her best attempts at hiding an aggressive game, we've seen glimpses of it, but I'm still not convinced that the peak Wozniacki we've seen to date would be able to take out Testud.

goldenlox
Nov 21st, 2010, 01:02 AM
Wozniacki is content to rest on her laurels, which is disappointing..You are inventing nonsense.

So Disrespectful
Nov 21st, 2010, 01:04 AM
You are inventing nonsense.

You are a Wozniacki fan.

goldenlox
Nov 21st, 2010, 01:06 AM
You are an idiot, making stuff up.
Wozniacki just had 3 break points to serve at 4-5 in the 3rd against Kim.
That was after winning Tokyo and Beijing.
Her level of play is not low.

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 21st, 2010, 01:09 AM
I think you know what I mean. If Wozniacki came up against an in-form Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Venus, Jankovic, even Ivanovic, she would be lucky to get a set off most of those girls. The sad thing is, none of those players have been consistently in-form over the last 2 years. And that really is my problem with Wozniacki's slamless "dominance". She's consistent enough to gain enough points for the number one ranking, but she's not talented enough to overcome anyone who can outhit when they're having a good day. We saw it against Jankovic at Indian Wells, we saw it against Li at the Australian Open, and we saw it against Kvitova at Wimbledon.

Wozniacki is content to rest on her laurels, which is disappointing. It's not entirely her fault because she hasn't needed to do anything special in most of her matches, and while her tactics may work against 90% of the tour, she hasn't shown pro-activity in changing things up when that tactic doesn't work. She appears totally clueless whenever she comes up against an opponent who is playing great tennis. There may be some more talent there and despite her best attempts at hiding an aggressive game, we've seen glimpses of it, but I'm still not convinced that the peak Wozniacki we've seen to date would be able to take out Testud.

Hey...in-form Ivanovic is scary good. :p

Uh oh, you've angered Goldenlox. :scared:

terjw
Nov 21st, 2010, 01:12 AM
Yes, but it seems that nowadays all you need is speed and consistency, and if you remain uninjured you can become an elite player. Now I'm not saying that Wozniacki is as good as Coetzer because that would just be stupid, but the two have loosely similar strengths and Amanda never made it to number 1. 1995-2002 was a much tougher era than the one we're in now. It's not Caroline's fault she's competing in a weak era and taking advantage of her opponent's incompetence, but it's hardly fair to compare her results with those of someone like Testud's, is it?

That considered, all we have to go by is talent.



:yawn: Excuses excuses and waffling on with woulda coulda reasons as to why Sandrine hasn't got anything like as far at slams as Caro and only got 3 wins in her 15 year career. Also witterring and waffling on about Amanda Coetzer not being as good as Caro and that Amanda didn't get to #1 somehow proving anything. :lol:

goldenlox
Nov 21st, 2010, 01:14 AM
Its just stupidity 'rest on her laurels'
She just turned 20. How could a player who won 25 of 26 matches at Montreal, New Haven, NYC, Tokyo, Beijing and Doha be resting on her laurels?
Idiotic.

madmax
Nov 21st, 2010, 04:44 AM
Its just stupidity 'rest on her laurels'
She just turned 20. How could a player who won 25 of 26 matches at Montreal, New Haven, NYC, Tokyo, Beijing and Doha be resting on her laurels?
Idiotic.

I know that arguing with you is like making your case to a brick wall, but didn't your darling lose like TWICE in YEC alone? Fabricating stats now, aren't we?:lol:

PLP
Nov 21st, 2010, 07:45 AM
I loved Sandrine too, but I really think Caroline would win at least 2/3rds of their matches. She is just too consistent and Sandrine would get frustrated. It would have been a fun matchup though lots of 3 set matches.

goldenlox
Nov 21st, 2010, 08:14 AM
I know that arguing with you is like making your case to a brick wall, but didn't your darling lose like TWICE in YEC alone? Fabricating stats now, aren't we?:lol:Yeah, and the loss to Stosur was when she had only one loss in 26 matches.
Then she beat Vera and lost a close 3 set final to Kim.
At the end of a long year she was playing as well as ever.