PDA

View Full Version : Why can't a 'pusher" be a champion?


renstar
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:35 PM
With all the constant berating of poor Caroline Wozniaki that shes just a pusher, tennis is dead, she shouldnt beat anyone etc etc etc, just wondering what peoples problems were around here.

Since when is it a rule that you can only play tennis to hit for constant winners as a ball basher?

Lets look at Chris Evert who had the highest winning percentage of any player male or female, she whould be considered a "pusher" by today's standards, called a counter puncher back then.

To play consistent shots is a very winning tactic in tennis and has been shown to be so by many champions. I was there live at Wozniackis match, she may have not hit a lot of winners but her strokes were deep and penetrating and she hit the right shot at the right time.

If her style is so wrong how come she keeps winning?

AcesHigh
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:36 PM
B/c a pusher doesn't exist. it's an ignorant and lazy term that doesn't really mean anything.

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:40 PM
Because it's boring and as spectators we don't just want champions who win ugly by default, rather at least try to put on a semi-interesting show for us to watch. You know, because we're spectators.

Ingokoer
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:43 PM
Because it's boring and as spectators we don't just want champions who win ugly by default.

Exactly. You could hear it today in the Match between Wozniacki and Schiavone. The Crowd was cheering for Franny, because she has such an entertaining style and game with lots of variety and emotions. Wozniacki on the other hand was so boring to watch. Ok she won, but I think the audience prefers spectacular winners and lots of variety. That's what Fran showed and why her game and personality is so popular these days.

Claycourter
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:44 PM
Evert wasn't a pusher though. The problem with Caro's game is that the match always seems to be on the other player's racquet. She rarely has bad days, always plays @ 100%, which is enough to win non slam titles and beat 99% of players, but when the other player raises level (eg, ball basher getting hot, variety player switching to a different plan etc), she appears helpless, which can be attributed to all her recent slam losses. She kind of reminds me of Murray on ATP - capable aggressor, but chooses to counterpunch, which doesn't work against truly good players who will seek to be aggressive on important points.

Potato
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:47 PM
Evert wasn't a pusher though. The problem with Caro's game is that the match always seems to be on the other player's racquet. She rarely has bad days, always plays @ 100%, which is enough to win non slam titles and beat 99% of players, but when the other player raises level (eg, ball basher getting hot, variety player switching to a different plan etc), she appears helpless, which can be attributed to all her recent slam losses. She kind of reminds me of Murray on ATP - capable aggressor, but chooses to counterpunch, which doesn't work against truly good players who will seek to be aggressive on important points.

:worship: Claycourter's non-troll posts are always well written.

renstar
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:50 PM
Evert wasn't a pusher though. The problem with Caro's game is that the match always seems to be on the other player's racquet. She rarely has bad days, always plays @ 100%, which is enough to win non slam titles and beat 99% of players, but when the other player raises level (eg, ball basher getting hot, variety player switching to a different plan etc), she appears helpless, which can be attributed to all her recent slam losses. She kind of reminds me of Murray on ATP - capable aggressor, but chooses to counterpunch, which doesn't work against truly good players who will seek to be aggressive on important points.

I assure you if you look back at Everts matches she would be considered a "pusher" by todays standards, its just her winners came from the fact serve and volleyers were coming at her and she had to pass them. No one serves and volleys today so "pushers" dont have a target.

I guess the entertainment to the crowds comes in the contrast of a flaymboyant player like Schiavone, a ball basher like serena or a so called pusher like Wozniacki fighting it out against each other, it provides variety.

Tennis is a difficult game and people can produce a lot of errors, if your game is consistent and you make few errors, its a great winning strategy.

Otlichno
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:53 PM
Because it's boring and as spectators we don't just want champions who win ugly by default, rather at least try to put on a semi-interesting show for us to watch. You know, because we're spectators.

And since when where spectators the one's who decided who champions were?

Zerenamaria
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:54 PM
Wozniacki is improving in taking initiative. She surely has it in her racket (good serve, deep and precise hitting, mental strength, variety) to take a slam.

But not yet.

AcesHigh
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:55 PM
Because it's boring and as spectators we don't just want champions who win ugly by default, rather at least try to put on a semi-interesting show for us to watch. You know, because we're spectators.

Caro is pretty popular with the crowds. They were rooting for her last night

Mackep83
Jan 25th, 2011, 12:55 PM
Exactly. You could hear it today in the Match between Wozniacki and Schiavone. The Crowd was cheering for Franny, because she has such an entertaining style and game with lots of variety and emotions. Wozniacki on the other hand was so boring to watch. Ok she won, but I think the audience prefers spectacular winners and lots of variety. That's what Fran showed and why her game and personality is so popular these days.

Thats the problem nowdays. The most people in this forum like watching tennis cause spectacular winners, the dresses and so on, pathetic. People who understand tennis knows that Wozniackis gamestyle is hard to play and needs a great physique. And a match with 50 UE is way more ugly than a match with only 10 UE.

justinehhfanq
Jan 25th, 2011, 01:00 PM
With all the constant berating of poor Caroline Wozniaki that shes just a pusher, tennis is dead, she shouldnt beat anyone etc etc etc, just wondering what peoples problems were around here.

Since when is it a rule that you can only play tennis to hit for constant winners as a ball basher?

Lets look at Chris Evert who had the highest winning percentage of any player male or female, she whould be considered a "pusher" by today's standards, called a counter puncher back then.

To play consistent shots is a very winning tactic in tennis and has been shown to be so by many champions. I was there live at Wozniackis match, she may have not hit a lot of winners but her strokes were deep and penetrating and she hit the right shot at the right time.

If her style is so wrong how come she keeps winning?

What Claycourter said - the match is pretty much always on her opponent's racquet. And you're wrong, Margaret Court has the highest winning percentage. Evert is second.

C. Drone
Jan 25th, 2011, 01:01 PM
this is like MTF 4 years ago.

slamchamp
Jan 25th, 2011, 01:03 PM
I think champions go for it in big moments..look at fran for example in that tiebreak in RG..I don't think wozniacki would do that

hurricanejeanne
Jan 25th, 2011, 01:30 PM
I personally just don't like Baby Woz's style of play whether it's classified as "pushing", "counterpunching", "moonballing" or whatever. For me, I'd rather see a player hit the shots that win the points, outright winners or shots that force errors. Looping the ball around to get back in position on a constant basis is nap-inducing. It's great shot selection when it's a crazy point but constantly it's just dry. I don't think I've ever watched Caro and has said "wow, what a shot" like I have with dozens of other players on tour.

Mary Cherry.
Jan 25th, 2011, 01:34 PM
'cause TF won't allow it.

kiwifan
Jan 25th, 2011, 02:29 PM
In theory the champion should be the one who fought the hardest to win NOT the one who hung around hoping for mistakes...if that's all you can do, so be it but I will always admire a player who's willing to go for shots and create their good fortune.

Zerenamaria
Jan 25th, 2011, 02:30 PM
What Claycourter said - the match is pretty much always on her opponent's racquet. And you're wrong, Margaret Court has the highest winning percentage. Evert is second.

yeah but in days of fluff serves and when there were three or four decent players around. Times have changed. Evert would not even get to the top 20 now.

Vikapower
Jan 25th, 2011, 02:43 PM
Evert wasn't a pusher though. The problem with Caro's game is that the match always seems to be on the other player's racquet. She rarely has bad days, always plays @ 100%, which is enough to win non slam titles and beat 99% of players, but when the other player raises level (eg, ball basher getting hot, variety player switching to a different plan etc), she appears helpless, which can be attributed to all her recent slam losses. She kind of reminds me of Murray on ATP - capable aggressor, but chooses to counterpunch, which doesn't work against truly good players who will seek to be aggressive on important points.
Coule people just stop bringing Andy Murray in a Caro discussion (...) Caro Woz is a talentless pusher that can't do half of what Andy does on a court (...) Andy has a gameplan, each and every of his shots a hit for a purpose always to put the opponent in a uncomfortable situation, he has incredible hands, he can slice and has all the arsenal of that shot (e.g. Rome 2010 vs. Ferrer or even Cincinatti vs. Stepanek), drop shot at will, he can s&v (e.g. Murray vs. Nalbandian BNP Paribas 2010), return & volley, he's one the great returners on the ATP tour - tip top technique (e.g. Cincinatti 2008 vs. Karlovic, USO 2009 vs. Taylor Dent two master classes demonstration of how to return serves) , he can serve big, he can play big offense but doesn't choose to do so, he can play incredible defense (e.g. Murray vs. Gonzales USO 2007, Murray vs. Federer Shangai 2010), he has great anticipation skills, his footwork is perfect (almost) (...)

Caro Woz doesn't compare unless for her physical abilities and incredible wheels, far or close to Murray (...) Sushine Caro doesn't remind Murray, no, she reminds Ferrer, Roddick (...) pushers compare to pushers (...)

Moreover Murray's game functions perfectly againt the lower ranked players but when you have Nad, Fed in front able to manipulate any of his shots or changes of rhythmes that's where he becomes vulnerable (...) Murray is a genius that only needs to understand that when he plays Nadalito and Fed that he has to bring offense and not play passive tennis (...)

Wiggly
Jan 25th, 2011, 02:51 PM
People want to see a player who will play to win.

Running 2m behind the baseline isn't fitting that category.

GoofyDuck
Jan 25th, 2011, 02:52 PM
She can undeservedly :confused:

AcesHigh
Jan 25th, 2011, 02:58 PM
People want to see a player who will play to win.

Running 2m behind the baseline isn't fitting that category.

You must not play tennis then... or must not play any sport where defense is important.

B/c that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while..and there's been some really ridiculous stuff in GM lately.

TennisFan66
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:03 PM
Exactly. You could hear it today in the Match between Wozniacki and Schiavone. The Crowd was cheering for Franny, because she has such an entertaining style and game with lots of variety and emotions. Wozniacki on the other hand was so boring to watch. Ok she won, but I think the audience prefers spectacular winners and lots of variety. That's what Fran showed and why her game and personality is so popular these days.

Leaving aside that on my TV sound, a lot of Aussies rooting for Caro (and more than for Fran), there's also an ESPN out, where they moan about the crowd supporting Caro... but of course you know better than everyone else...

Break My Rapture
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Because a pusher, generally, shows the minimum amount of talent in comparison to the other styles of play IMO.

shap_half
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:06 PM
In theory the champion should be the one who fought the hardest to win NOT the one who hung around hoping for mistakes...if that's all you can do, so be it but I will always admire a player who's willing to go for shots and create their good fortune.

I don't know if she really just "hangs around hoping for mistakes." When she is able to go for her shots, she does. She doesn't just hits balls down the middle with nothing behind it. When she's able to apply the pressure, she hits deep and uses angles. But she doesn't have a naturally big, ball-bashing game that most players have so now that she's getting more exposure and attention, whenever she plays against a ball basher (which is often), she gets ridiculed for winning with consistency.

And what should she do if her opponent is blasting shots her way from corner to corner? Of course she's going to use her natural abilities to retrieve those shots.

mariavikafan
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:12 PM
You must not play tennis then... or must not play any sport where defense is important.

B/c that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while..and there's been some really ridiculous stuff in GM lately.

Stop trying to defend Pushniacki, you won't win this war because she is never going to win a major with that push game.

Adidas Dude
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:26 PM
To put it simply, if Wozniacki WINS a GS title playing the way she does, then she DESERVES it! All that other stuff doesn't matter.

n1_and_uh_noone
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:33 PM
One thing that stands out is how a player responds to an opportunity to finish points. So many times, Caro hits a great serve, but then just pats the ball back to settle into rally mode. You don't need to blast a winner, but at least exploit the angles, width etc of the court to take advantage of a good shot!

I think if push comes to shove (say Caro is involved in a tight situation against a top player and former champion), she might find herself always second best.

pedropt
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:34 PM
Because an offensive player in a good day will overpower her just like Kvitova did in Wimbledon :scared:

Alejandrawrrr
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:39 PM
I assure you if you look back at Everts matches she would be considered a "pusher" by todays standards, its just her winners came from the fact serve and volleyers were coming at her and she had to pass them. No one serves and volleys today so "pushers" dont have a target.

I guess the entertainment to the crowds comes in the contrast of a flaymboyant player like Schiavone, a ball basher like serena or a so called pusher like Wozniacki fighting it out against each other, it provides variety.

Tennis is a difficult game and people can produce a lot of errors, if your game is consistent and you make few errors, its a great winning strategy.

Umm, don't even bring this upon yourself.

theFutureisNow
Jan 25th, 2011, 04:56 PM
I don't think I've ever watched Caro and has said "wow, what a shot" like I have with dozens of other players on tour.

She may not get a ton, but she does get some.

Caro had a spectacular cross court winner near the end of last nights match.

She also had a few other great shots.

WozLolz
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:00 PM
Because pushers don't exist beyond the 4.0 USTA level/whatever its international equivalents are.:wavey:

it-girl
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:09 PM
Wozniacki can be a champion because in the end it is all about the last woman standing. I like Wozniacki as a player but there are times that I find it really hard to watch her matches. I will never forget watching a match between Caro & Radwanska & I literally fell asleep it was such a boring match to watch. As much as I like Caro her style of play is very boring to watch but it is also very effective.

Players do what they have to do to win and Caro has had great results with her style of play but to beat certain players when it counts she is going to have to take more risks. Just because her style of tennis is not exciting to watch doesn't mean that she is not a great player. But for anyone who looks at a Atp match and then looks at a match with Caro & Radwanska. They are not going to continue to look at women's tennis if they are watching for the entertainment value.

When I see signs in the crowd they can purchase I see "what a shot" or "beat that". Not one time have I seen a sign that said "great defense". Not saying that a sign like that doesn't exist. I just haven't seen one. They promote great ball striking because it is exciting to watch. Being a great ball striker takes just as much work as being a great defender because clearly there are a lot of ballbasher's on the tour that don't have the consistency of the great ball strikers. There are also a lot of defensive players who simply cannot hang with a ballbahser or a great ball striker and they lose to the first one they run into.


The game style that wins the biggest moments the most is a all around game. That is what makes the big 4 so special. They can attack, defend & volley and that is what makes for the most exciting tennis. I love to see a clean winner hit but I also love to see a great volley especially a great swinging volley. I also love seeing a great lob, drop shot or a fierce angle. I love to see aggressive return winners because those shots are not easy to do on a consistent basis. In order for women's tennis to advance in the future when the big 4 do retire is to have all around players because that is what it is going to take to keep interest and grow the fan base of women's tennis.

Viktymise
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:46 PM
Pushers wait for the opponent to lose, rather than forcing the issue. Winning by default isn't what a champion does.

goldenlox
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:50 PM
Caroline is the ITF champion for 2010.
There were threads that she didnt belong in the top10,
couldnt beat a former #1
couldnt win a Tier I
Now there's one thing left, win majors, and she has about 9 years until Caro is the age Fran won her major.

TheHangover
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:54 PM
She can but the show will sucks, because you guys didn't realize one thing, that i just realized:
-we can have a great matches like fran-sveta
-we can have nice matches like fran-caroline or caroline-sharapova (uso)
_but what if we have two carolines? who will do the dirty job to put on a show for the audience and the crowd, who hit the winners and the volleys?
I just whant to say that caroline has to say thanks to her opponents that enphasize her defensive skills but if players with her syle of play start to multiply and meet each other, the whole wta will become really boring

FORZA SARITA
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:56 PM
She can but the show will sucks, because you guys didn't realize one thing, that i just realized:
-we can have a great matches like fran-sveta
-we can have nice matches like fran-caroline or caroline-sharapova (uso)
_but what if we have two carolines? who will do the dirty job to put on a show for the audience and the crowd, who hit the winners and the volleys?I just whant to say that caroline has to say thanks to her opponents that enphasize her defensive skills but if players with her syle of play start to multiply and meet each other, the whole wta will become really boring

her match vs aga last year was a borefest :lol::tape:
nice point btw :yeah:

Hian
Jan 25th, 2011, 05:58 PM
CaRO iS GrEaT!!!111!!111!!

moby
Jan 25th, 2011, 06:00 PM
I assure you if you look back at Everts matches she would be considered a "pusher" by todays standards, its just her winners came from the fact serve and volleyers were coming at her and she had to pass them. No one serves and volleys today so "pushers" dont have a target.9ies_ARHhXQ

Pushers don't dictate play like that, especially against Steffi Graf.

Chris was using a racket half the size of Wozniacki's.

Wiggly
Jan 25th, 2011, 06:00 PM
People want to see their athletes play their very best.
And many players at their very peak would beat Caroline at her very peak.
The ones who control their own destiny.

theFutureisNow
Jan 25th, 2011, 06:13 PM
9ies_ARHhXQ

Pushers don't dictate play like that, especially against Steffi Graf.

Chris was using a racket half the size of Wozniacki's.

This is an extremely misleading example. Evert only beat Graf when she was 16, and had no chance against even a 17 year old Graf.

"On April 13, 1986, Graf won her first WTA tournament and beat Evert for the first time in the final of the Family Circle Cup in Hilton Head, South Carolina. (She never lost to Evert again, beating her a further seven times over the next three and a half years.)"

Kworb
Jan 25th, 2011, 06:24 PM
This is an extremely misleading example. Evert only beat Graf when she was 16, and had no chance against even a 17 year old Graf.

"On April 13, 1986, Graf won her first WTA tournament and beat Evert for the first time in the final of the Family Circle Cup in Hilton Head, South Carolina. (She never lost to Evert again, beating her a further seven times over the next three and a half years.)"
Uh yeah cause Evert was well over 30 by then. The point is it's ridiculous to call her a pusher. A pusher is someone who just hits it back through the middle like Wozniacki does. No match of Evert can be described like that.

Annie.
Jan 25th, 2011, 06:27 PM
*sigh*
http://i53.tinypic.com/6qa0cj.gif

bandabou
Jan 25th, 2011, 08:04 PM
Caro is good..she gets the job done and that is she wins. But mannn, let's just say she isn't an inspiring player. You don't watch and think: man, I wish I could serve like that, move like that, hit my forehand or backhand like that.

And I think that's the thing with Caro. People expect from no.1 player to be kinda inspirational. Serena had the serve, Juju the backhand and all-court game, Steffi the forehand, etc..

darrinbaker00
Jan 25th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Because pushers don't exist beyond the 4.0 USTA level/whatever its international equivalents are.:wavey:

The thread should have been closed after this post.

Aaron.
Jan 25th, 2011, 08:19 PM
The thread should have been closed after this post. :)

DeliriousPotato
Jan 25th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Amanda Coetzer is my favourite pusher ever.
But I don't know, pushers just aren't slam material, cause they can't counter every gamestyle.

renstar
Jan 25th, 2011, 10:25 PM
9ies_ARHhXQ

Pushers don't dictate play like that, especially against Steffi Graf.

Chris was using a racket half the size of Wozniacki's.

Yes but what you have to realise is that Chris did not have a killer shot like a killer forehand or backhand as a weapon. Her way to win was moving the ball around and passing shots and won most of her matches on others errors.

This match you posted Steffi was about 16 yo, but once she matured was too powerful for Chris and won their last 7 meetings.

Chris is my favourite player of all time but if you look at her past matches on youtube you wont see many killer winners, just remarkable consistency and moving the ball around. The excitement with Chris came with seeing her pass volleyers like Martina.

oomph
Jan 26th, 2011, 11:34 PM
Evert wasn't a pusher though. The problem with Caro's game is that the match always seems to be on the other player's racquet. She rarely has bad days, always plays @ 100%, which is enough to win non slam titles and beat 99% of players, but when the other player raises level (eg, ball basher getting hot, variety player switching to a different plan etc), she appears helpless, which can be attributed to all her recent slam losses. She kind of reminds me of Murray on ATP - capable aggressor, but chooses to counterpunch, which doesn't work against truly good players who will seek to be aggressive on important points.

:lol: You did not just compare Pushniacki to Murray, did you?

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 26th, 2011, 11:38 PM
This in a nutshell is why a pusher can't be a champion:

gJ--xWFXNNI

Volcana
Jan 27th, 2011, 12:16 AM
yeah but in days of fluff serves and when there were three or four decent players around. Times have changed. Evert would not even get to the top 20 now.That comment makes Michelle Bachmann sound like Einstein.

Volcana
Jan 27th, 2011, 12:17 AM
What OFFENSIVELY, did Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario do that Wozniacki doesn't do?

duhcity
Jan 27th, 2011, 12:39 AM
Pusher's can be champions. Just won't be popular ones, unless they're appealing off the court.

Anyway, comparisons to the past, especially past the last decade, can't be made.

shoparound
Jan 27th, 2011, 01:19 AM
This board doesn't know what a pusher actually is and just jumps in bandwagons... Further proof is because they cannot tell the difference between the games of Wozniacki, Jankovic, A Radwanska, Oudin, Hingis and Julia Cohen.

AnomyBC
Jan 27th, 2011, 02:00 AM
Honestly, if you look through all of tennis history, I suspect there have been tons of "pusher"-type slam winners. And despite what Navratilova says, I don't think Caro needs to get more aggressive to win a slam. I think she can, and probably will, eventually win a slam with her regular, non-aggressive game.

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 02:03 AM
I think the way Caroline played the 1st 5 games, she can win majors.
I dont know about this major, but this level of tennis is pretty high & Wozniacki is rallying well with a big hitter

rockstar
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:08 AM
Evert wasn't a pusher though. The problem with Caro's game is that the match always seems to be on the other player's racquet. She rarely has bad days, always plays @ 100%, which is enough to win non slam titles and beat 99% of players, but when the other player raises level (eg, ball basher getting hot, variety player switching to a different plan etc), she appears helpless, which can be attributed to all her recent slam losses. She kind of reminds me of Murray on ATP - capable aggressor, but chooses to counterpunch, which doesn't work against truly good players who will seek to be aggressive on important points.

that to me is way more impressive than hitting 100 winners with 100 UEs in a match

Summer_Snow
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:16 AM
Then, write a new tennis rules book...

mariavikafan
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:20 AM
I think the way Caroline played the 1st 5 games, she can win majors.
I dont know about this major, but this level of tennis is pretty high & Wozniacki is rallying well with a big hitter

:help:

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:23 AM
There's a problem with Caro's serve. You have to hold at 63 43 40-0. Have to.
But but until then, her level is very good.
Wozniacki has to improve her serve. Its killing her in set 2

mariavikafan
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:27 AM
There's a problem with Caro's serve. You have to hold at 63 43 40-0. Have to.
But but until then, her level is very good.
Wozniacki has to improve her serve. Its killing her in set 2

Na Li is doing everything to win the second set, Woz is just waiting errors there is sth wrong with her game and her serve that's for sure.

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:29 AM
There's a problem with Caro's serve. You have to hold at 63 43 40-0. Have to.
But but until then, her level is very good.
Wozniacki has to improve her serve. Its killing her in set 2

Li stopped missing on Caro's pathetic second serves, meaning she took away Caro's unearned points.

sorceress
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:30 AM
You must not play tennis then... or must not play any sport where defense is important.

B/c that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while..and there's been some really ridiculous stuff in GM lately.

Please.....please do not compare this joke of a tennis player to defense....

Defense is FORCING people to make mistakes, the defense doesn't just wait until the opposition makes a mistake...they have weak points they focus on and ways to pressure the opponent.

I don't see it with this joker, all she's done the whole tournament is hit to the left side and waits like a vulture for the player to get frustrated and hit an error.

The only other sporting figure close to what this chick is like is Steven Bradbury.
Anybody remember this guy? He won a sprint a couple of years ago in the Winter Olympics because all the other ice skaters fell over.

She's not even fit, she doesn't even bother if the point is too hard to fight for, it makes a joke out of the WTA and it probably bores people to watch her at the Open...she doesn't do a drop shot or a down the line....she doesn't do anything special, she has just taken advantage of the mental midgets in women's tennis.

You wouldn't want a team in the Superbowl that had just won on goal kicking alone or a soccer team that had won it's games all with penalty shoot outs or draws...

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:31 AM
On match point, it helps to get your 1st serve in
But 63 43 40-0, you have to hold there in a slam semi

mariavikafan
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:36 AM
On match point, it helps to get your 1st serve in
But 63 43 40-0, you have to hold there in a slam semi

What's your point seriously? we all know Caro's game consists to wait for players' UE, don't expect her to go for it when it matters.

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:40 AM
She has to do something with her 1st serve.
But I like the level of her game this match, but its still a wide open match.
Li hasnt lost a match yet this year

Moveyourfeet
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:45 AM
She has to do something with her 1st serve.
But I like the level of her game this match, but its still a wide open match.
Li hasnt lost a match yet this year

Nope, Caro is going to win. :mad: unless Na gets rid of her net allergy.

madmax
Jan 27th, 2011, 03:47 AM
match against Na is a perfect example why pusher will never be a champion - chinese is playing her worst match of the tournament and still the match is out of dane's hands completely

Young 8
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:21 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GWJatwb-WlI/SunrAxM1q-I/AAAAAAAAK68/NoVtvRPmpgY/s400/wozniacki-doha-1.jpg

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:21 AM
Caro had match point, lost to a player who is 8 years older.
Caro will be back. She is a big part of the WTA's future.
People involved with the WTA have to be thrilled with this match.
Only thing better would be if this was the final.

Smitten
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:24 AM
This match is why. You need to be able to bury your opponent when they play badly. You have to fully slam the door.

Wozniacki should have just polished Li off while she was still tight and hitting errors. Instead she let Na hit through her nerves and through her as well.

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:25 AM
Today you were given the answer again. When a player raises their game, bye bye pusher. :wavey:

Lunaticalm
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:26 AM
Caro....

J.Bravo
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:28 AM
She doesn't know when to go for it.
She did the same thing in the 1st set of her US open final. (Yeah she wasn't going to win it, but still. :lol:)

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:29 AM
Caro had match point to get to her 2nd slam final, and she's 20.
Big part of the WTA's future.

madmax
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Caro had match point, lost to a player who is 8 years older.
Caro will be back. She is a big part of the WTA's future.
People involved with the WTA have to be thrilled with this match.
Only thing better would be if this was the final.

how many times she is gonna have to dissapoint you before you stop singing her undeserved praises? She once again did NOTHING in today's match, completely relying on Na to hit herself off the court. It can only work so many times before a player gets her head together and blows your beloved pusher away:wavey: And Na wasn't even playing well in this match anyway

UncleZeke
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:34 AM
Na li 42 winners
Caro 10 winners.

mariavikafan
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:34 AM
Caro had match point to get to her 2nd slam final, and she's 20.
Big part of the WTA's future.

Noone knows future, noone thought Sharapova, Ivanovic and others good players would be so bad after 20,21 years old and sadly they are.
Caroline even though is young is missing her chances.

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:35 AM
I thought that was a good effort against the player who was playing the best tennis this AO.
Speaking of dissapoint, keep announcing to everyone how Sharapova is back.

scoobz
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:35 AM
Even with a mostly defensive mindset you have to be able to go for the shots sometimes and make winners at the right moments, you can't rely totally on keeping the ball in court to beat the very best players - it's simply not enough.

10 winners in such a long match, none in the final set - it's not enough, the balance is not right there.

She also needs to serve more effectively, especially that second serve, which is a bit of a wing and a prayer and can be gobbled up by a confident and aggressive returner.

I think a pusher can be a champion and I think a consistent approach out on the court can be rewarded but it's not all or nothing in that area, you have to be able to finish points off with the winner sometimes, especially big crucial points, you have to go for it, or your opponent will.

DOUBLEFIST
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:36 AM
Today you were given the answer again. When a player raises their game, bye bye pusher. :wavey:

Agreed.

Serenita
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:37 AM
Na li 42 winners
Caro 10 winners.
:lol::lol:

mariavikafan
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:39 AM
I thought that was a good effort against the player who was playing the best tennis this AO.
Speaking of dissapoint, keep announcing to everyone how Sharapova is back.

You can do better than that.:lol:

Serenita
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:39 AM
Today you were given the answer again. When a player raises their game, bye bye pusher. :wavey:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f329/jadewolf420/SAM-JACKSON-CLAPPING-GIF.gif

Polikarpov
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:42 AM
This match is why. You need to be able to bury your opponent when they play badly. You have to fully slam the door.

Wozniacki should have just polished Li off while she was still tight and hitting errors. Instead she let Na hit through her nerves and through her as well.

True. She could, and should have closed it out 6-3, 6-2. Her impotent forehand and lack of court instincts was thoroughly exposed. There were a couple rallies toward the end of the second set in which she forced floaters and sitters waiting to be put away. But she just can't flatten that forehand, or come in to the net to shut the points down. The point resets, then Li Na ends up smacking the winner or forcing the error.

I just don't understand Karolina's unwillingness to charge the net. As useless as she is at that region of the court, there's no way she won't be able put away some of the short floaters she forced Li Na to hit. She just fucking waits for the ball to come to her, and before she could even hit the ball, Li Na is already waiting at middle of the baseline.

But to her credit, she anticipated, absorbed the pace, and directed the ball well in the first set and a half. She also did a good job of luring Li Na into long rallies.

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:44 AM
If she held at 63 43 40-0, it might have been a routine win.
But she fought well, didnt hold when she needed to.
This is still a good effort, one point on her serve from her 2nd slam final.
I think Caro's game is still moving forward.

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:45 AM
If she held at 63 43 40-0, it might have been a routine win.
But she fought well, didnt hold when she needed to.
This is still a good effort, one point on her serve from her 2nd slam final.
I think Caro's game is still moving forward.

:happy:

keithb1961
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:56 AM
Caro had her chances in that third set, she just wouldnt or couldnt hit a winner to end the point.....

Mynarco
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:58 AM
Today you were given the answer again. When a player raises their game, bye bye pusher. :wavey:

Amen Bro

UncleZeke
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:59 AM
She's only 20. She's going to get stronger and wiser.

hablo
Jan 27th, 2011, 04:59 AM
goldenlox: I don't know why you have taken to Wozniacki so much.

I swear you only liked Russian players not long ago. How times have changed! :lol: :scratch:

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:01 AM
She's only 20. She's going to get stronger and wiser.I think so too, plus i think having match point in a slam semi is nothing bad. Li is playing good tennis, has not lost this year.

Polikarpov
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:11 AM
She's only 20. She's going to get stronger and wiser.

She is strong. The problem lies in her technique. And I'm afraid it's too late to sort that out.

I think so too, plus i think having match point in a slam semi is nothing bad. Li is playing good tennis, has not lost this year.

And that's what's bad. Karolina has to find a way to beat opponents who are playing at a high level. She just can't settle losing to in-form players.

kman
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:18 AM
Today you were given the answer again. When a player raises their game, bye bye pusher. :wavey:

Caro's game dropped after that matchpoint which ALLOWED Li to raise her game.

Lord Choc Ice
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:19 AM
Caro's game dropped after that matchpoint which ALLOWED Li to raise her game.

Tell it to Kvitova.

Mynarco
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:20 AM
She's only 20. She's going to get stronger and wiser.

Not always.

theFutureisNow
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:22 AM
I think so too, plus i think having match point in a slam semi is nothing bad. Li is playing good tennis, has not lost this year.

This is not a match to take moral victories from. She had her serve broken 6 of the last 7 times, and hit twice as many UEs as winners. That is terrible.

If Caro thinks her play was "nothing bad" today, then she is going to be in for a disappointing career.

madmax
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:29 AM
This is not a match to take moral victories from. She had her serve broken 6 of the last 7 times, and hit twice as many UEs as winners. That is terrible.

If Caro thinks her play was "nothing bad" today, then she is going to be in for a disappointing career.

this is what I don't get about Wozniacki apologisers...Na played her WORST match of the year so far and still came up with the goods when it mattered the most. How is this loss anything but a huge failure for the World Nr.1? Na didn't even have a positive W/UE ratio, meaning that she was crap for the majority of the match too.

goldenlox
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:32 AM
How disappointing is her career now?
This is 2 slam semis in a row, she was close to a win here, she's #1.

Thats a lot of good things for a college kid.

Match point for a slam final is not a back-to-the-drawing-board problem.

Its a keep working and trying to improve situation

Young 8
Jan 27th, 2011, 05:38 AM
She's only 20. She's going to get stronger and wiser.

So, do you think she can push even more ?