PDA

View Full Version : Kuala Lumpur 2r: Safarova def. Safina 63,46,63


Beny
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:25 AM
Very good match by both!

I was surprised to see Safina play and serve so well! Also she moves better. After watching Daniela play, Dinara seems to move much better than the Slovak.

Safarova was in the zone, hitting great shots, lines, serving well enough.

Safina can be leaving Malaysia happy with the way she played.

M.P
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:26 AM
keep hitting to Safarova FH :cuckoo:

Patrick345
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:27 AM
Dinara lacks power and depth, maybe it is the back. but I would be shocked, if she didnīt return to the top 50 during the clay season.

Pump-it-UP
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:28 AM
At least Dinara kept it competitive. :shrug: Hopefully she keeps improving.

Lucie :yeah:

Sergius
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:29 AM
I think Safina fans should be pleased cause it was a very good match from both, Safina produced some really wonderful shots and some of her game combinations were smart and reminded me of her circa 2008 ( every such a combination was followed by 5 ugly hits but nonetheless).
Congrats, Lucie.

goldenlox
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:30 AM
Dinara wasnt good enough in set 3, like her 1st match with Wickmayer.
Now she should play more Int'ls and 50k's and get her confidence back.

Caipirinha Guy
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:32 AM
Dinara :(

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:33 AM
Thank god Lucie prevailed in the end. :)

Iīd say she struggled more with her serve and return (and probably nerves as well) than with Safina as such. Safina is really a strange kind of a player -- she seems unable to play agressive tennis (apart from a couple of points in a match), but at the same time isnīt a good defender either (due to her not very good court coverage and footwork). Itīs definitely a bit of a mystery how it is possible that such a "subprime" player could ever get to the Top 5.

Anyway, I hope that Lucie will be able to beat Bartoli for the first time in her career.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:41 AM
Damn. :sad:

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:43 AM
Thank god Lucie prevailed in the end. :)

Iīd say she struggled more with her serve and return (and probably nerves as well) than with Safina as such. Safina is really a strange kind of a player -- she seems unable to play agressive tennis (apart from a couple of points in a match), but at the same time isnīt a good defender either (due to her not very good court coverage and footwork). Itīs definitely a bit of a mystery how it is possible that such a "subprime" player could ever get to the Top 5.

Anyway, I hope that Lucie will be able to beat Bartoli for the first time in her career.

Um, obviously. That's why she's not in the Top 5 anymore. :lol: When she was number 1 she moved better and was extremely aggressive.

Sp!ffy
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:43 AM
Hehehehe

-NAJ-
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:44 AM
Safina was better than I expected, but still not good enough

OMG she is 3-4 m behind the baseline during points:help:
It's hard to win points like that

Lucie played ok, dictated the points and made great winners

Sam.
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:45 AM
Lucie :woohoo:
but Dinara :hug:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:47 AM
Um, obviously. That's why she's not in the Top 5 anymore. :lol: When she was number 1 she moved better and was extremely aggressive.

Extremely agressive? I.e. in the match vs. Kvitova at US Open (she was number 1 back then, right?) when she hit perhaps 10 winners throughout the whole match?

Davodus
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:48 AM
Lucie's ground game held up well under pressure, especially because Dinara's tactic seemed to be to hit to her forehand...

Other than that, it was a much better match than I expected.

redsonja
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:52 AM
Extremely agressive? I.e. in the match vs. Kvitova at US Open (she was number 1 back then, right?) when she hit perhaps 10 winners throughout the whole match?

Her back was already done in by then. Judging her on anything post-Cincinnati 09 is not quite fair.

Anyhow, onwards and (hopefully) upwards, Dinara. Didn't get to see it, but it certainly sounds like it was better than most of what she's put out there for the last 6 months.

Sergius
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:54 AM
Her back was already done in by then. Judging her on anything post-Cincinnati 09 is not quite fair.

Anyhow, onwards and (hopefully) upwards, Dinara. Didn't get to see it, but it certainly sounds like it was better than most of what she's put out there for the last 6 months.

Post-Wimbledon even

DS.Fan.
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:55 AM
Extremely agressive? I.e. in the match vs. Kvitova at US Open (she was number 1 back then, right?) when she hit perhaps 10 winners throughout the whole match?

she already played bad when she played Kvitova in USO.if u want to see her good matches,u can choose her matches(with Nadia and Sveta)in tokyo08.
I hope she will fix her game and mental slowly.I never expect she will come back soon after what happened.step by step pls

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:03 PM
Extremely agressive? I.e. in the match vs. Kvitova at US Open (she was number 1 back then, right?) when she hit perhaps 10 winners throughout the whole match?

You're telling me somebody can get to number one, reach a Grand Slam quarterfinal dropping just five games, reach three Grand Slam finals by being a poor mover and not aggressive? :confused: :spit:

dizoo
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:05 PM
i'm hoping she takes the doubles title with galina, it should help her confidence!

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:09 PM
Watch this if you think Safina got to number one by being slow and not aggressive. :wavey: [Skip to 0:30...video is dead at beginning ;)]

7-x6A0IcseA

goldenlox
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:16 PM
You cant be slow and have Dinara's red clay results. She might be slower now.
The confidence issue is the most important one. She has to play where she can win matches.
She started the year Wickmayer, Bartoli, Clijsters. She shouldnt go from Safarova to a top 20 player. She needs some soft fields.

Svetlana)))
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:29 PM
A step forward :cheer:

Hian
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:37 PM
Lucie ;)
DinDin :hug:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:39 PM
Watch this if you think Safina got to number one by being slow and not aggressive. :wavey: [Skip to 0:30...video is dead at beginning ;)]

7-x6A0IcseA

Well, that was one of the worst Clijstersī matches since her comeback. Iīd say that the double bagel at AO this year has higher relevance .:)

ĪCharlDaĪ
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:40 PM
Seemed like a nice one, good to hear :)

MakarovaFan
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:42 PM
Well, that was one of the worst Clijstersī matches since her comeback. Iīd say that the double bagel at AO this year has higher relevance .:)
Okay and the Safina-Kvitova slump was one of her worst matches during her number 1 stint.......lets not have double standards here people:rolleyes:

Harju.
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:43 PM
Dina :sobbing:

Mistress of Evil
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:47 PM
Sanowa :hug:

Harju.
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:48 PM
lBYbjWi5wDs
I miss this Safina. Killer serve and very aggressive. :sobbing:

Renalicious
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:50 PM
Good try Dinara, definitely an improved response.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:52 PM
Well, that was one of the worst Clijstersī matches since her comeback. Iīd say that the double bagel at AO this year has higher relevance .:)

What does either of those comments have to do with Safina playing aggressive or her movement when she was top five? :scratch: :spit:

Let's see if Kvitova can reach number 1. :wavey:

tea
Mar 3rd, 2011, 12:58 PM
Good for the sport. Shame not in 2 but we'll take it.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:06 PM
What does either of those comments have to do with Safina playing aggressive or her movement when she was top five? :scratch: :spit:

Let's see if Kvitova can reach number 1. :wavey:

Well, you canīt judge her movement etc. by watching short highlights; although I did notice that quite a considerable amount of her winners was out of Clijstersīvery bad drop shots . :)

In my view, reaching the number 1 position at the time when many clearly superior players either temporarily retired (Henin, Clijsters), were injured (Sharapova, Serena and Venus) or were in a huge slump (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) isnīt such a great achievement as you make it appear.

tejmeglekvár
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:09 PM
Well, that was one of the worst Clijstersī matches since her comeback. Iīd say that the double bagel at AO this year has higher relevance .:)

you are dumb as fuck.
judging her success by her post-injury results... logic fails. :cuckoo:

goldenlox
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:11 PM
In my view, reaching the number 1 position at the time when many clearly superior players either temporarily retired (Henin, Clijsters), were injured (Sharapova, Serena and Venus) or were in a huge slump (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) isnīt such a great achievement as you make it appear.They are only 20 #1's in the open era, which goes back to the 1960's

tejmeglekvár
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:14 PM
Well, you canīt judge her movement etc. by watching short highlights; although I did notice that quite a considerable amount of her winners was out of Clijstersīvery bad drop shots . :)

In my view, reaching the number 1 position at the time when many clearly superior players either temporarily retired (Henin, Clijsters), were injured (Sharapova, Serena and Venus) or were in a huge slump (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) isnīt such a great achievement as you make it appear.

Clijsters had 3 dropshot in that match that failed. I don't know any player who can win a match with 3 dropshots and nothing else.

and did you really made Vaidisova as "relevant"? :rolls: nowadays haters just can't make it. :tape:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:15 PM
They are only 20 #1's in the open era, which goes back to the 1960's

Yeah, but not all number one players are "created equal". You can still have a mediocre number one in a (temporarily) pathetically weak field. Which is, of course, precisely the case of Safina.

goldenlox
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:19 PM
Safina was #1 for more weeks than most of the others who got there.
You're trying to downgrade it, but most of the players who were #1 longer than Dinara are all time greats

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:22 PM
and did you really made Vaidisova as "relevant"? :rolls: nowadays haters just can't make it. :tape:

Gamewise, Vaidisova was certainly far more talented and better player than Safina ever was. Itīs not even a close contest.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:24 PM
Well, you canīt judge her movement etc. by watching short highlights

Yeah, because Safina totally moves well and is aggressive on the points 10 minutes of highlights, but all the other points, she's the complete opposite! :eek:

In my view, reaching the number 1 position at the time when many clearly superior players either temporarily retired (Henin, Clijsters), were injured (Sharapova, Serena and Venus) or were in a huge slump (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) isnīt such a great achievement as you make it appear.

LOL at you saying Vaidisova being in a slump is a reason why Safina got to number 1. :rolls: This just shows your level of intelligence, of lack thereof. :sad:

And anyway, using your same "rules", the fact that Kvitova managed to reach Top 20 with Serena being injured, Venus being injured, Sharapova struggling with shoulder, Henin retiring, Dementieva retiring, Ivanovic and Jankovic slumping, (oh, and Vaidisova slumping! :eek:) isn't such a great achievement either. So yeah, I can play that game too. :wavey:

Vikapower
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:29 PM
Extremely agressive? I.e. in the match vs. Kvitova at US Open (she was number 1 back then, right?) when she hit perhaps 10 winners throughout the whole match?

Name me someone who can stick the baseline when playing an in-form Kvitova !? Lucie also is a shotmaker and the rare times she's on then she's just more naturally skilled than the vast majority and you better have some freaking good pair of wheels and/or footwork to contain the power...

Safina is/was a good player... I didn't have no special affection for her but she's a hard worker and her situation kinds of reminds me the one of my faves in the ATP when put in situation to win a major despite all the hard work...

She'll maybe never will be #1 again but I wish her a regular top 20 wich is more representative of her skills.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:29 PM
Yeah, but not all number one players are "created equal". You can still have a mediocre number one in a (temporarily) pathetically weak field. Which is, of course, precisely the case of Safina.

Um, number one players aren't "created" at all, honey. You get to number one by winning a ton of matches. Safina is obviously not the best number one in history, but it says a lot about her level of play to get there.

Gamewise, Vaidisova was certainly far more talented and better player than Safina ever was. Itīs not even a close contest.

So when did Vaidisova reach Top 5? :confused: All of Vaidisova's titles are Tier III/Tier IV/Tier Vs. :o In fact, she never even managed to reach a final of any event above Tier III. Yeah, you're right. It's not a close contest at all. :wavey:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:33 PM
Yeah, because Safina totally moves well and is aggressive on the points 10 minutes of highlights, but all the other points, she's the complete opposite! :eek:



LOL at you saying Vaidisova being in a slump is a reason why Safina got to number 1. :rolls: This just shows your level of intelligence, of lack thereof. :sad:

And anyway, using your same "rules", the fact that Kvitova managed to reach Top 20 with Serena being injured, Venus being injured, Sharapova struggling with shoulder, Henin retiring, Dementieva retiring, Ivanovic and Jankovic slumping, (oh, and Vaidisova slumping! :eek:) isn't such a great achievement either. So yeah, I can play that game too. :wavey:

1/ Just to clarify, I canīt tell from the short higlights whether Safina did move slightly better than in todayīs match, or not.

2/ Itīs your logic that seems to be broken, since both Venus and Serena are actually higher ranked rght now than Kvitova.:p And for the record, Iīve never claimed that being a number 14 is a great achievement. Anyway, Petra has plenty of time to prove herself and I am pretty sure sheīs capable of being more succesful than Safina.

tejmeglekvár
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:33 PM
Gamewise, Vaidisova was certainly far more talented and better player than Safina ever was. Itīs not even a close contest.

wait, wait... i know this... like that other lunatic on this board who used that "hypothetical peak Date and Schnyder" mindblowing phrase. You guys are so funny. :lol:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:36 PM
So when did Vaidisova reach Top 5? :confused: All of Vaidisova's titles are Tier III/Tier IV/Tier Vs. :o In fact, she never even managed to reach a final of any event above Tier III. Yeah, you're right. It's not a close contest at all. :wavey:

I am talking about their respective tennis abilities, not about their results. And donīt forget that Vaidisova ended her career at the age of 20 -- at that age, Safina was still a complete nobody in womenīs tennis.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:38 PM
1/ Just to clarify, I canīt tell from the short higlights whether Safina did move slightly better than in todayīs match, or not.

2/ Itīs your logic that seems to be broken, since both Venus and Serena are actually higher ranked rght now than Kvitova.:p And for the record, Iīve never claimed that being a number 14 is a great achievement. Anyway, Petra has plenty of time to prove herself and I am pretty sure sheīs capable of being more succesful than Safina.

1/ You said you didn't understand how Safina got to top 5 when she moves poor and isn't aggressive. I showed a clip of her when she was top 5 where she was quicker and more aggressive. So what does that have to do with today's match? :wavey:

2/ How is my logic broken? If a fully fit and in form Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Henin, Jankovic, Ivanovic, etc. were playing at Wimbledon, I don't think Kvitova would be in the semifinals. :wavey: Same goes for quarterfinals of the Australian Open. Again, I'm just using your own rules back at you. :lol:

Davodus
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:47 PM
Does this really need to become another thread about whether Safina deserved to be number 1? :o

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:48 PM
I am talking about their respective tennis abilities, not about their results.

You said that Vaidisova's slump was a reason why Safina reached number one. If she didn't translate her "ability" into results, which she didn't, then it wouldn't have happened, which it also didn't. :wavey:

And donīt forget that Vaidisova ended her career at the age of 20 -- at that age, Safina was still a complete nobody in womenīs tennis.

Yes because when she ended her career she was playing at such a high level! :eek: Losing in first round of $25,000s. :tape: I'm sure she was really on the verge of Top 5. :scratch:

gorre
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:51 PM
Lucie: congrats to QF. Nice job! :cool: :)

Dina: :rolleyes:

GrandMartha
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:52 PM
I am talking about their respective tennis abilities, not about their results. And donīt forget that Vaidisova ended her career at the age of 20 -- at that age, Safina was still a complete nobody in womenīs tennis.

Results show abilities. Dinara had results so she had something to translate into results while the same can't be said about Vaidisova :shrug:

nicidle
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:52 PM
Safina was aggressive and she defended quite well esp. on clay..

Bronx19
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:53 PM
Good riddance Safina, grunting mess.

I liked her moon balling when her pea brain was out of ideas.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 01:56 PM
1/ You said you didn't understand how Safina got to top 5 when she moves poor and isn't aggressive. I showed a clip of her when she was top 5 where she was quicker and more aggressive. So what does that have to do with today's match? :wavey:

2/ How is my logic broken? If a fully fit and in form Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Henin, Jankovic, Ivanovic, etc. were playing at Wimbledon, I don't think Kvitova would be in the semifinals. :wavey: Same goes for quarterfinals of the Australian Open. Again, I'm just using your own rules back at you. :lol:

1/ I donīt agree that she was quicker; you canīt really tell from the short higlights. As for being more agressive: perhaps she was more agressive, but then again, Clijsters didnīt seem to hit the ball as hard and deep in that match as she usually does.

2/ Jeez, why do you insist on making comparison between a No 1 player and No 14 player who is still at the very beginning of her career? I repeat once again: I do not claim that reaching the number 14 spot is huge achievement. And are you really sure that i.e. peak Jankovic or Ivanovic would have beaten Kvitova last year at Wimbledon on GRASS?

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:01 PM
You said that Vaidisova's slump was a reason why Safina reached number one. If she didn't translate her "ability" into results, which she didn't, then it wouldn't have happened, which it also didn't. :wavey:


Where exactly did I say that? Vaidisova was never a contender for the number one spot. itīs rather that the slumping / injured / temporarily retired players mentioned in my post were the main reason, why Safina ever got into the Top 10.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:06 PM
1/ I donīt agree that she was quicker; you canīt really tell from the short higlights. As for being more agressive: perhaps she was more agressive, but then again, Clijsters didnīt seem to hit the ball as hard and deep as she usually does in that match.

Ok, you just further confirm your stupidity. The highlights are 10 freaking minutes long. How can you "not tell" from that? I can link you the entire second set so you can watch it for yourself if you want, that's also on YouTube.

Jeez, why do you insist on making comparison between a No 1 player and No 14 player who is still at the very beginning of her career? I repeat once again: I do not claim that reaching the number 14 spot is huge achievement. And are you really sure that i.e. peak Jankovic or Ivanovic would have beaten Kvitova last year at Wimbledon on GRASS?

I wasn't comparing Safina and Kvitova, I was comparing your "method" of determining whether their ranking is valid, or whatever you want to call it.

I never said Ivanovic or Jankovic would necessarily beat Kvitova, I listed top notch players that Kvitova didn't have to beat to get pretty much half her ranking points, just as you did with Safina's number one ranking.

Why do you insist on making a comparison between a No 1 player and No 7 player who never reached a final above a Tier III? :wavey:

Anyway, once Kvitova reaches number one, which I'm sure she will, let's evaluate how she got there. :wavey:

Ivanovic2008
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:09 PM
Safina's fabolous winning streak of 1 match is fnally over *sigh*

homogenius
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:11 PM
Well, you canīt judge her movement etc. by watching short highlights; although I did notice that quite a considerable amount of her winners was out of Clijstersīvery bad drop shots . :)

In my view, reaching the number 1 position at the time when many clearly superior players either temporarily retired (Henin, Clijsters), were injured (Sharapova, Serena and Venus) or were in a huge slump (Ivanovic, Vaidisova) isnīt such a great achievement as you make it appear.

Serena and Venus weren't injured at the time and bringing Ana or Nicole to try to prove your point is :o anyway.

tejmeglekvár
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:16 PM
I am talking about their respective tennis abilities, not about their results. And donīt forget that Vaidisova ended her career at the age of 20 -- at that age, Safina was still a complete nobody in womenīs tennis.

:sobbing:
Dinara at 19 won her 3rd title, Tier-II Paris Indoors in 2005, beating Mauresmo in the final.

Where exactly did I say that? Vaidisova was never a contender for the number one spot. itīs rather that the slumping / injured / temporarily retired players mentioned in my post were the main reason, why Safina ever got into the Top 10.

:sobbing:
Dinara reached top10 at first time in 2006 when all those slumping / injured / temporarily retired players were full time on the tour. (well, WS not fully)

plz, go on. :hysteric:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:17 PM
Ok, you just further confirm your stupidity. The highlights are 10 freaking minutes long. How can you "not tell" from that? I can link you the entire second set so you can watch it for yourself if you want, that's also on YouTube.


So you think itīs so clearly obvious that she was quicker back then? In my view, her movement was pretty mediocre both in that match and today.

By the way, I would guess that 99,99 % of people following the WTA Tour would agree that Safina has never ever been the best player in the world (judging by her tennis ability) and that the main reason why she ever reached number one ranking was that many players who were far better than her (in particular Henin, Clijsters, Serena, Venus and Maria) were either injured, or temporarily retired.

In fact, this conclusion seems so obvious to me that I find it completely indisputable.;)

Corswandt
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:24 PM
Results show abilities.

No they don't.

tejmeglekvár
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:25 PM
....

In fact, this conclusion seems so obvious to me that I find it completely indisputable.;)

finally you love yourself as human being, we can move on, all happiness. :bounce:

VIKA?
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:28 PM
Well done Lucie:yeah: hehe

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:28 PM
Where exactly did I say that? Vaidisova was never a contender for the number one spot. itīs rather that the slumping / injured / temporarily retired players mentioned in my post were the main reason, why Safina ever got into the Top 10.

You said it made it "less of an achievement". How could it be "less of an achievement" if Vaidisova wouldn't have been number one (you just said yourself she wasn't a contender) otherwise? :scratch: It's quite peculiar how you include Vaidisova in a list of former number ones anyway. :lol: Make up your mind. :o Is Wozniacki's number one ranking also less of an achievement because Vaidisova retired??!! :eek:

You do realise Safina was Top 10 in 2006? :confused: :o Fail.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:29 PM
:sobbing:
Dinara at 19 won her 3rd title, Tier-II Paris Indoors in 2005, beating Mauresmo in the final.



:sobbing:
Dinara reached top10 at first time in 2006 when all those slumping / injured / temporarily retired players were full time on the tour. (well, WS not fully)

plz, go on.

1/ Well, "complete nobody" was obviously an overstatement, but you have to agree that Vaidisova was at the age of 19 considerably more succesful than Safina at the same age.

2) A brief (and fluke) appearance in the Top 10 doesnīt count -- even such a player as Alize Cornet was very close to reaching the top 10 once. What I meant was being consistently a top 10 player for at least a year or longer.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:35 PM
You said it made it "less of an achievement". How could it be "less of an achievement" if Vaidisova wouldn't have been number one (you just said yourself she wasn't a contender) otherwise? :scratch: It's quite peculiar how you include Vaidisova in a list of former number ones anyway. :lol: Make up your mind. :o



I included Vaidisova in that list because she had very promising results in 2006 and 2007 and then she started slumping in 2008, which is exactly the same year when Safina started her rise to the top.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:37 PM
So you think itīs so clearly obvious that she was quicker back then? In my view, her movement was pretty mediocre both in that match and today.

By the way, I would guess that 99,99 % of people following the WTA Tour would agree that Safina has never ever been the best player in the world (judging by her tennis ability) and that the main reason why she ever reached number one ranking was that many players who were far better than her (in particular Henin, Clijsters, Serena, Venus and Maria) were either injured, or temporarily retired.

In fact, this conclusion seems so obvious to me that I find it completely indisputable.;)

No, she went from number one to outside top 100 by moving the same speed. :(

I love it how you've completely ignored the comment about her aggression in her play. I guess I know why. :lol:

You can use that same argument with Wozniacki, Jankovic, Ivanovic and Mauresmo and Clijsters when they were first number one. :wavey: I was never arguing that Safina was the greatest number one anyway so I don't get what your point is.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:42 PM
I included Vaidisova in that list because she had very promising results in 2006 and 2007 and then she started slumping in 2008, which is exactly the same year when Safina started her rise to the top.

I will ask this now: Is Wozniacki's number one ranking less of an achievement due to Vaidisova's retirement? Why/why not? Please enlighten me.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:43 PM
No they don't.

There's quite a strong correlation. :wavey:

iGOAT
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:49 PM
Just shut up people :weirdo:. You're obviously not going to agree and the fact is Sanowa was number one and nothing will change that so who cares?

Dina :sad: but glad to hear she played well :yeah:.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:56 PM
OK, letīs move on. But I remain convinced that Safina is one of the biggest overachievers in the history of the WTA Tour. In my view, she was never a Top 10 material, let alone Top 5 (with respect to her real tennis abilities).

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 02:57 PM
You ignored my question, as you realised the stupidity of your statement. Just as I expected. End of discussion. :wavey:

GrandMartha
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:03 PM
No they don't.

care to elaborate?
I still stick to what I said :)

LoLex
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:07 PM
Nice to hear Safina's getting better :o

Patrick345
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:10 PM
Gamewise, Vaidisova was certainly far more talented and better player than Safina ever was. Itīs not even a close contest.

:haha::haha:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:12 PM
You ignored my question, as you realised the stupidity of your statement. Just as I expected. End of discussion. :wavey:

You mean the question about Wozniacki? Itīs really an easy one. At the beginning of 2008, Vaidisova still seemed like a real contender and possibly a future star. In contrast, by the end of 2009 she wasnīt a factor anymore and she was completely irrelevant. Does that answer your question? :rolleyes:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:17 PM
:haha::haha:

You might check their H2H as well. Even a 15 y.o. Vaidisova was able to outplay Safina (18 y.o.).:devil::lol:

LoLex
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:18 PM
You might check their H2H as well. Even a 15 y.o. Vaidisova was able to outplay Safina (18 y.o.).:devil::lol:

It doesn't mean anything. When she got older she became worse.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:19 PM
You might check their H2H as well. Even a 15 y.o. Vaidisova was able to outplay Safina (18 y.o.).:devil::lol:

And Bammer leads Serena 2-0 in H2H.
Pironkova leads Venus 2-1

Patrick345
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:21 PM
You might check their H2H as well. Even a 15 y.o. Vaidisova was able to outplay Safina (18 y.o.).:devil::lol:

http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss164/Cocoreccho/NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:21 PM
You mean the question about Wozniacki? Itīs really an easy one. At the beginning of 2008, Vaidisova still seemed like a real contender and possibly a future star. In contrast, by the end of 2009 she wasnīt a factor anymore and she was completely irrelevant. Does that answer your question? :rolleyes:

I believe Safina was number one in this period. :wavey: Yet you describe Vaidisova as being "not a factor" and "irrelevant" and at the same time she's making Safina's number one ranking "less of an achievement".

Contradiction much? :help:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:22 PM
Was her ability greater than Wozniacki's too? Is it close? :eek:

In my view, Wozniacki is a much better (and far mentally stronger) player than Safina.

Patrick345
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:24 PM
In my view, Wozniacki is a much better (and far mentally stronger) player than Safina.

Have you checked the H2H? :haha::haha:

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:24 PM
In my view, Wozniacki is a much better (and far mentally stronger) player than Safina.

Umm...I was talking about Vaidisova? :weirdo:

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:27 PM
OK, and the point is? :rolleyes:

I edited the post to provide more detail as I assumed you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. Seems that I'm right. :angel:

I believe Safina was number one in this period [2009]. Yet you describe Vaidisova as being "not a factor" and "irrelevant" and at the same time she's making Safina's number one ranking "less of an achievement".

Contradiction much?

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:35 PM
I believe Safina was number one in this period. :wavey: Yet you describe Vaidisova as being "not a factor" and "irrelevant" and at the same time she's making Safina's number one ranking "less of an achievement".

Contradiction much? :help:
Nope. What makes Safinaīs number one ranking less of an achievement is the fact that too many great and/or promising players were either retired/injured/slumping at the same time. I mentioned Vaidisova only as one among many and as a last name on that list.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:37 PM
Umm...I was talking about Vaidisova? :weirdo:In my view: Wozniacki >> Vaidisova >> Safina with respect to their tennis abilities.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:42 PM
Nope. What makes Safinaīs number one ranking less of an achievement is the fact that too many great and/or promising players were either retired/injured/slumping at the same time. I mentioned Vaidisova only as one among many and as a last name on that list.

So if Vaidisova's "irrelevant" and "not a factor" then how does that make Safina's number one ranking less of an achievement when it's in the exact same time frame? :wavey:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:45 PM
http://i572.photobucket.com/albums/ss164/Cocoreccho/NOT-SURE-IF-TROLL-OR-JUST-VERY-STUPID.jpg

Patrick, I offered their H2H just to indicate that my claim isnīt as clearly laughable as you made it seen. Again, Iīd guess that most of tennis fans would agree that Vaidisova was more talented and promising player than Safina.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:47 PM
In my view: Wozniacki >> Vaidisova >> Safina with respect to their tennis abilities.

Nobody cares about "ability". It's the results that matter. :wavey: You don't get money or ranking points for ability, unfortunately. It's the results themselves that earn this. It's a concept which you clearly fail to understand. :help:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:47 PM
So if Vaidisova's "irrelevant" and "not a factor" then how does that make Safina's number one ranking less of an achievement when it's in the exact same time frame? :wavey:

Safinaīs breakthrough year was 2008. End of story. You are really trying hard to be a smart alec, arenīt you?

allhailwilliams
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:49 PM
Dinara lacks power and depth, maybe it is the back. but I would be shocked, if she didnīt return to the top 50 during the clay season.
Not true. I remember seeing her play Venus on clay a few years back, Venus did fall apart big time, safina played big. This is when she won everything but a slam. Shit..., v ain't been the real v in many years.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:50 PM
Nobody cares about "ability". It's the results that matter. :wavey: You don't get money or ranking points for ability, unfortunately. It's the results themselves that earn this. It's a concept which you clearly fail to understand. :help:

Since the issue under discussion is whether Safina is one of the biggest overachievers, or not, you can hardly argue to the contrary by pointing to her actual results.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:50 PM
Safinaīs breakthrough year was 2008.

And? You didn't answer the question yet again.

Smitten
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:52 PM
Safina was better than I expected, but still not good enough

OMG she is 3-4 m behind the baseline during points:help:
It's hard to win points like that

Lucie played ok, dictated the points and made great winners

Safina has to be back there to give her FH time to set up. She's incapable of hitting a FHDTL(her worst shot) off a flat, hard ball without being well behind the baseline.

It's why she achieved so much on clay because that type of court positioning is less penalized.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:54 PM
Since the issue under discussion is whether Safina is one of the biggest overachievers, or not, you can hardly argue to the contrary by pointing to her actual results.

You still don't get it, do you? Nobody cares. If you have talent to be Top 5 but you're ranked 100 then you're not going to get a trophy for it. It's the results that count, plain and simple. There is no ranking points won for having ability, it's the results which do this. I already said that in my last post but you don't understand.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 03:59 PM
And for the record, the discussion here was never about Dinara being an overachiever, it was about:

a. Whether Dinara is slower and less aggressive now. (I say yes, you say no)
b. Whether Vaidisova's slump makes Safina's number one ranking less of an achievement. (I say no, you say yes)
c. Whether Vaidisova's slump makes Wozniacki's number one ranking less of an achievement. (I say no, you didn't answer)

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:01 PM
So how does Vaidisova's slump make Safina's number one ranking less of an achievement but not Wozniacki's?

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:02 PM
And? You didn't answer the question yet again.

Well, Vaidisova certainly was one of the several players who had the potential to be more succesful than Safina in 2008. Safinaīs succesful season in 2008 gave her big confidence for the 2009 season. That implies:less success in 2008 = very likely less success in 2009. Does it ring the bell?

Anyway, this particular discussion over Vaidisova is totally tangential to the main point.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:07 PM
Well, Vaidisova certainly was one of the several players who had the potential to be more succesful than Safina in 2008.

She did, but not in 2009, when Safina became number one. :wavey: You admitted that yourself when you said Vaidisova was "irrelevant" and "not a factor" during this period. :lol:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:15 PM
And for the record, the discussion here was never about Dinara being an overachiever, it was about:

a. Whether Dinara is slower and less aggressive now. (I say yes, you say no)
b. Whether Vaidisova's slump makes Safina's number one ranking less of an achievement. (I say no, you say yes)
c. Whether Vaidisova's slump makes Wozniacki's number one ranking less of an achievement. (I say no, you didn't answer)

Sorry, but you remind me of Humpty Dumpty. :rolleyes:

All those issues are at best incidental to the main issue which is that Safina has never been a Top 5 material with respect to her tennis abilities and as such she is a very big overachiever.

But since you insist:

a/ My answer is either "not sure", or "I donīt see any substantial difference".

b/ My answer: yeah, it makes it less of an achievement, but only very slightly (to the point of being almost neglibible). But when you add to Vaidisova Justine Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Serena and Venus etc., then it makes definitely less of an achievement.

c/ No, since by the time Wozniacki reached the number one ranking, Vaidisova was a complete mess and her tennis career was finished for good.

Patrick345
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:16 PM
Not true. I remember seeing her play Venus on clay a few years back, Venus did fall apart big time, safina played big. This is when she won everything but a slam. Shit..., v ain't been the real v in many years.

You misunderstood. I mean she lacks depth and power now, which could possibly be a result of her back problems. Nevertheless that looked like a much improved effort, and I expect some good clay court results to get her back into the top 50.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:20 PM
She did, but not in 2009, when Safina became number one. :wavey: You admitted that yourself when you said Vaidisova was "irrelevant" and "not a factor" during this period. :lol:
Yeah, and didnīt she become number one in large part thanks to her 2008 results?:help:

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:27 PM
No, since by the time Wozniacki reached the number one ranking, Vaidisova was a complete mess and her tennis career was finished for good.

Please explain how Vaidisova being "irrelevant" and "not a factor" makes Safina's number one ranking "less of an achievement" yet her being a "complete mess" and her "tennis career finished for good" does not make Wozniacki's number one ranking "less of an achievement". :wavey:


Yeah, and didnīt she become number one in large part thanks to her 2008 results?:help:

Last time I checked rankings are based on the past 52 weeks. She was #1 last on 1st November in 2009, the only tournament past 1st November in 2008 was the YEC where she lost all her round robin matches, so no, I don't think number one was in large part thanks to her 2008 results. :wavey:

Dominika23
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:30 PM
Safina On FIre through the year 07-09 So far her being a Not aggressive and a overachiever WTF Sitdown.

Safina got to number one in the world from whipping ass many tennis player go look @ her stats. Her not

being Aggressive Wow she was like one most aggressive player before her injury. and Why hell r we compare

player. Just cause Hennin, and Clijsters was gone @ time she number one and THe williams sister play what

ever event they want to. & Ivanovic and Vaidisova was slumpping aint nobody fault that was when Safina

and truthly speaking you can't predictions on your hopes saying Ivanovic and Vaidisova wouldn't stop her

from being number1 lol. ANd again on the Aggressive part even if Safina wasn't aggressive look all the

tennis player who or not aggressive and made to top 10 and had plenty success

Wozniacki,Radwanska,Hantuchova,Chakvetadze. She Earn the number spot just like every other number 1

player did can't take that away. I can Granted she still be top 10 if it wasn't for her injury

Ashi
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:34 PM
Better an overachiever than an underachiever! :lol:

Good effort from her. Onwards and upawards! :) Davaii!

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
Please explain how Vaidisova being "irrelevant" and "not a factor" makes Safina's number one ranking "less of an achievement" yet her being a "complete mess" and her "tennis career finished for good" does not make Wozniacki's number one ranking "less of an achievement". :wavey:




Last time I checked rankings are based on the past 52 weeks. She was #1 last on 1st November in 2009, the only tournament past 1st November in 2008 was the YEC where she lost all her round robin matches, so no, I don't think number one was in large part thanks to her 2008 results. :wavey:

1/ Iīve already explained it to you like XXX times. If it helps you, letīs just change the wording (in the particular case of Vaidisova) to "Safinaīs 2008 results" are "less of an achievement", if only slightly so.


2/ Safina became No 1 in April 2009.

brickhousesupporter
Mar 3rd, 2011, 04:59 PM
They are only 20 #1's in the open era, which goes back to the 1960's
Prior to 1997, before they changed the ranking system that allows quantity over quality, there was 7 number 1 players. That is 22 years and only 7 players could get to number 1. From 1997 to present, which is about 14 years......there have been 13 number 1 players in the world. Please stop trying to make it seem like the number 1 position isn't losing its shine. In the future, a consistant year is all you are going to need to get to number 1.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:02 PM
1/ Iīve already explained it to you like XXX times. If it helps you, letīs just change the wording (in the particular case of Vaidisova) to "Safinaīs 2008 results" are "less of an achievement", if only slightly so.


2/ Safina became No 1 in April 2009.

1/ I don't see how Vaidisova's promising results at the end of 2007 have a bearing on Safina being ranked number one at the end of 2009, yet they don't for Wozniacki in 2010.

2/ Your point? She was still number one in November 2009. I just showed that she was number one at a point even with just ONE 2008 tournament on her ranking, where she lost all her matches. So considering Vaidisova's results between November 2008 and November 2009, did this make Safina's number one ranking less of an achievement? :) What was Vaidisova ranked in this time?

Sharapovian
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:16 PM
Congrats Lucie :yeah:

Even though she lost, promising display from Safina. She just needs more time and eventually things will work out for her :hug:

Sally Todd
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:17 PM
Does this really need to become another thread about whether Safina deserved to be number 1? :o

Better yet, Vaidisova the Immortal Natural Talent :o has been discussed more than Lucie in this thread. :help:

When Safina was #1 she had a game that could win a major (though only one major: the French). Can that be said of Jankovic or Wozniacki?

It's kind of amazing how many three-set matches Lucie wins these days. There was a time when a match going 3 sets meant she was doomed. I'd still like her to keep it together enough to win in straights more often, though.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:30 PM
BlueTrees:
Itīs just pointless to go on. If even the changed wording didnīt help you, than you are just hopeless.

goldenlox
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:31 PM
Since the issue under discussion is whether Safina is one of the biggest overachievers, or not, you can hardly argue to the contrary by pointing to her actual results.Her actual results are very strong. You dont get to #1 for several months without having a lot of very strong results. Very few players ever have been #1 for several months
Dinara was a very good player before her back injury. So she might have achieved much more without the broken bone in her back.

BlueTrees
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:33 PM
BlueTrees:
Itīs just pointless to go on. If even the changed wording didnīt help you, than you are just hopeless.

Seeing as just about everybody agrees with my points, and nobody agrees with yours, yeah, it's a good time for you to bail. :wavey:

AcesHigh
Mar 3rd, 2011, 05:36 PM
Prior to 1997, before they changed the ranking system that allows quantity over quality, there was 7 number 1 players. That is 22 years and only 7 players could get to number 1. From 1997 to present, which is about 14 years......there have been 13 number 1 players in the world. Please stop trying to make it seem like the number 1 position isn't losing its shine. In the future, a consistant year is all you are going to need to get to number 1.

bullshit.. you need results. When Dinara made #1 she had several Tier I titles and was making the semi's and finals of slams.

The change in the ranking system was for the better.. the higher number of #1's is b/c of the greater parity. There are no more Evert's, Navratilova's, and Graf's.

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 07:38 PM
Seeing as just about everybody agrees with my points, and nobody agrees with yours, yeah, it's a good time for you to bail. :wavey:

... and all of them are Safinaīs fans, you should have added. ;)

Certinfy
Mar 3rd, 2011, 07:49 PM
:D Awesome! :)

PLP
Mar 3rd, 2011, 07:55 PM
Wow, that was actually a pretty good match.

Dinara needs the confidence to move forward again, surprised nobody has said this yet.

Sure, she was content to rally 10 feet behind the baseline before, but when she had the opportunity she would step in to the court. She has good hands at the net, did anyone see that perfect drop shot in the 3rd set. More of that please. :)

Anyway, I am pleased with this match. Lucie was solid, awesome forehand. Congrats. :worship:

Dominika23
Mar 3rd, 2011, 07:57 PM
... and all of them are Safinaīs fans, you should have added. ;)

While if we all Safina then you must be a Hater :lol::lol::wavey:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 08:03 PM
While if we all Safina then you must be a Hater :lol::lol::wavey:
Nope. Iīm just a lover of a good, attractive tennis. :) :bounce: :worship:

vixter
Mar 3rd, 2011, 08:20 PM
It's all about using the amount of talent that you have. We can say that Safina really made the most of her talent getting to and during her time as no 1. It's possible that Vaidisova had a bit more feel and natural talent from the start but who cares? You must also gather your talent into a match style, find a consistency, perform week in week out etc etc... Saying that her getting to number 1 is not a great achievement is just an insult. For her it was a great achievement. When Justine retired she was the only one who stepped up and took the charge. A few years back noone expected she would reach this level, so yeah she definetely overachieved, but isn't that supposed to be something positive?

And of course she was faster and more aggresive a couple of years ago, when she was number 1. I really don't understand why anyone would try to suggest otherwise.

AcesHigh
Mar 3rd, 2011, 08:23 PM
It's all about using the amount of talent that you have. We can say that Safina really made the most of her talent getting to and during her time as no 1. It's possible that Vaidisova had a bit more feel and natural talent from the start but who cares? You must also gather your talent into a match style, find a consistency, perform week in week out etc etc... Saying that her getting to number 1 is not a great achievement is just an insult. For her it was a great achievement. When Justine retired she was the only one who stepped up and took the charge. A few years back noone expected she would reach this level, so yeah she definetely overachieved, but isn't that supposed to be something positive?

And of course she was faster and more aggresive a couple of years ago, when she was number 1. I really don't understand why anyone would try to suggest otherwise.

She underachieved in my opinion. People were expecting big things from her for years and she never came through. Additionally, she should have won a slam.. she was just way too much of a mental midget in those RG finals

duhcity
Mar 3rd, 2011, 08:34 PM
All those issues are at best incidental to the main issue which is that Safina has never been a Top 5 material with respect to her tennis abilities and as such she is a very big overachiever.

But since you insist:

a/ My answer is either "not sure", or "I donīt see any substantial difference".

b/ My answer: yeah, it makes it less of an achievement, but only very slightly (to the point of being almost neglibible). But when you add to Vaidisova Justine Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Ivanovic, Serena and Venus etc., then it makes definitely less of an achievement.

c/ No, since by the time Wozniacki reached the number one ranking, Vaidisova was a complete mess and her tennis career was finished for good.

Safina overachieved, but did so with work ethic and heart. Yes, she collapsed in finals, but she showed countless other times her dedication. I value that over a talented but lazy, mentally absent and heartless player. You can have all the talent in the world, but it means nothing if you can't push yourself. At least Safina would fight against Stacey Tan.

Honestly. Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Ivanovic, WS, even Wozniacki I can understand in your argument. Vaidisova? No. Never.
Safina worked her ass off at a time where players were mentally collapsing, taking it easy, or retired. If anything, she stepped up and into the role, which is a lot more admirable than retreating or retiring :rolleyes:

Matej
Mar 3rd, 2011, 08:42 PM
It's all about using the amount of talent that you have. We can say that Safina really made the most of her talent getting to and during her time as no 1. It's possible that Vaidisova had a bit more feel and natural talent from the start but who cares? You must also gather your talent into a match style, find a consistency, perform week in week out etc etc... Saying that her getting to number 1 is not a great achievement is just an insult. For her it was a great achievement. When Justine retired she was the only one who stepped up and took the charge. A few years back noone expected she would reach this level, so yeah she definetely overachieved, but isn't that supposed to be something positive?


For the record, Iīve never said that being the number 1 isnīt a great achievement. I just pointed out that being the number 1 at the time when the WTA Top was for various reasons considerably weaker than usually isnīt such a huge achievement as some posters make it appear. Surely youīd agree that i.e. the fact that Safina is one of only twenty female players who ever reached the number 1 ranking doesnīt imply by any means that sheīs anywhere close to the list of twenty greatest players over - say - last 40 years.

BlackPanther.
Mar 3rd, 2011, 08:50 PM
9 hours of discussion :worship: :lol:
Dinara :hug:, keep working hard.

vixter
Mar 3rd, 2011, 09:10 PM
For the record, Iīve never said that being the number 1 isnīt a great achievement. I just pointed out that being the number 1 at the time when the WTA Top was for various reasons considerably weaker than usually isnīt such a huge achievement as some posters make it appear. Surely youīd agree that i.e. the fact that Safina is one of only twenty female players who ever reached the number 1 ranking doesnīt imply by any means that sheīs anywhere close to the list of twenty greatest players over - say - last 40 years.

Yes I agree with that. But reading this thread, it just felt like you really wanted to make a point of how she is such a mediocre player. Well, today she might be, compared to what she used to be. Because she played at a really high level and kept up the consistency for quite a while. Not all good players can win slams, you need that little extra bit of game than Dinara lacked... But she was very good.

claypova
Mar 3rd, 2011, 09:49 PM
Lucie, well done :yeah:

Dina getting back some form :yeah::bounce:

rucolo
Mar 3rd, 2011, 10:31 PM
Nice win, Lucie!:hearts::yeah:

Safina should return to Top 50 soon :shrug:

Good luck in QF vs Bartoli, Lucie!:lol:

Patrick345
Mar 3rd, 2011, 11:17 PM
For the record, Iīve never said that being the number 1 isnīt a great achievement. I just pointed out that being the number 1 at the time when the WTA Top was for various reasons considerably weaker than usually isnīt such a huge achievement as some posters make it appear. Surely youīd agree that i.e. the fact that Safina is one of only twenty female players who ever reached the number 1 ranking doesnīt imply by any means that sheīs anywhere close to the list of twenty greatest players over - say - last 40 years.

Okay enough already with your incoherent ramblings.

During her rise to world no.1 she played

- and defeated Sharapova, Henin, and Jankovic, when they were ranked world no.1.
- Kuznetsova seven times, who was ranked inside the top 5, won the French Open 2009 and was always close to her career-high ranking of two.
- Dementieva six times, who was on a good run, that culminated with her Olympic gold medal.
- Serena Williams four times, and during that time Serena won the US Open and Australian Open.
- Venus Williams four times, who won Wimbledon and the Tour Championships during that time.
- Azarenka five times, who was just rising through the rankings into the top 10.
- Ivanovic at her absolute peak.
- Zvonareva, Na Li and Pennetta multiple times.
- Up and coming Wozniacki and Stosur.

SO WTF are you talking about a weak era. Most players were actually playing close to their best during that time. Sharapova, Serena, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Venus and Ivanovic all won major titles in 2008/2009. Jankovic played the best tennis of her life and became No.1. Azarenka and Woznaicki rose to prominence with some good results. You had Zvonareva, Petrova and Pennetta hanging around the top ten.

At the end of 2008, WTA Top 15:

1. Jelena Jankovic - Serbia - 4710
2. Serena Williams - United States - 3866
3. Dinara Safina - Russia - 3817
4. Elena Dementieva - Russia - 3663
5. Ana Ivanovic - Serbia - 3457
6. Venus Williams - United States - 3272
7. Vera Zvonareva - Russia - 2952
8. Svetlana Kuznetsova - Russia - 2726
9. Maria Sharapova - Russia - 2515
10. Agnieszka Radwanska - Poland - 2286
11. Nadia Petrova - Russia - 1976
12. Caroline Wozniacki - Denmark - 1678
13. Flavia Pennetta - Italy - 1670
14. Patty Schnyder - Switzerland - 1590
15. Victoria Azarenka - Belarus - 1494

Truly awful top 15 that is. :rolleyes:

goat
Mar 4th, 2011, 12:01 AM
1. Jelena Jankovic - Serbia - 4710
2. Serena Williams - United States - 3866
3. Dinara Safina - Russia - 3817
4. Elena Dementieva - Russia - 3663
5. Ana Ivanovic - Serbia - 3457
6. Venus Williams - United States - 3272
7. Vera Zvonareva - Russia - 2952
8. Svetlana Kuznetsova - Russia - 2726
9. Maria Sharapova - Russia - 2515
10. Agnieszka Radwanska - Poland - 2286
11. Nadia Petrova - Russia - 1976
12. Caroline Wozniacki - Denmark - 1678
13. Flavia Pennetta - Italy - 1670
14. Patty Schnyder - Switzerland - 1590
15. Victoria Azarenka - Belarus - 1494

Truly awful top 15 that is. :rolleyes:

What a delicious top 15.Just take away flavia, Agnieska and Patty and replace them with peak Li, peak Stosur and peak Vaidisova and you woul have a gravy train of WTA success!
-


Well done Lucie I didn't unfortunately see the match but I am glad Dinara played competitevely. :hearts: Hopefully she can break through during clay court but with her slow movement I still question it.
P.S, no mediocre player can achieve a top five ranking even during a wta slump let alone a no. 1 ranking.

tennisforadults
Mar 4th, 2011, 12:24 AM
Well, that was one of the worst Clijstersī matches since her comeback. Iīd say that the double bagel at AO this year has higher relevance .:)

:rolleyes: Please don't use smileys to hide your idiocy.

Okay and the Safina-Kvitova slump was one of her worst matches during her number 1 stint.......lets not have double standards here people:rolleyes:

Exactly.

goldenlox
Mar 4th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Dinara beat just about every top player during that run.
Justine, Serena, Kim, Venus, Maria, Caroline, Elena, Vera, Jelena, Amelie, Sveta

Even if she didnt, like Wozniacki now, you still have to beat a lot of good players consistently to get anywhere near #1

Droolv
Mar 4th, 2011, 12:36 AM
Well done Lucie :yeah:

Matej
Mar 4th, 2011, 12:45 AM
Okay enough already with your incoherent ramblings.

During her rise to world no.1 she played

- and defeated Sharapova, Henin, and Jankovic, when they were ranked world no.1.

(...)

SO WTF are you talking about a weak era. Most players were actually playing close to their best during that time. Sharapova, Serena, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Venus and Ivanovic all won major titles in 2008/2009. Jankovic played the best tennis of her life and became No.1. Azarenka and Woznaicki rose to prominence with some good results. You had Zvonareva, Petrova and Pennetta hanging around the top ten.

At the end of 2008, WTA Top 15:

1. Jelena Jankovic - Serbia - 4710
2. Serena Williams - United States - 3866
3. Dinara Safina - Russia - 3817
4. Elena Dementieva - Russia - 3663
5. Ana Ivanovic - Serbia - 3457
6. Venus Williams - United States - 3272
7. Vera Zvonareva - Russia - 2952
8. Svetlana Kuznetsova - Russia - 2726
9. Maria Sharapova - Russia - 2515
10. Agnieszka Radwanska - Poland - 2286
11. Nadia Petrova - Russia - 1976
12. Caroline Wozniacki - Denmark - 1678
13. Flavia Pennetta - Italy - 1670
14. Patty Schnyder - Switzerland - 1590
15. Victoria Azarenka - Belarus - 1494

Truly awful top 15 that is. :rolleyes:

Surely you do realise that what I meant by "the WTA Top" in that context was referring to those players who were (or would have been, if they were not injured/retired/slumping) serious contenders for the number one ranking. Letīs see:

1/ Sharapova had great first four month of 2008 -- then she got injured and -- well, we all know the sad story.

2/ Ivanovic started her slump shortly after RG 2008; we all know the sad story.

3/ Henin and Clijsters temporarily retired.

4/ Jankovic was at her peak in 2008, but then in 2009 had an awful year (considerably slumping as well).

5/ Serena played just 12 tournaments in 2008 (and cca 15 in 2009) and apparently did not care much about her results and performance at most of the regular WTA tournaments.

So now we are in the year 2009 when Safina actually became the number one -- with at least five clearly superior players out of picture (injured Sharapova, retired Clijsters and Henin, slumping Serbian duo) ... and with Serena who concentrated herself on just a few major events and not caring about other tournaments. Safina should thank her lucky stars for such an extremely favorable constellation of affairs.:)

DS.Fan.
Mar 4th, 2011, 01:05 AM
This thread became so....funny..I'm happier Dinara is overachiever than having huge talent but cant push it out.I like the people who r not so talented but work hard then get good results rather than someone who has talent but just waste it totally...maybe in someone's opinion,WTA should set a ranking about Player's talent or ability....Lol. I miss the agressive Dinara like the first match i saw her play.believe this girl will come back if she will not be blind and rush to make some stupid decisions again.Davai.

homogenius
Mar 4th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Surely you do realise that what I meant by "the WTA Top" in that context was referring to those players who were (or would have been, if they were not injured/retired/slumping) serious contenders for the number one ranking. Letīs see:

1/ Sharapova had great first four month of 2008 -- then she got injured and -- well, we all know the sad story.

2/ Ivanovic started her slump shortly after RG 2008; we all know the sad story.

3/ Henin and Clijsters temporarily retired.

4/ Jankovic was at her peak in 2008, but then in 2009 had an awful year (considerably slumping as well).

5/ Serena played just 12 tournaments in 2008 (and cca 15 in 2009) and apparently did not care much about her results and performance at most of the regular WTA tournaments.

So now we are in the year 2009 when Safina actually became the number one -- with at least five clearly superior players out of picture (injured Sharapova, retired Clijsters and Henin, slumping Serbian duo) ... and with Serena who concentrated herself on just a few major events and not caring about other tournaments. Safina should thank her lucky stars for such an extremely favorable constellation of affairs.:)

You can't say what Justine or Kim would have done if they were still on tour at the time so their absence change nothing.Serena played 13 events in 2008, 16 in 2009, which is more than in most of the other years in her career so I'd say she was pretty focused on playing and trying to become n°1 again.Injured or not, Maria was never consistent enough to stay at the n°1 spot for a long time so...
You also, fail to consider that Dinara became n°1 in April 2009, meaning that most of her results came in 2008 (titles in Berlin, LA, Montreal, Tokyo; finals at FO and Shertogenbosch, a silver medal at the OG, a SF at the USO etc...)and anyway it was not Dinara's business if Ana couldn't deal with the pressure after she won the FO and became n°1 or if JJ fucked up her 2009 season with the wrong preparation during the off-season (bulking up etc...).

I'd agree that Dinara has less game than all these players, but at her peak (2008/2009)she had improved her fitness a lot (which allowed her to win countless of gruelling matches even when she was playing not so good tennis)and she gain a lot of confidence as well (her run at the FO08 being just one example of that).She failed to really bring it in her slam SF/finals, but on the day to day matches she was one if not the toughest on tour at one point..All this helped her to make the most of her abilities and she got the results.She didn't found herself at the n°1 spot by just watching the others play.

Dominika23
Mar 4th, 2011, 01:19 AM
Surely you do realise that what I meant by "the WTA Top" in that context was referring to those players who were (or would have been, if they were not injured/retired/slumping) serious contenders for the number one ranking. Letīs see:

1/ Sharapova had great first four month of 2008 -- then she got injured and -- well, we all know the sad story.

2/ Ivanovic started her slump shortly after RG 2008; we all know the sad story.

3/ Henin and Clijsters temporarily retired.

4/ Jankovic was at her peak in 2008, but then in 2009 had an awful year (considerably slumping as well).

5/ Serena played just 12 tournaments in 2008 (and cca 15 in 2009) and apparently did not care much about her results and performance at most of the regular WTA tournaments.

So now we are in the year 2009 when Safina actually became the number one -- with at least five clearly superior players out of picture (injured Sharapova, retired Clijsters and Henin, slumping Serbian duo) ... and with Serena who concentrated herself on just a few major events and not caring about other tournaments. Safina should thank her lucky stars for such an extremely favorable constellation of affairs.:)

Ok is that anybody fault why Henin and Clijsters was Retired and Ivanovic was Slumping and Maria was injured and Jankovic had a bad year.:lol::lol::lol: That a bad excuse if you ask me Safina was whipping ass at that time she whipping ass they should pick up they game. and if that the case the reason why Safina not in the top 10 is because her injurys and she slumping right now since we can use excuse for tennis. Sorry tell you they aint no excuse for why person won lose or became number 1 the shit shows fact. So Safe!

hurricanejeanne
Mar 4th, 2011, 01:28 AM
Good job, Lucie. Sounds like Dina's finally taking the babysteps to get back on track. :)

Caralenko
Mar 4th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Matej is so pathetic. :lol:

I saw the first two sets and they were both playing well. Lucie was a bad match for Dinara even at her peak.