PDA

View Full Version : It’s time to reconsider


tea
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:16 AM
Sweet Caroline: Wozniacki determined to be the best
By Tom Perrotta - Tuesday, March 8, 2011
http://tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=10977&zoneid=9


Don't let Caroline Wozniacki’s winning smile fool you. This gritty competitor is determined to be the best.

Caroline Wozniacki’s breakout 2010 season left most people talking about all the things she wasn’t. A prodigy. Feared. Revolutionary. A champion. She didn’t have a signature shot, or a style that would rewrite the textbooks of technique. Steffi Graf gave women’s tennis a new forehand. Monica Seles perfected the two-handed attack. Serena Williams redefined power. Caroline Wozniacki wasn’t going to do any of those things.

For those who didn’t like what they saw in Wozniacki in 2010, it’s time to reconsider. Forget, for a minute, what Caroline Wozniacki isn’t, and consider what she is. Gritty. Smart. Determined. Tough. Oh, and one more thing: the future. Women’s tennis has had a recent run of less-than-spectacular top-ranked players, bearers of false hope like Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina. Wozniacki, 20 years old and improving rapidly, is poised to break that cycle—and stay at the top for years to come. She’s not another fake No. 1. The closer one looks at Wozniacki, the more potential one sees.

“She’s very solid mentally, and that’s where others who have reached the top haven’t been able to handle the expectations,” Tracy Austin says. “I think she’s going to be able to sustain the top level for a long time.”

Austin watched Wozniacki mature up close. It was last summer in Montreal, where rain backed up the tournament and forced Wozniacki to play her semifinal and final on the same day. Austin was impressed that Wozniacki won both matches and captured the first top-level title of her career. But she was more impressed by how Wozniacki did it. She served harder. She went for sharper angles. She took more chances, yet kept her mistakes to a minimum. Wozniacki is seen as a safe player, even a pusher. Yet people sometimes don’t want to recognize that safe is smart—and that aggression can be learned.

“She doesn’t have big shots like the way Kim Clijsters does, but she can develop them,” Mary Carillo says. “She’s got great natural power. When she beefs up her serve, I think it will change an awful lot.”

Wozniacki’s spirit, though, is her greatest asset. Sven Groeneveld, the Adidas coach who often advises Wozniacki, became acquainted with it in 2006, when Adidas asked him to scout the young Wozniacki. Earlier that summer, she had won junior Wimbledon and she was a favorite to do the same at the US Open. Instead, she was defaulted for an audible obscenity during her first match. Wozniacki still remembers that day. “I was mad at myself, then I said something to the linesman like, ‘Take your glasses off because you can’t see,’” she says. “I guess that was rude enough for them to kick me off the court. I knew it wasn’t nicely said, but I didn’t feel like it was enough for them to kick me off the court. I’m a competitor and I like to behave well. I was very disappointed in the whole situation and in myself.”

Groeneveld had a different reaction. Here was a superb athlete with solid strokes and no reputation for nasty behavior—and now she was showing that she had heart. “She still has a lot of punch in her,” he says. “You have to love the game; you have to love what you do. You have to want to improve. She’s got that. She’s not up-and-down emotionally.”

Groeneveld stresses this last detail: “This is where her father played a huge role.”

Pride of Denmark
Denmark, population 5.5 million, is hardly a tennis haven. Kenneth Carlsen, the best player in the nation’s history, holds a dubious distinction: He played 46 Grand Slam events in his career and lost in the first round 30 times. Despite good facilities, programs, club teams and players, Denmark had never produced a champion—until Piotr Wozniacki moved there from Poland.

Piotr and his wife, Anna, were both professional athletes. Anna played volleyball; Piotr was a soccer star who signed with a club in Odense in the ’80s. They have two children, Caroline and her older brother, Patrik, who plays pro soccer for a club in Denmark.

Piotr’s story is a familiar one in tennis. He wasn’t a strong player. He didn’t know anything about technique. In this way, he was no different from Karolj Seles or Richard Williams or Stefano Capriati or Yuri Sharapov. Piotr had one advantage: He knew the pressures of being a professional athlete. In tennis, technique is vastly overrated. No one would consider it wise to play tennis like Monica Seles. She didn’t win with technique, but with tactics and will. From the beginning, Piotr set out to turn his daughter into a competitor first, and a tennis player second. Caroline was eager to learn.

“The summer when I was 8, I trained every day for three or four hours a day against the wall because I wanted to get better,” Wozniacki says. “My parents and my brother were playing on the courts and they didn’t want to play with me because I wasn’t good enough.” A year later, her parents were no match for her. The next year, she defeated her then 14-year-old brother, too. “He broke his racquets and he never played tennis again,” she says, laughing. “It wasn’t fun for him being 14 and losing to his 10-year-old sister.” Other boys in Denmark soon knew the feeling. At 14, Wozniacki won the Danish national women’s championships, open to women of all ages. From that point on, she mostly played against advanced boys and coaches.

Rather than send his daughter to a tennis academy, Piotr picked up bits of advice from local pros. One of them was Morten Christensen, a former pro who in 2002 was Denmark’s head national coach, working out of the Danish national tennis center. Wozniacki was a talent the likes of which Christensen had never seen.

“She was almost better than the 16 and 18-year-old girls when she was 11,” he says. Wozniacki’s family was willing to move closer to Copenhagen, which had the best players and the national tennis center. But Christensen had to bend a few rules to spend as much time with Wozniacki as he liked. At the time, coaches in the national center were not allowed to train children under 15 because the center was funded, in part, by the national Olympic Committee. So Christensen invited Wozniacki as a guest—a guest who showed up all the time.

“It was a ridiculous rule,” he says, adding that it has since been changed. “When I think of how she approached the game when she was 11 years old, I still don’t see anyone at 16 or 17 with the intensity she had.”

Christensen later traveled with Wozniacki to tournaments. His last trip with her was in 2006 to Wimbledon, where she had won the junior title. He was always happy to help, but knew that Wozniacki’s father would continue to lead the way.

“I think what her dad is very good at is the parting between being a dad and being a coach,” Mortensen says. “They have their work, but there are a lot of soft moments there.”

When asked about her relationship with her father, Wozniacki says the bond is so strong that she couldn’t learn from anyone else. Yes, they fight on occasion—“like anyone else,” she says—and no, they don’t always agree about what she ought to do on court and off of it. They haven’t had a disagreement yet that they haven’t been able to talk through.

“My dad, he knows me the best,” she says. “We grew up together with tennis. He doesn’t know much about technique, but he knows a lot of other things about the tactics, how I am as a person, what I can do. He’s very good at telling me things in a way that I understand.”

Rich—But a Champ?
At the end of 2010, Wozniacki was the richest female tennis player to never win a Grand Slam title. She earned an estimated $9 million in prize money, appearance fees and endorsements. She added Turkish Airlines, Proactiv skincare and Motive Pure (a sports drink) to her portfolio at the start of 2011 and switched from Babolat to Yonex (a four-year deal). She could easily take home between $11 million and $12 million this year.

The money opens up Wozniacki for attack by some critics of women’s tennis who see the sport as more about marketing than winning, and who see the ranking system as a sham. Mary Carillo says Wozniacki deserves better.

“She looked fitter to me in the second half of the year, and she’s clearly taking a lot of steps to win a major,” Carillo says. “And then the fact that she supports the tour more than anyone else is held against her? That’s a bum deal.”

Wozniacki doesn’t seem to worry about the criticism. She says she feels no pressure as the No. 1, for the simple reason that she got there a lot sooner than she thought she would. “Tennis is a big part of my life, for sure, but it’s not everything,” she says. “I trained to reach this goal, and I reached it and it’s important to enjoy it. If I’m very disappointed after I lost a match, my dad asks me, ‘OK, what happened today? You only lost a match, no one dies, you still have tomorrow, there’s another tournament next week. If you beat everyone, that would be boring and you wouldn’t have the motivation to practice.’”

As a child, Wozniacki had three tennis role models: Martina Hingis, Monica Seles and Anna Kournikova. At 20, Seles was out of tennis after being stabbed in the back. She already had eight major titles to her name, but would win just one more. Hingis had won five major titles but could no longer handle the power of women like the Williams sisters and Lindsay Davenport. Three seasons later, she would retire. Kournikova, a Wimbledon semifinalist at 16, played six Grand Slam singles matches after her 20th birthday. She lost five of them.

One can see traits of all these players in Wozniacki. Seles’ athletic build and determination. Hingis’ mind for angles and tactics. Kournikova’s good looks, but also her (often forgotten) obsession with the game, before injuries wrecked her career. What everyone wants to know about Wozniacki is, which model is she most like? And when are we going to know for sure? The women’s game is in holding pattern—the Williams sisters are on their way out, and no one seems ready to replace them—and tennis fans want to know who’s next. Wozniacki believes she’ll grow into the role. She just asks for a little patience.

“I’m only 20 years old,” she says. “I can still do more.”

Originally published in the March 2011 issue of TENNIS.

I think it's an interesting take on the tour's best player. Reconsider and discuss.:kiss:

Patrick345
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:28 AM
I think it's an interesting take on the tour's best player. Reconsider and discuss.:kiss:

It really bothered you that we didn´t have a single Wozniacki topic on the first page, right? :lol:

SELVEN
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:29 AM
Seles’ athletic build and determination. Hingis’ mind for angles and tactics. Kournikova’s good looks, but also her (often forgotten) obsession with the game

Such people do exist?:shrug:

madmax
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:30 AM
:yawn:
No matter howe you wrap it up - a turd is still a turd

Jorn
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:31 AM
With Serena Out, Worlds best player will be WTA No. 1 after Miami.

Caralenko
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:34 AM
She’s not another fake No. 1

The fuck does that mean? :confused:

Corswandt
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:36 AM
She’s not another fake No. 1 The fuck does that mean? :confused:

I think it's quite clear:

Women’s tennis has had a recent run of less-than-spectacular top-ranked players, bearers of false hope like Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina.

Patrick345
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:40 AM
The fuck does that mean? :confused:

That the author is convinced the WTA will be so awful for the next 10 years that Wozniacki will stay on top by default rather than by skill.

Corswandt
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:40 AM
Anyh00, re: this article, it's just mercenary bourrage de crâne in the line of the nauseating pieces on Ana Ivanovic that Tennis magazine (through Tignor IIRC) used to do just before Indian Wells every year.

I.e. it's not to be taken seriously.

Because if you did, there'd be like 30+ things on that article to take issue with, most of them being flat out wrong.

BTW I wonder who'll be the next player for whom Adidas will buy such publicity.

Caralenko
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:44 AM
I think it's quite clear:

Yes... but their credentials are no less special than Wozniacki's. How does that make them fake and her: "The real deal"? The author is such an example of objectivity.

Corswandt
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:46 AM
Yes... but their credentials are no less special than Wozniacki's. How does that make them fake and her: "The real deal"?

€€€€€€€€€€€€€

tea
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:47 AM
It really bothered you that we didn´t have a single Wozniacki topic on the first page, right? :lol:
:lol: Not particularly, but it didn't look right indeed.
Anyh00, re: this article, it's just mercenary bourrage de crâne in the line of the nauseating pieces on Ana Ivanovic that Tennis magazine (through Tignor IIRC) used to do just before Indian Wells every year.

I.e. it's not to be taken seriously.

Because if you did, there'd be like 30+ things on that article to take issue with, most of them being flat out wrong.

BTW I wonder who'll be the next player for whom Adidas will buy such publicity.
Blah blah... Name a couple that are very wrong. Because I can say there are 30+ things to learn from the article.

Corswandt
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:49 AM
Name a couple that are very wrong.

Good technique being "vastly overrated".

Putting a (very) positive spin on Wozniacka being one of only 3 female players (IIRC) to get defaulted in a match over the last 5 or 6 seasons.

tea
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Yes... but their credentials are no less special than Wozniacki's. How does that make them fake and her: "The real deal"? The author is such an example of objectivity.
They are pretty much done, so it's safe to say they were fake No1s; Wozniacki, on the other hand, is far from being done even in the most pessimistic views, which author definitely doesn't share.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:56 AM
Good technique being "vastly overrated".

Putting a (very) positive spin on Wozniacka being one of only 3 female players (IIRC) to get defaulted in a match over the last 5 or 6 seasons.

Good technique is overrated. If there were two 16 year old girls, one with good technique but average motivation and another with so-so technique but huge drive and willingness to work hard to be the best she can be I know who my money would be on to be the most successful and it wouldn't be the girl with the good technique.

Case in point...look how many girls they are residing in the top 100 who you would without hesitation be critical of in terms of their technique. Now imagine how many girls they are ranked outside the top 200 who have absolutely great technique but lack the coaching and desire to achieve real success in this sport.

tea
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:01 AM
Good technique being "vastly overrated".

Putting a (very) positive spin on Wozniacka being one of only 3 female players (IIRC) to get defaulted in a match over the last 5 or 6 seasons.
Nah, not good technique but technique in general. Meaning that technique alone is nothing in modern tennis.:shrug:

With Wozniacka's honest comments it does sound positive itself.

GrandMartha
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:25 AM
:oh:

Viktymise
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:27 AM
Anyh00, re: this article, it's just mercenary bourrage de crâne in the line of the nauseating pieces on Ana Ivanovic that Tennis magazine (through Tignor IIRC) used to do just before Indian Wells every year.

I.e. it's not to be taken seriously.

Because if you did, there'd be like 30+ things on that article to take issue with, most of them being flat out wrong.

BTW I wonder who'll be the next player for whom Adidas will buy such publicity.

+

"She[Failnaicki] has great natural power." - No, she doesn't.

"She[Failniacki] took more chances." - Doubtful. Failniacki never takes chances.

"Wozniacki’s spirit, though, is her greatest asset." - Hardly. Look at where having 'spirit' got Larcher de Brito.

“She was almost better than the 16 and 18-year-old girls when she was 11,” - Who the fuck is he even talking about here?

"And then the fact that she supports the tour more than anyone else is held against her?" - I wouldn't exactly call hogging "supporting the tour".

"[She has]Hingis’ mind for angles and tactics." - :rolls:

dkat84
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:44 AM
Good technique is overrated. If there were two 16 year old girls, one with good technique but average motivation and another with so-so technique but huge drive and willingness to work hard to be the best she can be I know who my money would be on to be the most successful and it wouldn't be the girl with the good technique.

I'm sorry, but if the girl had such huge drive and willingness to work hard she'd fix her god damn technique!

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:45 AM
+

"She[Failnaicki] has great natural power." - No, she doesn't.

"She[Failniacki] took more chances." - Doubtful. Failniacki never takes chances.

"Wozniacki’s spirit, though, is her greatest asset." - Hardly. Look at where having 'spirit' got Larcher de Brito.

“She was almost better than the 16 and 18-year-old girls when she was 11,” - Who the fuck is he even talking about here?

"And then the fact that she supports the tour more than anyone else is held against her?" - I wouldn't exactly call hogging "supporting the tour".

"[She has]Hingis’ mind for angles and tactics." - :rolls:

Would you care to elaborate on this comment. :confused:

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:56 AM
I'm sorry, but if the girl had such huge drive and willingness to work hard she'd fix her god damn technique!

Yes. Exactly. That is actually the very point I am making. At the very least the girl with the most drive would work towards making her technique the most effective it could be. While the girl who already had good technique but not the drive would stall failing to address things like fitness and without practice all the good natural technique in the world isn't going to help you.

Viktymise
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:00 PM
Would you care to elaborate on this comment. :confused:

You can have all the 'spirit' you want, but you need the game to back it up. I cartainly wouldn't say Failniacki's 'spirit' is her best asset. Not even close.

Larcher de Brito has 'spirit' in bags, but has no serve and plays like a robot. Thus, she's barely ranked inside the top 200.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:06 PM
You can have all the 'spirit' you want, but you need the game to back it up. I cartainly wouldn't say Failniacki's 'spirit' is her best asset. Not even close.

Larcher de Brito has 'spirit' in bags, but has no serve and plays like a robot. Thus, she's barely ranked inside the top 200.

Spirit is more than having a loud grunt and a pronounced fist pump. Spirit is about how hard you work to improve you game off the court. It is about things like practice. It is about things like trying one's very hardest each and every match, heck, each and every point you play. It is about being committed to being the best you can be on and off the court 24 hours a day. A quick look at MLDB's ITF results suggests despite what you might think of her, spirit doesn't appear to be her strongest calling card.

Yes, I have seen matches when MLDB fought like a little terrier on court with great determination. But you need to work that hard off the court too. And you need to work that hard on the court too, every match you play, not just once in a while. If MLDB did that maybe she wouldn't be ranked around 180 in the world.

So then, what do you think is Wozniacki's best asset then? Coming from such a big fan I would be intrigued.

Corswandt
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:18 PM
Spirit is more than having a loud grunt and a pronounced fist pump. Spirit is about how hard you work to improve you game off the court. It is about things like practice. It is about things like trying one's very hardest each and every match, heck, each and every point you play. It is about being committed to being the best you can be on and off the court 24 hours a day. A quick look at MLDB's ITF results suggests despite what you might think of her, spirit doesn't appear to be her strongest calling card.

Yes, I have seen matches when MLDB fought like a little terrier on court with great determination. But you need to work that hard off the court too. And you need to work that hard on the court too, every match you play, not just once in a while. If MLDB did that maybe she wouldn't be ranked around 180 in the world.

How do you know Micaela Carolina isn't working hard off the court?

No matter how much work a player puts in, there are always going to be physical shortcomings and technical flaws that will show themselves to be unsurmountable.

The Dawntreader
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:24 PM
How do you know Micaela Carolina isn't working hard off the court?

No matter how much work a player puts in, there are always going to be physical shortcomings and technical flaws that will show themselves to be unsurmountable.

Precisely.

There's this new line now in tennis, that determination and work ethic surpasses the technical and physical aspects of the sport. It's just not true. There has to be a blend of everything in order to become a great, great player.

Viktymise
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Spirit is more than having a loud grunt and a pronounced fist pump. Spirit is about how hard you work to improve you game off the court. It is about things like practice. It is about things like trying one's very hardest each and every match, heck, each and every point you play. It is about being committed to being the best you can be on and off the court 24 hours a day. A quick look at MLDB's ITF results suggests despite what you might think of her, spirit doesn't appear to be her strongest calling card.

Yes, I have seen matches when MLDB fought like a little terrier on court with great determination. But you need to work that hard off the court too. And you need to work that hard on the court too, every match you play, not just once in a while. If MLDB did that maybe she wouldn't be ranked around 180 in the world.

And how do you know she doesn't work really hard off-court? Maybe she's just not that good? Bolletieri students are notoriously hard working. MLDB's height is evidently a big issue in terms of improving her serve, and tactically she's about as clueless as Dementieva. Some things you can't simply acquire through hard-work.

So then, what do you think is Wozniacki's best asset then? Coming from such a big fan I would be intrigued.

Her anticipation, reflexes, rock solidness from the baseline and her abitily to disrupt the rhythm of her opponents with her unintetional junk due to her shoddy technique. All a lot more useful than her 'spirt'.

I'm sure Failniacki does put tons and tons of work in off-court. It's the only way of explaining how she's so solid with such dreadful technique. But I don't think that it means she's an amazingly 'spirited' player who wins matches simply because of it. The actual claim is quite ludicrous.

Wiggly
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:27 PM
Great article.

However, Caroline doesn't have Martina's brain or Anna's looks.
Anyone can see that.

She's working really, really hard and she's clearly improving.
I just wish the journalists would stop saying she's just some sort or sexy genius.

homogenius
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:32 PM
"One can see traits of all these players in Wozniacki. Seles’ athletic build and determination. Hingis’ mind for angles and tactics. Kournikova’s good looks, but also her (often forgotten) obsession with the game"

:rolls:

goldenlox
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:33 PM
They are all working hard. Even the players not getting good results are working hard.
Caroline is #1 for the last 5 months. There are going to be articles written about her.

And I dont think Dinara was a fake #1. She reached 3 slam finals in a short amount of time, 2 slam semis, won Tier I's and was in the Olympic Gold medal match.
Dinara had a major injury, it wasnt like she just started losing. She couldnt play a match.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:36 PM
How do you know Micaela Carolina isn't working hard off the court?

No matter how much work a player puts in, there are always going to be physical shortcomings and technical flaws that will show themselves to be unsurmountable.

Good question. I don't. However the fact that Micaela Carolina was beating players of the quality of Makarova, Radwanska, Dulko, Pennetta, Zheng and Zakopalova back in 2008/9 and now she is losing to players like Rolle, Boserup, Gavrilova and Brengle often with uncompetitive scorelines suggests to me something is not working. Perhaps she has been carrying injuries, that's a possibility.

But generally you know when a player continues to move up the rankings and exceed pundits expectations it is a good sign the player is working very hard. Likewise when you see a player whose ranking is falling like a stone it is usually a sign they are either not working hard enough to improve their game or they are carrying some injury. In occassional circumstances it can also be due to a mental collapse in belief and confidence too. And of course as a player ages it is natural at some point their ranking will drift downwards but MLDB is hardly at a point in her career where she needs to worry about aging.

One can't generalise and every player is different and every player's circumstances are different too but more often than not you can tell which players are working the hardest because they are the ones who are move up the rankings not down.

Sund7101
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:40 PM
"One can see traits of all these players in Wozniacki. Seles’ athletic build and determination. Hingis’ mind for angles and tactics. Kournikova’s good looks, but also her (often forgotten) obsession with the game"

:rolls:

This is getting out of hand. :lol: Today's tennis junkies will find anyway to bring up the stars of the past, because--quite frankly--there aren't any today.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:42 PM
And how do you know she doesn't work really hard off-court? Maybe she's just not that good? Bolletieri students are notoriously hard working. MLDB's height is evidently a big issue in terms of improving her serve, and tactically she's about as clueless as Dementieva. Some things you can't simply acquire through hard-work.



Her anticipation, reflexes, rock solidness from the baseline and her abitily to disrupt the rhythm of her opponents with her unintetional junk due to her shoddy technique. All a lot more useful than her 'spirt'.

I'm sure Failniacki does put tons and tons of work in off-court. It's the only way of explaining how she's so solid with such dreadful technique. But I don't think that it means she's an amazingly 'spirited' player who wins matches simply because of it. The actual claim is quite ludicrous.

So you agree with me. Thank you.

Viktymise
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:51 PM
So you agree with me. Thank you.

Well, agree with you in what sense? I think the whole topic of 'spirit' is bullshit, and I don't think that working very hard off-court means that you have great 'spirit'. Plenty of players work very hard off-court. I'd refer to them as hard-working.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 12:52 PM
Well, agree with you in what sense? I think the whole topic of 'spirit' is bullshit, and I don't think that working very hard off-court means that you have great 'spirit'. Plenty of players work very hard off-court. I'd refer to them as hard-working.

Hard work >>>> technique.

Regarding the word "spirit" it is never a word I much liked either and it isn't a word I chose to use. Work ethic is a much better term and yes, I think Wozniacki's work ethic is clearly one of the best in the game although there are obviously numerous other fine examples of players who work very hard.

goldenlox
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:03 PM
They all work hard. There are plenty of young players who are taught great technique and never make the tour.

Poor technique is supposed to easier to break down when being pressured by an excellent player.

But a player can still win majors and be a long term #1 without textbook technique.
They have to be very strong in other relevant areas.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:08 PM
They all work hard. There are plenty of young players who are taught great technique and never make the tour.

Poor technique is supposed to easier to break down when being pressured by an excellent player.

But a player can still win majors and be a long term #1 without textbook technique.
They have to be very strong in other relevant areas.

Totally agree. You can get into the top 100 with far from optimum technique but you sure as hell can not get there without working very hard.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:21 PM
Hard work >>>> technique.

Regarding the word "spirit" it is never a word I much liked either and it isn't a word I chose to use. Work ethic is a much better term and yes, I think Wozniacki's work ethic is clearly one of the best in the game although there are obviously numerous other fine examples of players who work very hard.


:help: if she is so hard working and "hard work >>>> technique" why are kim clijsters and serena the ones holding 3 of the 4 slams? it is because serena has better technique on serve, backhand ect ect and kim has better technique on forehand, backhand, slice ect ect.

I would guess by clijsters tweets she doesn't have oodles of time to be putting in mega hard work on the practice courts all the time. she has to make the most of her practice times, but given her better technique she can overcome giving away 8 years to caro and being a mum with commitments.

you can work as hard as you like, i mean look at jill craybas a total workhorse, but if you don't have the technique you will find your level somewhere. caro is lucky the very best players are part time or her place would be 3rd/4th.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:35 PM
:help: if she is so hard working and "hard work >>>> technique" why are kim clijsters and serena the ones holding 3 of the 4 slams? it is because serena has better technique on serve, backhand ect ect and kim has better technique on forehand, backhand, slice ect ect.

I would guess by clijsters tweets she doesn't have oodles of time to be putting in mega hard work on the practice courts all the time. she has to make the most of her practice times, but given her better technique she can overcome giving away 8 years to caro and being a mum with commitments.

you can work as hard as you like, i mean look at jill craybas a total workhorse, but if you don't have the technique you will find your level somewhere. caro is lucky the very best players are part time or her place would be 3rd/4th.

I wouldn't disagree with you that Serena and Kim have better technique that Wozniacki. Thing is both Serena and Kim work very hard too. And when they haven't we have seen that in their results. Even a player as good as Serena Williams will struggle when she sets foot on court on unprepared. We have seen that. Thing is, most of the time Serena sets foot on a tennis court she is prepared. I don't think we should underestimate how hard both Clijsters and Serena have worked throughout their careers. Sure to be an elite player a great technique helps....a lot. But even a player with as great a technique as Navratilova only became one of the best of all time by working her ass off.

I certainly don't mean to negate the value of technique. The better your technique the better you will do, all other things being equal. But there are other qualities that are even more valuable to the modern tennis player than good technique. And drive and motivation are certainly amongst them. And frankly I would say Serena Williams drive both on and off the court is the single main ingredient that has made her a champion over the years.

As for Craybas, she is 35 years old. I think there are a lot of 35 year olds who would be delighted if they found their place in the rankings was in the top 100. Thing is, they wouldn't be prepared to put the work in so Craybas is there and they are not.

goldenlox
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:40 PM
:help: ...
you can work as hard as you like, i mean look at jill craybas a total workhorse, but if you don't have the technique you will find your level somewhere. caro is lucky the very best players are part time or her place would be 3rd/4th.You're crazy. Caroline has 9550 points the last 12 months. The #4 player barely has 5000, just over half what Caroline has. It doesnt matter who is healthy, who is full time, Carolne would be competing for #1 now.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:49 PM
I wouldn't disagree with you that Serena and Kim have better technique that Wozniacki. Thing is both Serena and Kim work very hard too. And when they haven't we have seen that in their results. Even a player as good as Serena Williams will struggle when she sets foot on court on unprepared. We have seen that. Thing is, most of the time Serena sets foot on a tennis court she is prepared. I don't think we should underestimate how hard both Clijsters and Serena have worked throughout their careers. Sure to be an elite player a great technique helps....a lot. But even a player with as great a technique as Navratilova only became one of the best of all time by working her ass off.

I certainly don't mean to negate the value of technique. The better your technique the better you will do, all other things being equal. But there are other qualities that are even more valuable to the modern tennis player than good technique. And drive and motivation are certainly amongst them. And frankly I would say Serena Williams drive both on and off the court is the single main ingredient that has made her a champion over the years.

As for Craybas, she is 35 years old. I think there are a lot of 35 year olds who would be delighted if they found their place in the rankings was in the top 100. Thing is, they wouldn't be prepared to put the work in so Craybas is there and they are not.

I disagree with this. serena has amazing drive yes, but if she has crap technique that drive might mean she only made it to the top 20 in tennis and never beyond.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:50 PM
You're crazy. Caroline has 9550 points the last 12 months. The #4 player barely has 5000, just over half what Caroline has. It doesnt matter who is healthy, who is full time, Carolne would be competing for #1 now.

and you don't think if serena and kim both had 16 tournaments played in the last year they wouldn't be way over 10,000 points each and having taken a chunk of caro's points?

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 01:53 PM
I disagree with this. serena has amazing drive yes, but if she has crap technique that drive might mean she only made it to the top 20 in tennis and never beyond.

Yup. No argument there. To be an absolute elite player who wins 10+ Grand Slams you are going to have to tick all the boxes not just some, you are going to have to have awesome technique AND motivation /work ethic. If Serena had her amazing drive and crap technique I agree, she would only have been a top 20 player. On the other hand if she had her amazing technique but crap motivation and willpower she wouldn't have even reached the top 100.

BlueTrees
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:00 PM
With Serena Out, Worlds best player will be WTA No. 1 after Miami.

I love it how you make the cutoff before the clay season which Clijsters practically skipped last year.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Yup. No argument there. To be an absolute elite player who wins 10+ Grand Slams you are going to have to tick all the boxes not just some, you are going to have to have awesome technique AND motivation /work ethic. If Serena had her amazing drive and crap technique I agree, she would only have been a top 20 player. On the other hand if she had her amazing technique but crap motivation and willpower she wouldn't have even reached the top 100.

i think you have too much weighed on hard work, there are still a lot of girls in the top 100 who are there more because of their ball striking than their hard work.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:05 PM
Actually regarding Serena not only is her technique very good and not only has she been one of the most mentally determined and motivated competitors ever she is also an outstanding athlete and physical specimen. So that is three huge assets and honestly I say the least valuable of the three would be the technique. That said, all three would of course all be very useful assets to any player.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:06 PM
i think you have too much weighed on hard work, there are still a lot of girls in the top 100 who are there more because of their ball striking than their hard work.

Such as...

dkat84
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:09 PM
Such as...

Martina Hingis :shrug:

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:12 PM
Martina Hingis :shrug:

Hingis worked very hard when she was young. When she stopped working so hard she stopped having the same success.

The Dawntreader
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Martina Hingis :shrug:

Since when? In 2001, she looked incredibly honed athletically.

dkat84
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:19 PM
Doesn't matter really. From 1995-2002 and 2006-2007, all her active years except her debut in 1994, she ended the year inside the Top 20. For much of that time, it was largely to do with her ball striking rather than hard work.

Smitten
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:21 PM
Since when? In 2001, she looked incredibly honed athletically.

Last ditch effort.

After she reached the summit of women's tennis, Hingis was never about practicing, working, or seeking to add to her game which led to stagnation and her decline.

She really during the 2000 spell when she had her first slamless year since winning in '97, she realized she would need to do more. It was a bit of false hope as she immediately beat both Williams back to back in AO '01, but still did not win the title or any other slam.

Quotes during '01 AO.



"My game improved a lot," Hingis said. "I was able to stay in the game and hit the ground strokes with her. I had a little bit trouble in the past. Today I was able to keep going and going until she missed.

"I am fitter now and taking the ball earlier, and I think that helps me when I play the power players like the Williamses," Hingis said.

dkat84
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:24 PM
Since when? In 2001, she looked incredibly honed athletically.

Hey! I agree! But I've read quotes from Hingis herself saying that she could/should have worked harder. Her mother always wanted her to, but...

http://fckingblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/im-number-one-so-why-try-harder.jpg

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is players can make the Top 100 on technique and ability, and a lack of work ethic.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:30 PM
Such as...

my very own fave. admitted to not practicing at some points at all in 2008 (as a top 20 player). never putting in the hard graft in the off season.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 02:33 PM
Hey! I agree! But I've read quotes from Hingis herself saying that she could/should have worked harder. Her mother always wanted her to, but...

http://fckingblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/im-number-one-so-why-try-harder.jpg

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is players can make the Top 100 on technique and ability, and a lack of work ethic.

Well...it really depends just how much of a lack of work ethic we are talking about. Sure Hingis could have worked harder. Almost everyone can work harder. But there is a huge gulf between "could have worked harder" and "couldn't bother to do fuck all".

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 03:01 PM
my very own fave. admitted to not practicing at some points at all in 2008 (as a top 20 player). never putting in the hard graft in the off season.

Indeed. I agree. Working at her very hardest, totally driven, Anna pulled herself very deservedly into the top 10. But when she took her foot off the pedal oops....there she fell...right out of the top 100 briefly. Of course since that rude awakening Anna has worked harder and this is reflected by some of her improved results. But the thing is, even a girl as talented as Chakvetadze is only able to have truly great success when she works her ass off.

Her technique didn't vanish. Technique doesn't vanish. But it was no longer enough for her to have success when she stopped working as hard.

And we see this with many other players too. Players who give everything to reach the top 20, and once they do they take the foot off the pedal and down they go.

Thing is basic technique can be tinkered with. It can improve and develop. But it is not something that fluctuates wildly. For the most part it is what it is. And yet you look at so many players rankings and they fluctuate like crazy. Players drop from the top 20 to outside the top 50, or from the top 50 to outside the top 100, all the time. Sometimes this can be attributed to physical problems, occasionally emotional problems too. But it is not ever the result of some big loss of technique. Mostly it is a case of players reaching a plateau and getting complacent and then paying the price. That is why it is said that it is harder staying in the top 10/20/50 or whatever level we wish to refer to, than it is getting there in the 1st place.

Likewise we see players in there later years suddenly unexpectedly zoom up the rankings. How can this happen? Normally it is just a case of a player who often, although not always, with the help of a new coach, has recommited themselves to the sport and just started working much harder on both their game and their fitness.

It is for these reasons that it is always so difficult to predict how successful a player is likely to be. Technique is something that is often readily apparent and there are numerous posters in this forum who consider themselves experts in identifying it. I have got to say I am not one of them. But work ethic and desire and motivation are not so readily identifiable. That is why so often we see players who are dismissed by posters on this forum rise much further than anyone expected them to do and why there are other players who are supposed to be great talents who just seem to flounder in the lower depths of the rankings.

pov
Mar 9th, 2011, 03:08 PM
Thanks for this article. Interesting and I agree with a lot of what the author thinks about Wozniacki.

TennisFan66
Mar 9th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Thanks for the article, though I've never actually heard Caro mention Seles as a idol before. Caro answers 'Graf and Hingis', when asked that question - from what I've seen in interviews.

That aside, wanted to post a +ve rep for another good comment but : You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Shvedbarilescu again.

TennisFan66
Mar 9th, 2011, 03:40 PM
I love it how you make the cutoff before the clay season which Clijsters practically skipped last year.

Saying after RG is better for you?

Aramitz_II
Mar 9th, 2011, 04:02 PM
Indeed. I agree. Working at her very hardest, totally driven, Anna pulled herself very deservedly into the top 10. But when she took her foot off the pedal oops....there she fell...right out of the top 100 briefly. Of course since that rude awakening Anna has worked harder and this is reflected by some of her improved results. But the thing is, even a girl as talented as Chakvetadze is only able to have truly great success when she works her ass off.

Her technique didn't vanish. Technique doesn't vanish. But it was no longer enough for her to have success when she stopped working as hard.

And we see this with many other players too. Players who give everything to reach the top 20, and once they do they take the foot off the pedal and down they go.

Thing is basic technique can be tinkered with. It can improve and develop. But it is not something that fluctuates wildly. For the most part it is what it is. And yet you look at so many players rankings and they fluctuate like crazy. Players drop from the top 20 to outside the top 50, or from the top 50 to outside the top 100, all the time. Sometimes this can be attributed to physical problems, occasionally emotional problems too. But it is not ever the result of some big loss of technique. Mostly it is a case of players reaching a plateau and getting complacent and then paying the price. That is why it is said that it is harder staying in the top 10/20/50 or whatever level we wish to refer to, than it is getting there in the 1st place.

Likewise we see players in there later years suddenly unexpectedly zoom up the rankings. How can this happen? Normally it is just a case of a player who often, although not always, with the help of a new coach, has recommited themselves to the sport and just started working much harder on both their game and their fitness.

It is for these reasons that it is always so difficult to predict how successful a player is likely to be. Technique is something that is often readily apparent and there are numerous posters in this forum who consider themselves experts in identifying it. I have got to say I am not one of them. But work ethic and desire and motivation are not so readily identifiable. That is why so often we see players who are dismissed by posters on this forum rise much further than anyone expected them to do and why there are other players who are supposed to be great talents who just seem to flounder in the lower depths of the rankings.

I have it the same way. Considering the level of argumetation i do however have a soupiscion, that these poeple dont have a clue about what they are talking about

BlueTrees
Mar 9th, 2011, 05:09 PM
Saying after RG is better for you?

Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki fans are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.

If Wozniacki is the "true number one" then surely she can do it when both her and Clijsters have played four Grand Slams in the past 52 weeks. :wavey: It's funny how you guys don't seem so confident that she'll be number one when both have played a full schedule in the past 52 weeks, so you have to stop the clock after Miami and before the claycourt season where Clijsters only played one event last year and lost second round. :lol:

Njalle
Mar 9th, 2011, 05:36 PM
Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki fans are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.

If Wozniacki is the "true number one" then surely she can do it when both her and Clijsters have played four Grand Slams in the past 52 weeks. :wavey: It's funny how you guys don't seem so confident that she'll be number one when both have played a full schedule in the past 52 weeks, so you have to stop the clock after Miami and before the claycourt season where Clijsters only played one event last year and lost second round. :lol:

She is the true number one as of now. Whether she is the best player around is a total different matter. Learn the difference.

A lot of Wozniacki fans will even tell you that Clijsters is the better player. :wavey:

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 06:00 PM
Indeed. I agree. Working at her very hardest, totally driven, Anna pulled herself very deservedly into the top 10. But when she took her foot off the pedal oops....there she fell...right out of the top 100 briefly. Of course since that rude awakening Anna has worked harder and this is reflected by some of her improved results. But the thing is, even a girl as talented as Chakvetadze is only able to have truly great success when she works her ass off.

Her technique didn't vanish. Technique doesn't vanish. But it was no longer enough for her to have success when she stopped working as hard.

And we see this with many other players too. Players who give everything to reach the top 20, and once they do they take the foot off the pedal and down they go.

Thing is basic technique can be tinkered with. It can improve and develop. But it is not something that fluctuates wildly. For the most part it is what it is. And yet you look at so many players rankings and they fluctuate like crazy. Players drop from the top 20 to outside the top 50, or from the top 50 to outside the top 100, all the time. Sometimes this can be attributed to physical problems, occasionally emotional problems too. But it is not ever the result of some big loss of technique. Mostly it is a case of players reaching a plateau and getting complacent and then paying the price. That is why it is said that it is harder staying in the top 10/20/50 or whatever level we wish to refer to, than it is getting there in the 1st place.

Likewise we see players in there later years suddenly unexpectedly zoom up the rankings. How can this happen? Normally it is just a case of a player who often, although not always, with the help of a new coach, has recommited themselves to the sport and just started working much harder on both their game and their fitness.

It is for these reasons that it is always so difficult to predict how successful a player is likely to be. Technique is something that is often readily apparent and there are numerous posters in this forum who consider themselves experts in identifying it. I have got to say I am not one of them. But work ethic and desire and motivation are not so readily identifiable. That is why so often we see players who are dismissed by posters on this forum rise much further than anyone expected them to do and why there are other players who are supposed to be great talents who just seem to flounder in the lower depths of the rankings.

I think you just put more emphasis on hard work than i would for a players results. i would say for what you call hard work or lack of making a difference in a players ranking/results, i would say luck and confidence is more what swings it either way.

edificio
Mar 9th, 2011, 06:28 PM
TL; DNR.

Woz has great drive. She will win some slams.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 06:42 PM
I think you just put more emphasis on hard work than i would for a players results. i would say for what you call hard work or lack of making a difference in a players ranking/results, i would say luck and confidence is more what swings it either way.

Luck and confidence can both play a part too yes. Many a close match has been swayed by a bit of good or bad fortune and confidence is of course very important too.

But unless we are talking about injuries or other calamitous events, luck can play a factor in how a player is ranked but it will rarely be the pivotal factor. You don't get into the top 10 because you are lucky and aside from injuries you don't fall out of the top 100 because you are unlucky.

As for confidence, the most confident player does tend to be the one who knows they have done the hard graft and are well prepared for their next match.

Mary Cherry.
Mar 9th, 2011, 06:50 PM
So, in short, this article didn't make anyone reconsider anything.


"Bombshell"

pov
Mar 9th, 2011, 07:33 PM
Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki fans are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.

:secret: Saying it "time and time again" doesn't make it any more accurate. And you don't see your own post as in any way obnoxious, annoying or stupid? :confused:

TennisFan66
Mar 9th, 2011, 07:43 PM
Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki fans are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.

If Wozniacki is the "true number one" then surely she can do it when both her and Clijsters have played four Grand Slams in the past 52 weeks. :wavey: It's funny how you guys don't seem so confident that she'll be number one when both have played a full schedule in the past 52 weeks, so you have to stop the clock after Miami and before the claycourt season where Clijsters only played one event last year and lost second round. :lol:

So you didn't like post Miami, you didn't like post RG .. would you like post YEC 2011? .. just imagine Caro was still WTA #1 :lol:

And yes I agree with you Caro fans on here needs to improve. We need to get on the game of being more insulting towards other players; other fan groups. We need to learn to post better comments like the rest of you. ''Save WTA. The talented player lost. RIP WTA. She's only #1 because she's lucky'' .. Maybe you can help me with some comments I can use, coz I really wanna fit in with the rest of you .. :rolleyes:

Chakvenus
Mar 9th, 2011, 07:50 PM
So, in short, this article didn't make anyone reconsider anything.


"Bombshell"

spot on.
this whole thread is making me join Vika in your avatar with a similar motion.

goldenlox
Mar 9th, 2011, 08:04 PM
So, in short, this article didn't make anyone reconsider anything.


"Bombshell"The article was very positive, as it should be. Its about a 20 year old who is #1 for 5 months now, and still #1.

Vartan
Mar 9th, 2011, 08:07 PM
Wozniacki fans, :spit:. You are worse than Ana, Maria, and Serena fans COMBINED.

tea
Mar 9th, 2011, 08:15 PM
So, in short, this article didn't make anyone reconsider anything.


"Bombshell"
Speaks a lot about TF posters' inability to read, think and comprehend things; maybe also a lack of effort to even try to change their usual comfortable views.

It's appears easier to them to follow TF's flows where Wozniacki is a pusher, undeservedly no1 and so forth, than to try to form their own opinion. It looks to me that when you say something reasonable about Caro here you're instantly getting bashed and treated like inferior being. In fact, tennis magazine's chief editor is also one of the former sort, because he makes 30+ completely wrong statements in barely 30 sentences article.:tape:

BuTtErFrEnA
Mar 9th, 2011, 08:19 PM
Wozniacki fans, :spit:. You are worse than Ana, Maria, and Serena fans COMBINED.

Speak for some of them please :angel:

but shevdabarilescu :yeah:

Mary Cherry.
Mar 9th, 2011, 08:35 PM
The article was very positive, as it should be. Its about a 20 year old who is #1 for 5 months now, and still #1.

I read the article. What I was saying is that it won't make anyone change their current opinions on Wozniacki. Definitely not on TF anyway.

edificio
Mar 9th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Speaks a lot about TF posters' inability to read, think and comprehend things; maybe also a lack of effort to even try to change their usual comfortable views.

It's appears easier to them to follow TF's flows where Wozniacki is a pusher, undeservedly no1 and so forth, than to try to form their own opinion. It looks to me that when you say something reasonable about Caro here you're instantly getting bashed and treated like inferior being. In fact, tennis magazine's chief editor is also one of the former sort, because he makes 30+ completely wrong statements in barely 30 sentences article.:tape:

:rolleyes:

goldenlox
Mar 9th, 2011, 09:20 PM
I read the article. What I was saying is that it won't make anyone change their current opinions on Wozniacki. Definitely not on TF anyway.A lot of posters here want to insult players they dont root for. Wozniacki threads have trolls like madmax who just post in those threads to insult. But the media is giving Wozniacki more credit for her successes. Which is what they should be doing

pov
Mar 9th, 2011, 09:38 PM
Speaks a lot about TF posters' inability to read, think and comprehend things; maybe also a lack of effort to even try to change their usual comfortable views.

For many people that's the case. Although it isn't inability so much as unwillingness.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 09:55 PM
Speaks a lot about TF posters' inability to read, think and comprehend things; maybe also a lack of effort to even try to change their usual comfortable views.

It's appears easier to them to follow TF's flows where Wozniacki is a pusher, undeservedly no1 and so forth, than to try to form their own opinion. It looks to me that when you say something reasonable about Caro here you're instantly getting bashed and treated like inferior being. In fact, tennis magazine's chief editor is also one of the former sort, because he makes 30+ completely wrong statements in barely 30 sentences article.:tape:

Or you have posters like you and Shvedbarilescu, who seem to think they are above posters that dislike caro. many posters think caro has an ugly game and isn't deserving of her number 1 ranking, why should they have you telling them they cant comprehend things because they have their opinion?

it is not like people who don't like caro do so for no reason or just for the sake of it. disliking someones game and thinking their ranking is inflated is for me good enough reason for anyone to dislike a player and/or watching them.

Matt01
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:20 PM
Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki fans are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.


Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki haters are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:32 PM
Or you have posters like you and Shvedbarilescu, who seem to think they are above posters that dislike caro. many posters think caro has an ugly game and isn't deserving of her number 1 ranking, why should they have you telling them they cant comprehend things because they have their opinion?

it is not like people who don't like caro do so for no reason or just for the sake of it. disliking someones game and thinking their ranking is inflated is for me good enough reason for anyone to dislike a player and/or watching them.

I don't know what you are talking about. Let me be clear about this. I am not even a fan of Wozniacki. I respect her yes. Just as I respect every single player in the top 10, in the top 20 and further down the rankings. As a player who has achieved a lot over the last year + I respect Wozniacki quite a lot undeniably. But she is not a player I regard as a favourite at all. She is completely lacking in the kind of finess that normally attracts me to players. She is not a particularly good volleyer, relative to most of my favourite players she rarely slices the ball, and in short she is not the type of player that I tend to support. The fact that I tend to support underdogs doesn't help either.

But I am not blind, and I am not guided by dogma or my biases. I can see talent when it presents itself and I can certainly see why and how Wozniacki has been so successful. And even though she may not be my cup of tea I can still appreciate a lot of her positive qualities and enjoy some of her more competitive matches. Is she as good as Clijsters or Serena Williams? Of course she isn't. But if one is going to use that as some ridiculous yardstick for measuring who deserves respect vs who deserves ridicule then count me out of that game.

Joana
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:40 PM
Wozniacki fans, :spit:. You are worse than Ana, Maria, and Serena fans COMBINED.

There's really not that many of them. It's just that tea and goldenlox count for 65 and 58 people respectively.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 10:43 PM
I don't know what you are talking about. Let me be clear about this. I am not even a fan of Wozniacki. I respect her yes. Just as I respect every single player in the top 10, in the top 20 and further down the rankings. As a player who has achieved a lot over the last year + I respect Wozniacki quite a lot undeniably. But she is not a player I regard as a favourite at all. She is completely lacking in the kind of finess that normally attracts me to players. She is not a particularly good volleyer, relative to most of my favourite players she rarely slices the ball, and in short she is not the type of player that I tend to support. The fact that I tend to support underdogs doesn't help either.

But I am not blind, and I am not guided by dogma or my biases. I can see talent when it presents itself and I can certainly see why and how Wozniacki has been so successful. And even though she may not be my cup of tea I can still appreciate a lot of her positive qualities and enjoy some of her more competitive matches. Is she as good as Clijsters or Serena Williams? Of course she isn't. But if one is going to use that as some ridiculous yardstick for measuring who deserves respect vs who deserves ridicule then count me out of that game.

no don't compare caro with the last 2 players to be number 1 besides her, that would be utterly stupid :help:

once again your standards for a number 1 are so low, and it is just a sign of the times.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:17 PM
no don't compare caro with the last 2 players to be number 1 besides her, that would be utterly stupid :help:

once again your standards for a number 1 are so low, and it is just a sign of the times.

What do you mean "my standards"? She is number one. I didn't ask for her to be number one. That's just how it is. It has nothing to do with what my standards are. I don't even know how I would quantify what the hell my standards were anyhow. But it wouldn't matter. Whatever my standards are it doesn't change the fact that she is world number one.

If you think there is something very wrong with me that it doesn't particularly bother me that Wozniacki is number one well there isn't much I can do about that. All I can really say in my defence is that it didn't really bother me either when any of the previous WTA number ones were at the top spot. As far as I'm concerned they all worked hard and they all deserved it.

I have much more trouble accepting all the trash like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Adele and Cheryl Cole getting to number one in the music charts. Whatever I may think of Wozniacki she still has 1000x more talent than Cheryl Cole. And you know what, over the years I have actually learnt to even tolerate all this crap getting to number one in the music charts, and I must tell you I am much much more passionate about music than I am even about tennis, and realising at the end of the day it doesn't really affect my life. And if I can accept Lady Gaga getting to number one in the music charts, accepting Wozniacki getting to number one in the WTA rankings is an absolute piece of cake.

sammy01
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:26 PM
What do you mean "my standards"? She is number one. I didn't ask for her to be number one. That's just how it is. It has nothing to do with what my standards are. I don't even know how I would quantify what the hell my standards were anyhow. But it wouldn't matter. Whatever my standards are it doesn't change the fact that she is world number one.

If you think there is something very wrong with me that it doesn't particularly bother me that Wozniacki is number one well there isn't much I can do about that. All I can really say in my defence is that it didn't really bother me either when any of the previous WTA number ones were at the top spot. As far as I'm concerned they all worked hard and they all deserved it.

I have much more trouble accepting all the trash like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Adele and Cheryl Cole getting to number one in the music charts. Whatever I may think of Wozniacki she still has 1000x more talent than Cheryl Cole. And you know what, over the years I have actually learnt to even tolerate all this crap getting to number one in the music charts, and I must tell you I am much much more passionate about music than I am even about tennis, and realising at the end of the day it doesn't really affect my life. And if I can accept Lady Gaga getting to number one in the music charts, accepting Wozniacki getting to number one in the WTA rankings is an absolute piece of cake.

s_Zs7XS3XUo

adele>>>>>caro lol

seriously listen to it ;)

but the charts have never been counted on quality, tennis should be or used to be not quantity

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:33 PM
s_Zs7XS3XUo

adele>>>>>caro lol

seriously listen to it ;)

but the charts have never been counted on quality, tennis should be or used to be not quantity

I got through 90 seconds. That was as far as I was prepared to go. Anymore and it would have been the aural equivalent of putting my hand over a lighted match.

The Dawntreader
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:37 PM
I got through 90 seconds. That was as far as I was prepared to go. Anymore and it would have been the aural equivalent of putting my hand over a lighted match.

Oh god, as if it's that bad. Seriously.

Joana
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:47 PM
I have much more trouble accepting all the trash like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Adele and Cheryl Cole getting to number one in the music charts. Whatever I may think of Wozniacki she still has 1000x more talent than Cheryl Cole.

If they didn't have any talent for entertaining people, they wouldn't sell a single record, let alone top the charts.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:51 PM
If they didn't have any talent for entertaining people, they wouldn't sell a single record, let alone top the charts.

That is very nice then. I am quite happy to leave them to their entertaining of people then. Other people.

Wiggly
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:54 PM
Adele's voice is beautiful while Caro's game is ugly.

BTW, she's bragging about being on the French Tennis Magazine cover.
The thing is, they wrote "Wozniacki as #1, really?.:tape:

goldenlox
Mar 9th, 2011, 11:58 PM
BTW, she's bragging about being on the French Tennis Magazine cover.
:tape:Where is Caro bragging about being on a magazine cover?

Smitten
Mar 10th, 2011, 12:11 AM
Oh god, as if it's that bad. Seriously.

The funny thing is. He can tell us we are wrong and bad for criticizing Karolina and other players, but he can adopt the same stance towards music and it's okay.

He's just a very pressed hypocrite. Gotta love it.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 10th, 2011, 12:20 AM
The funny thing is. He can tell us we are wrong and bad for criticizing Karolina and other players, but he can adopt the same stance towards music and it's okay.

He's just a very pressed hypocrite. Gotta love it.

Well done Sherlock. You have me all figured out.

Oh....some day someone really should try and teach you about irony. ;)

The Dawntreader
Mar 10th, 2011, 12:21 AM
Well done Sherlock. You have me all figured out.

Oh....some day someone really should try and teach you about irony. ;)

Wow, you certainly showed him (!)

Sp!ffy
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:03 AM
I got through 90 seconds. That was as far as I was prepared to go. Anymore and it would have been the aural equivalent of putting my hand over a lighted match.

How could anyone speak of Adele in such a way? I'm appalled.

Malva
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:34 AM
Or you have posters like you and Shvedbarilescu, who seem to think they are above posters that dislike caro.

And he is, everybody can see that, including the ones who can't stand the fact that somebody argues instead of insulting, has good will towards everybody, including the ones who lack any good will towards him.

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 03:29 AM
Last ditch effort.

After she reached the summit of women's tennis, Hingis was never about practicing, working, or seeking to add to her game which led to stagnation and her decline.

She really during the 2000 spell when she had her first slamless year since winning in '97, she realized she would need to do more. It was a bit of false hope as she immediately beat both Williams back to back in AO '01, but still did not win the title or any other slam.

Quotes during '01 AO.
This is some Hingis circa at the time..
Vs Clijsters Sydney 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbyu9NFxvj4

Vs Venus Australian Open 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sozWZWytyRg

Vs Clijsters Sydney 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=617ok6UhbtA

Whoever tries to compare this two players are nuts, Hingis was always an all court player, capable of hitting any stroke from any part of the court. Wozniacki's level of play is not even as good as an Amanda Coetzer was in her best days.. (i will post some Coetzer videos later on).

I don't hate Caro, she is a nice girl, she is trying her best out there and she is doing a great job on the weakest field ever on the WTA, but that is not her fault IMO..

goldenlox
Mar 10th, 2011, 03:35 AM
This ... Wozniacki's level of play is not even as good as an Amanda Coetzer was in her best days.. (i will post some Coetzer videos later on).

I don't hate Caro, she is a nice girl, she is trying her best out there and she is doing a great job on the weakest field ever on the WTA, but that is not her fault IMO..I dont buy that for a second. Caro won the last 4 Tier I's on the tour. Just missed beating Kim in the YEC final.
The whole tour in 2010, 2011 is not worse than Coetzer.

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 03:46 AM
I dont buy that for a second. Caro won the last 4 Tier I's on the tour. Just missed beating Kim in the YEC final.
The whole tour in 2010, 2011 is not worse than Coetzer.
Well i never meant to compare the two player's results i meant their game, Coetzer was a much more complete player that Caroline is ATM, Caroline has many years and ways to go though.

As much as Caroline has the better serve, Coetzer had better groundies, at least she tended to attack more and even take the net (she was a great doubles player with great volleys).

Coetzer had variety in her game, probably the same loopers that Wozniacki can throw from time to time but Amanda had a great slice off both sides, also had great dropshots too.

I am yet to see Caroline ever taking the ball early, charge the net and win a point with a great volley. She looks so unnatural up there in the short court area IMO.

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 03:49 AM
Caro won the last 4 Tier I's on the tour. Just missed beating Kim in the YEC final.
Yet she was 0 of the 3 biggest tournaments played recently.. the Usopen, YEC and the Australian Open. This tells me that she is not the greatest player out there..... just yet

mik loves dani
Mar 10th, 2011, 04:12 AM
Oh my god. I say this time and time again, Wozniacki fans are by far and wide the most obnoxious, annoying and all round stupid posters on this forum.

If Wozniacki is the "true number one" then surely she can do it when both her and Clijsters have played four Grand Slams in the past 52 weeks. :wavey: It's funny how you guys don't seem so confident that she'll be number one when both have played a full schedule in the past 52 weeks, so you have to stop the clock after Miami and before the claycourt season where Clijsters only played one event last year and lost second round. :lol:

you are soooo right. Wozniacki fans will be gobsmacked when players like Kvitova play brainless ball bashing at her and they win like 6-0 6-1. After this annoying era of pushniacki will come fast pace power. She wont be able to deal with it. Clijsters is the true no.1 :worship::worship:

Smitten
Mar 10th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Whoever tries to compare this two players are nuts, Hingis was always an all court player, capable of hitting any stroke from any part of the court..

Oh yes I agree. You really nailed it here.

PMBH
Mar 10th, 2011, 04:43 AM
Well i never meant to compare the two player's results i meant their game, Coetzer was a much more complete player that Caroline is ATM, Caroline has many years and ways to go though.

As much as Caroline has the better serve, Coetzer had better groundies, at least she tended to attack more and even take the net (she was a great doubles player with great volleys).

Coetzer had variety in her game, probably the same loopers that Wozniacki can throw from time to time but Amanda had a great slice off both sides, also had great dropshots too.

I am yet to see Caroline ever taking the ball early, charge the net and win a point with a great volley. She looks so unnatural up there in the short court area IMO.

I strongly disagree. I remember Coetzer's game just fine and she was nowhere near the level you're describing. Amanda was a good, solid player who mastered most technical aspects of the game. But she didn't do anything really well, which is of course why she never made it all the way to the top. In that way, she was very similar to many of the players on the tour today. They went through the textbook as juniors and acquired all the basic skills; but they lack the 'intangible' assets, which are required to become a real top player: grit, stamina, mental aptitude, dedication, etc. Even at her peak, Amanda wouldn't stand a chance against Caroline.

Moveyourfeet
Mar 10th, 2011, 04:56 AM
I got through 90 seconds. That was as far as I was prepared to go. Anymore and it would have been the aural equivalent of putting my hand over a lighted match.

wow. I never thought I would hear someone describe Adele's singing as the aural qquivalent of burning oneself. But that is the world we live in. We have different tastes and thank goodness for it.

I for one think Rolling in the Deep is :bowdown:

tea
Mar 10th, 2011, 06:40 AM
Or you have posters like you and Shvedbarilescu, who seem to think they are above posters that dislike caro. many posters think caro has an ugly game and isn't deserving of her number 1 ranking, why should they have you telling them they cant comprehend things because they have their opinion?

it is not like people who don't like caro do so for no reason or just for the sake of it. disliking someones game and thinking their ranking is inflated is for me good enough reason for anyone to dislike a player and/or watching them.
This is only partly fair. Because it's okay to dislike her ugly game and I find your reasons about overranking acceptable:), but it at the very least is nonconstructive to come into discussion thread with the same old package of reasons without trying to reconsider any of it. Sometimes, instead of defending your always right and unshaken opinion, reading opinions of the others won't hurt- I can't believe you couldn't take anything useful from Shvedbarilescu.:p

homogenius
Mar 10th, 2011, 07:37 AM
I reconsidered my view on Woz : in the past I just disliked her game and was mostly indifferent about her personality etc...Now I'm tired of her attemps to get constant attention in every possible way she can find and I don't buy the "Sweet Caroline" character.She's trying way too hard and it looks fake to me most of the time.

BlueTrees
Mar 10th, 2011, 07:47 AM
She is the true number one as of now. Whether she is the best player around is a total different matter. Learn the difference.

According to a Wozniacki fan, we need to wait until after Miami to see who the true number one is, so tell that to them. :wavey:

A lot of Wozniacki fans will even tell you that Clijsters is the better player. :wavey:

Are you sure? :lol:

:secret: Saying it "time and time again" doesn't make it any more accurate. And you don't see your own post as in any way obnoxious, annoying or stupid? :confused:

Nope, the truth isn't obnoxious, annoying or stupid, except for those who deny it. :kiss:

So you didn't like post Miami, you didn't like post RG .. would you like post YEC 2011? .. just imagine Caro was still WTA #1 :lol:

I said I did like post RG, because then both players have a full schedule in the past 52 weeks. :confused: Please learn to read. :o If Caro is #1 at the end of this year with Clijsters playing a full Grand Slam schedule, then she deserves her ranking.

And yes I agree with you Caro fans on here needs to improve.

That's right.

sammy01
Mar 10th, 2011, 08:36 AM
This is only partly fair. Because it's okay to dislike her ugly game and I find your reasons about overranking acceptable:), but it at the very least is nonconstructive to come into discussion thread with the same old package of reasons without trying to reconsider any of it. Sometimes, instead of defending your always right and unshaken opinion, reading opinions of the others won't hurt- I can't believe you couldn't take anything useful from Shvedbarilescu.:p

what has changed, caro still failed to win the last 3 big tournaments, and her game is still horrible to watch for me? if posters reasoning for disliking caro is her game and them thinking she is overranked, then nothing has changed in the last 6 months to change that.

no one doubts how hard she works, or questions her will to do her best. that is not the issue for most people.

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:15 AM
I strongly disagree. I remember Coetzer's game just fine and she was nowhere near the level you're describing. Amanda was a good, solid player who mastered most technical aspects of the game. But she didn't do anything really well, which is of course why she never made it all the way to the top. In that way, she was very similar to many of the players on the tour today. They went through the textbook as juniors and acquired all the basic skills; but they lack the 'intangible' assets, which are required to become a real top player: grit, stamina, mental aptitude, dedication, etc. Even at her peak, Amanda wouldn't stand a chance against Caroline.
A player that has beaten from moonballers and tacticians of the game like Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Novotna to hard hitting players like Venus, Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Graf, now we have to think that Caroline is the type of player/ultimate challenge that Coetzer would never beat ? are you serious? jajajajaj

Mary Cherry.
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:18 AM
I don't get how people can say she doesn't deserve the #1 ranking. Rankings aren't subjective.

madmax
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:23 AM
A player that has beaten from moonballers and tacticians of the game like Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Novotna to hard hitting players like Venus, Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Graf, now we have to think that Caroline is the type of player/ultimate challenge that Coetzer would never beat ? are you serious? jajajajaj

well duh - this is mighty Sunshine we are talking about here...:worship: She is dominating the tour like there is no tomorrow these days (at least that's what her fans would like us to believe, just ask goldenflox and tea).

PMBH
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:45 AM
A player that has beaten from moonballers and tacticians of the game like Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Novotna to hard hitting players like Venus, Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Graf, now we have to think that Caroline is the type of player/ultimate challenge that Coetzer would never beat ? are you serious? jajajajaj

OK, fair enough. I'm sure Coetzer could have taken the occasional win against Caro. Coetzer was the type of player who could win against anyone on a good day but who often enough would also lose to lowly ranked players. As far as I recall, she never made it to a Slam final and only had a couple of top-10 seasons. But I do remember that she once almost double-bagelled Steffi Graf, when Steffi had just returned from injury. One of Steffi's all-time worst defeats, especially because it was on home turf in Germany...

bandabou
Mar 10th, 2011, 10:45 AM
Not much changed for Caro..tier I's are nice and dandy, but till she reaches another major final it still leaves her at the same old, same old.

sammy01
Mar 10th, 2011, 11:27 AM
I don't get how people can say she doesn't deserve the #1 ranking. Rankings aren't subjective.

because a lot of us have been following tennis for a long time and we have seen what some players had to achieve before they became number 1. venus had won 4 slams before she even got to number 1 IIRC. now we have caro at number 1 without a YEC win or even slam final on her ranking. it feels like a lot of players had to acheieve much more to be in the position she is in.

goldenlox
Mar 10th, 2011, 11:36 AM
because a lot of us have been following tennis for a long time and we have seen what some players had to achieve before they became number 1. venus had won 4 slams before she even got to number 1 IIRC. now we have caro at number 1 without a YEC win or even slam final on her ranking. it feels like a lot of players had to acheieve much more to be in the position she is in.
Its the same ranking system for everyone. Not only is she #1, only Kim is within 2000 points of Caro.
And I have a feeling that if Kim leaves Miami at #1 and Caro is healthy, she's going to take it back, if Caro keeps her current level.

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2011, 12:29 PM
A player that has beaten from moonballers and tacticians of the game like Arantxa, Conchita, Sabatini, Novotna to hard hitting players like Venus, Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Graf, now we have to think that Caroline is the type of player/ultimate challenge that Coetzer would never beat ? are you serious? jajajajaj


You're right, but how often did Coetzer actually beat those "great players of the past"? Her record against Seles was 1:9, against Davenport 2:10, against Hingis 3:11 and against Graf 4:12 or something like that. She played some great matches but for long periods of her long career she was, what the narrow-minded posters here now would call, a pusher (with not much power in her game) :p


because a lot of us have been following tennis for a long time and we have seen what some players had to achieve before they became number 1. venus had won 4 slams before she even got to number 1 IIRC. now we have caro at number 1 without a YEC win or even slam final on her ranking. it feels like a lot of players had to acheieve much more to be in the position she is in.


The reason why Venus didn't make it to #1 until 2002 is because she was never able to put in consistantly strong results for more than half a year. She never won 4 Tier I tournaments in a row or had 7 tournament wins on her ranking. It's really no rocket science. :p

sammy01
Mar 10th, 2011, 12:50 PM
You're right, but how often did Coetzer actually beat those "great players of the past"? Her record against Seles was 1:9, against Davenport 2:10, against Hingis 3:11 and against Graf 4:12 or something like that. She played some great matches but for long periods of her long career she was, what the narrow-minded posters here now would call, a pusher (with not much power in her game) :p





The reason why Venus didn't make it to #1 until 2002 is because she was never able to put in consistantly strong results for more than half a year. She never won 4 Tier I tournaments in a row or had 7 tournament wins on her ranking. It's really no rocket science. :p

going into the 2001 french open venus had 7 tour titles in the previous 52 weeks, plus the olympics. her slam results were W,W,SF,Q. venus didn't win 4 tier 1 tournaments in a row, she won 5 tournaments consecutively including 2 slams. puts caro's 4 tier 1's into prospective.

BlueTrees
Mar 10th, 2011, 12:53 PM
I think before I was a bit unclear. I DO think Wozniacki deserves the number one ranking, but what I'm saying is that if you're going to say "whoever is ranked number one after Indian Wells and Miami is the true number one" then you should probably extend that to post Roland Garros when both players have played a full schedule. That's all.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:22 PM
The article was trash, but I HAVE reconsidered. I used to absolutely loathe the girl, and while I do still think she has a slightly ugly game, I'm becoming a fan. She's been showing willingness to work on her game IMO, and at times can be aggressive(at least if her recent play is any indication,) and I can respect that. She's never going to hit the ball as hard as Serena, Venus or Maria, probably won't have the net skills of Justine or Mauresmo, but she's got guts, so hopefully she'll continue to improve and someday hold a slam to confirm her position. (But God help her if she beats one of my faves en route to the title :p)

Valanga
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:32 PM
I reckon we should wait after Wimbledon to see if Caro could redeem her ranking (i.e. can she channel her aggressive play against Bartoli and Pennetta into the four important weeks of tennis?).

Rollo
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:36 PM
Since we are suddenly comparing players today with the mid 90s those who favor the current ranking system with Caro as #1 should consider this:

1995: Conchita Martinez is our #1!!! (Yea Conchita!). Steffi is a part-time player who only entered 11 events this year. Yes, Steffi won 3 slams, but Conchita's consistency shines through despite the fact she didn't make a slam final.

Using todays rankings system Martinez would have been #1 for 1995-not Graf.

Reconsider that :)

I don't get how people can say she doesn't deserve the #1 ranking. Rankings aren't subjective.

Of course they are. Each and every ranking has built in biases. The current ranking system has a bias towards playing a lot despite the tour shrinking the number of events it offers and weeks played. Quality is a factor, but quantity is a huge factor too.

new-york
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:36 PM
going into the 2001 french open venus had 7 tour titles in the previous 52 weeks, plus the olympics. her slam results were W,W,SF,Q. venus didn't win 4 tier 1 tournaments in a row, she won 5 tournaments consecutively including 2 slams. puts caro's 4 tier 1's into prospective.

Thank you VERY MUCH.

new-york
Mar 10th, 2011, 02:42 PM
Level of play wise, Caro may not be as impressive as some of her peer but at least she is optimizing her potential which is a great achievement by itself and kind of great to see.

Now i can believe that she's a tough cookie considering he rlimitations and where she's at now.

Accepting, not reconsidering.

Cause it could be so much more but it is what it is, it's her at the top.

Shonami Slam
Mar 10th, 2011, 03:26 PM
She really is OK.
the only thing that makes any problem is the competition and her rank.

had she been #8 - she would seem like a very fitting top10 player. had she been beating henin and the williams week in and out - even better, and had the #1 rank not been as shallow as piss on concrete due to the incapabilities of her former non-slam winning #1s, everything would have looked a whole lot different.

Fuzzylogic
Mar 10th, 2011, 05:02 PM
How can anyone read that article and agree with anything beyond the part that talks about her mental fortitude being one of her main weapons and better than the other flakes that have been #1? That's the only true thing in there. It's not her fault, but if she had better competition around her, she'd be #9 or #10 at best because she just wouldn't be able to keep up. But hey she's doing well dominating the dross, mediocrity and mental flakes around her, so kudos to you Wozniacki.

And I'm surprised people still delude themselves that she can transform her game into an attacking one with heavy hitting and all that. At 20, I'd be shocked and be one of the first people to applaud her if she does. I think her game is set in stone and this is probably how she'll always play.

The article just reeks of wanting to find something positive to write about.

Mary Cherry.
Mar 10th, 2011, 05:15 PM
Of course they are. Each and every ranking has built in biases. The current ranking system has a bias towards playing a lot despite the tour shrinking the number of events it offers and weeks played. Quality is a factor, but quantity is a huge factor too.

But like another poster said, it's the same for everyone. It's not Caro's fault that Kim pretty much plays a part-time schedule. If a player chooses not to play as often as others, that's their choice. Besides, aren't the top players actually restricted from playing more than a couple of International events a year? She's at all the main events, and starting to win a hell of a lot of them.

She's not #1 because she plays the most often, she's number #1 because she wins the most often all year round. If people don't think she should be #1, more players need to start beating her.

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2011, 05:38 PM
going into the 2001 french open venus had 7 tour titles in the previous 52 weeks, plus the olympics. her slam results were W,W,SF,Q. venus didn't win 4 tier 1 tournaments in a row, she won 5 tournaments consecutively including 2 slams. puts caro's 4 tier 1's into prospective.


And the #1 player at the beginning of 2001 was Hingis who had not won a Slam since 1999, who played more than Venus, and who won lots of Tier I's and was consistant over the whole year. But Venus was considered the best player on fast surfaces. You see, it's not that much more different than today...

sammy01
Mar 10th, 2011, 06:07 PM
And the #1 player at the beginning of 2001 was Hingis who had not won a Slam since 1999, who played more than Venus, and who won lots of Tier I's and was consistant over the whole year. But Venus was considered the best player on fast surfaces. You see, it's not that much more different than today...

hingis was a proven champion, was making slam finals, winning what 9 tournaments, beating the likes of venus, serena and davenport her main rivals.

pov
Mar 10th, 2011, 06:19 PM
if she had better competition around her, she'd be #9 or #10 at best because she just wouldn't be able to keep up.
:lol: That logic can be applied to anyone in any sport at any time. It's no different than saying that if all the other players were better than they were Serena Williams wouldn't have won so many majors. It's daft!

BTW If the post I quoted is any indication you chose an apt user-name - and not in the tech sense of the term.

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2011, 07:17 PM
hingis was a proven champion, was making slam finals, winning what 9 tournaments, beating the likes of venus, serena and davenport her main rivals.


In the Slams, she was (mostly) losing to them. And Slams final(s) she was only making in Australia.

Rollo
Mar 10th, 2011, 08:44 PM
Posted by Facepalmarenka But like another poster said, it's the same for everyone. It's not Caro's fault that Kim pretty much plays a part-time schedule. If a player chooses not to play as often as others, that's their choice.

You are right-its not Caro's fault at all. It the WTA's fault for keeping such a lousy ranking system. If anything Caro will become its victiom as pressure mounts for her to "validate" her ranking. In the past players didn't have to do that.



She's not #1 because she plays the most often, she's number #1 because she wins the most often all year round.

Wins the most matches you mean, and because she plays the most events. While she did lead the tour in event wins last year (winning 6) that was only 1 more event than Clijsters won. And prestiege-wise only 4 of those 6 were quality events.

Answer this:Who would you hire for the top job at your company-someone who gets the job done in 11 tries by winning the events that count or someone who takes 22 tries to produce less?


If people don't think she should be #1, more players need to start beating her.

Huh? Has she ever-ever-beaten Clijsters? or Serena? Wozniacki's record against fellow top tenners in 2010 was 9-6. Clijsters had a much better record.

Quality should be a large factor in determining who is #1. Caro is just proof that the system is flawed. That's not personal-I like her just fine.

As #1 she's just a joke.

goldenlox
Mar 10th, 2011, 08:46 PM
Caro is the #1 now. The only other player with any chance is Kim.
There's no joke to it. No one else is close, and Kim is going to have to do something at Tier I's besides skip them if she wants more than 1 week at 1.
The Tier I's support the tour, so its not asking too much that she shows up.
She had no problem going to Thailand, but that doesnt help the WTA too much

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 08:56 PM
Since we are suddenly comparing players today with the mid 90s those who favor the current ranking system with Caro as #1 should consider this:

1995: Conchita Martinez is our #1!!! (Yea Conchita!). Steffi is a part-time player who only entered 11 events this year. Yes, Steffi won 3 slams, but Conchita's consistency shines through despite the fact she didn't make a slam final.

Using todays rankings system Martinez would have been #1 for 1995-not Graf.

Reconsider that :)



Of course they are. Each and every ranking has built in biases. The current ranking system has a bias towards playing a lot despite the tour shrinking the number of events it offers and weeks played. Quality is a factor, but quantity is a huge factor too.
Conchita would have been number one briefly just after the Usopen 1995, yes after Graf won 3 slams at the time, but Steffi quickly took that year end number one on any system with her Philly and YEC wins that year.

Sabatini had more Kraft tour points than Graf and Seles going into the Usopen 1991, so she would have been number one in that system as well, but with a slam..

Arantxa would have definetly taken the YE number one in 1994 with a cumulative ranking system, so yeah the system pretty much takes a big role into this.

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:00 PM
In the Slams, she was (mostly) losing to them. And Slams final(s) she was only making in Australia.
Yes because Wozniacki "in the slams" as you say is winning tournament after tournament :lol:

Not the same case, Hingis was in a slam final in 2000, she lost at the grand slams only against the Champions, and at least she won the YEC + 9 other titles.

spencercarlos
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:06 PM
You're right, but how often did Coetzer actually beat those "great players of the past"? Her record against Seles was 1:9, against Davenport 2:10, against Hingis 3:11 and against Graf 4:12 or something like that. She played some great matches but for long periods of her long career she was, what the narrow-minded posters here now would call, a pusher (with not much power in her game) :p



Exactly, a player of the Coetzer caliber (Wozniacki today) was good enough to be a consistent top 15 player in the 90ties and 2000, today you have a player like her ranked number one :lol: :tape:

madmax
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:09 PM
Caro is the #1 now. The only other player with any chance is Kim.
There's no joke to it. No one else is close, and Kim is going to have to do something at Tier I's besides skip them if she wants more than 1 week at 1.
The Tier I's support the tour, so its not asking too much that she shows up.
She had no problem going to Thailand, but that doesnt help the WTA too much

you still don't get it, do you? The fact that Wozniacki can hog every tournament possible by beating up on injured, sick and unmotivated players is a testament of how flawed current ranking system is. There should be some kind of point distributive system and maybe a medium of the points gathered in every tournament should be counted as well - this way we would have an idea which players go deepest in every tournament and accumulate most points in them. I'm pretty sure Clijsters would come out on top according to this criteria.

goldenlox
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:12 PM
The WTA wants the top players in their biggest tournaments.
Its a very simple concept.
What she's doing is winning the WTA's biggest events.

Rollo
Mar 10th, 2011, 10:37 PM
The WTA wants the top players in their biggest tournaments.
Its a very simple concept.
What she's doing is winning the WTA's biggest events.


Who-Wozniacki?

Currently

Biggest 4 (slams)

Clijsters-2, S. Williams-1, Schiavone-1

YEC
Clijsters

Premier Mandatory

1 each for Clijsters, Wozniacki, Jankovic, and Rezai.

Premier 5

Wozniacki (3), Clijsters, Martinez Sanchez

I'll give the Wozzo her due here-she's won 4 bigger events. Of course Clijsters has 5 bigger events won, plus hers are higher up on the scale.

Again Kimmie clearly comes out on top in any system that takes quality into account.:)

goldenlox
Mar 10th, 2011, 10:47 PM
The WTA wants the players to show up at Mandatories, or they get a 0.
Its a points system that's not totally reliant on ITF majors. The majors have the most points, but they arent the only tournaments with points.
I like & respect Kim, and I think what she is doing as a mom is historic. But if she wants to spend time at #1, she needs to show up at the WTA's biggest tournaments.

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2011, 10:49 PM
Yes because Wozniacki "in the slams" as you say is winning tournament after tournament :lol:

Not the same case, Hingis was in a slam final in 2000, she lost at the grand slams only against the Champions, and at least she won the YEC + 9 other titles.


Please tell me where I said that Woz is winning Slam tournament after Slam tournament :rolleyes:

And Woz DID have a Slam final in her rankings when she reached #1 so the situation is comparable.


you still don't get it, do you? The fact that Wozniacki can hog every tournament possible by beating up on injured, sick and unmotivated players is a testament of how flawed current ranking system is.


What do the (as you say) injured, sick and unmotivated players have to do with the (supposedly) "flawed" ranking system? :confused:


You are right-its not Caro's fault at all. It the WTA's fault for keeping such a lousy ranking system. If anything Caro will become its victiom as pressure mounts for her to "validate" her ranking. In the past players didn't have to do that.



How is this ranking system "lousy"? Should we now make a ranking system that pleases the sick, unmotivated players so they can be #1 with miminal effort? Yeah, I'm sure that would be great for the WTA. :weirdo:

And the ATP is useing almost the exact same ranking system as WTA, and no one on ATP complains about the ranking system. Because as long as the top players are taking the tour event serious (as happening in men's tennis), there's no need to cry about the supposedly "lousy" ranking system and no one complains.
Well, except for spencercarlos who complained at MTF that Djokovic should be #2 since he got better Slam results than Federer (while totally neglecting Federer's better YEC and the Masters Event results :wavey:).

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2011, 11:14 PM
Who-Wozniacki?

Currently

Biggest 4 (slams)

Clijsters-2, S. Williams-1, Schiavone-1

YEC
Clijsters

Premier Mandatory

1 each for Clijsters, Wozniacki, Jankovic, and Rezai.

Premier 5

Wozniacki (3), Clijsters, Martinez Sanchez

I'll give the Wozzo her due here-she's won 4 bigger events. Of course Clijsters has 5 bigger events won, plus hers are higher up on the scale.

Again Kimmie clearly comes out on top in any system that takes quality into account.:)


So now you've presented us the winners of the biggest 14 tournaments.
Of these 14, Kim did not play Rome, Madrid, RG, Bejing, Tokyo and Dubai.

That's 6 out of 14.

So please tell me: How many imaginary ranking points do you want to give a "quality" player like Clijsters at these 6 tournaments where she did not win a single match so that the ranking system is not "lousy" anymore?

Lucemferre
Mar 10th, 2011, 11:27 PM
I secretly love Caro holding off a two times major + YEC winner from no1:lol: She deserves her ranking period. Madusah must play more if she wants the no1 ranking. But it's also very important for Caro to win a major this year or next at the latest because otherwise she will start to lose confidence.She must assure herself that her game is good enough so she can keep going without making stupid mistakes like trying to change it -jankovic:tape:- She should simply stop losing to zvonareva for starters.

Rollo
Mar 11th, 2011, 02:09 PM
Posted by Matt

How is this ranking system "lousy"? Should we now make a ranking system that pleases the sick, unmotivated players so they can be #1 with miminal effort? Yeah, I'm sure that would be great for the WTA. :weirdo:


Hi Matt:wavey:

It's a lousy system for a few reasons:

The top female players bailed on the concept of supporting the tour years ago.

Asking a player to enter a minimum of 12-14 events is reasonable. This system worked quite well up until 1996. When they changed the ranking system to 18 events things started to go wrong. Ironically Kimiko Date quit right away-citing the new rankings as a reason. Injuries mounted. Venus and Serena never "bought in" to the notion of entering 18 events. Others like Henin and Clijsters did-paid the price with injuries, and changed to playing less.

You believe the WTA would be "rewarding" them by changing the rankings. To me the tour would be helping itself. There's no way in this era a female can enter 22 events per year like Wozniacki and win slams consistently. Thus a
healthy Clijsters-Serena type is never going to play a ton of events. Why not recognize that and scale back the minimum number of events counting towards the ranking? Going back to 12-14 events might just coax the top guns into playing an extra 2-3 events per year.


And the ATP is useing almost the exact same ranking system as WTA, and no one on ATP complains about the ranking system. Because as long as the top players are taking the tour event serious (as happening in men's tennis), there's no need to cry about the supposedly "lousy" ranking system and no one complains.


Almost the exact system is not the exact system. One major difference I notice is that on the WTA tour a finalistr gets 70% of the points the winner of the event gets. On the ATP tour it's 60%. 50% would be more equitable. Why reward losers? You wouldn't find a ton of people complaining if Wozniacki had manged to win at least 1 of the 4 biggest events in our sport, or at least the YEC.

She failed on all counts though.

Another thing you are overlooking is that the men have stronger bodies, They can take the grind of playing more events. It also helps that the men have more events on clay and indoors. As to complaints about the ranking-no there haven't been complaints, largely due to the fact that every one #1 except for one (Marcelo Rios) had a Grand Slam in hand at the time they were on top.

Rollo
Mar 11th, 2011, 02:33 PM
So now you've presented us the winners of the biggest 14 tournaments.
Of these 14, Kim did not play Rome, Madrid, RG, Bejing, Tokyo and Dubai.

That's 6 out of 14.

So please tell me: How many imaginary ranking points do you want to give a "quality" player like Clijsters at these 6 tournaments where she did not win a single match so that the ranking system is not "lousy" anymore?

0 of course:) Look, if Caroline won more big events and played more I'd have no problem with her as #1. Instead she played more and acheived less. But you are avoiding that.

Aramitz_II
Mar 11th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Hi Matt:wavey:

Another thing you are overlooking is that the men have stronger bodies, They can take the grind of playing more events.


Where have you picked up that theory from your grandfather??

You may take a look at this page

http://tennis.matchstat.com/AllInjuries/

:):):)

Rollo
Mar 11th, 2011, 05:08 PM
Where have you picked up that theory from your grandfather??

You may take a look at this page


Ok-take a good look at the page link you provided. It lists not a single injury on the female tour in all of 2009. Grandpa taught me not to take imcomplete information seriously-next:)

Matt01
Mar 11th, 2011, 05:11 PM
Hi Matt:wavey:

It's a lousy system for a few reasons:

The top female players bailed on the concept of supporting the tour years ago.

Asking a player to enter a minimum of 12-14 events is reasonable. This system worked quite well up until 1996. When they changed the ranking system to 18 events things started to go wrong. Ironically Kimiko Date quit right away-citing the new rankings as a reason. Injuries mounted. Venus and Serena never "bought in" to the notion of entering 18 events. Others like Henin and Clijsters did-paid the price with injuries, and changed to playing less.


Maybe you missed it but WTA has installed a new system, it's called the Roadmap under which the players have to play less AND under which the players have a longer off-season as they requested.

Now the players have to play the 4 Slams, 4 Mandatories plus 4 of the 5 P5s and 2 additional Premiers. That's 14 tournaments; if they qualify for the YEC, it's 15 tournaments. Do you seriously think that playing 14-15 tournaments per year is asked too much from the top players?

And do you seriously think that a player like Clijsters got injured last year because she had to play too many tournaments? She had hardly played any tournaments in 2008/2009 and then she already got injurd. The WS never played a lot of tournaments in their careers and still they were often injured.

If you schedule wisely (which Kim in her 1st career and the WS never did) you should have no problem with the ranking system.

Of course if we talk about the structure of the WTA calendar then I'm the first to criticize it.



Almost the exact system is not the exact system. One major difference I notice is that on the WTA tour a finalistr gets 70% of the points the winner of the event gets. On the ATP tour it's 60%. 50% would be more equitable. Why reward losers? You wouldn't find a ton of people complaining if Wozniacki had manged to win at least 1 of the 4 biggest events in our sport, or at least the YEC.


Reaching a Slam final is an amazing feat in it self, you are not a "loser" then, and only giving 50% of the Slam winner's ranking points sounds too harsh to me. Anyway, giving 60% or 70% of the winners ranking points for the finalist is not a "major difference" IMO. I dunno why the WTA gives 70% for the finalist while the ATP gives 60%.

Aramitz_II
Mar 11th, 2011, 05:46 PM
Ok-take a good look at the page link you provided. It lists not a single injury on the female tour in all of 2009. Grandpa taught me not to take imcomplete information seriously-next:)


And so what even whitout 2009 there is no evidence at all too your clame.
But maybe you can point out other material to substatniate such an old-fasioned
view

Olórin
Mar 11th, 2011, 06:00 PM
And so what even whitout 2009 there is no evidence at all too your clame.
But maybe you can point out other material to substatniate such an old-fasioned
view

Perhaps you would like to substantiate your view? The WTA list of injuries on that site you provided isn't even nearly complete.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of injured men is similar to the number of injured women, but if that is the case it would be relative to the physicality of the tennis played on the respective tours. We know the women can't hang with the men due to their biology. Men have stronger bodies, are you seriously disputing this?

Aramitz_II
Mar 11th, 2011, 06:15 PM
Ok-take a good look at the page link you provided. It lists not a single injury on the female tour in all of 2009. Grandpa taught me not to take imcomplete information seriously-next:)

I took acloser look and i foun out that your are completly wrong . The injyry mentioned are
those who still is keeping the player out. The fact that there only is on 2009 entry fore the female actually substatiate pretty much that women are much less injyry prone than men. They have fewer injyries and they get faster back in shape.

Burisleif
Mar 11th, 2011, 06:18 PM
Perhaps you would like to substantiate your view? The WTA list of injuries on that site you provided isn't even nearly complete.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of injured men is similar to the number of injured women, but if that is the case it would be relative to the physicality of the tennis played on the respective tours. We know the women can't hang with the men due to their biology. Men have stronger bodies, are you seriously disputing this?

I don't think strength was questioned... susceptibility to injury according to gender was.

Which gender would win a strength contest kind of misses the point being discussed.

Aramitz_II
Mar 11th, 2011, 07:36 PM
Perhaps you would like to substantiate your view? The WTA list of injuries on that site you provided isn't even nearly complete.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of injured men is similar to the number of injured women, but if that is the case it would be relative to the physicality of the tennis played on the respective tours. We know the women can't hang with the men due to their biology. Men have stronger bodies, are you seriously disputing this?

No. But men plays men, an women plays women. The differens in physics can'tbe used argue that men are better fitted to a long and season as Rollo sugest. The list i provide is if anything actually give a hint of the opposit. But as you say it is not complet it is only about the players who actually are injured right know.

anonymous1
May 20th, 2011, 08:26 PM
It's your last chance to reconsider, you fools. :D