PDA

View Full Version : Reuters Article Blasts Wozniacki Says She Is A Disappointed No Slam title this year


Morrissey
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:32 AM
Wozniacki must back up statistics with majors


By Martyn Herman

ISTANBUL | Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:03pm EDT

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Statistically Caroline Wozniacki remains the best female tennis player in the world but the controversy over her number one status showed no signs of abating after her season ended in disappointment at the WTA Championships.

True, the 21-year-old Dane won six titles, amassed more victories (63) than any of her rivals and topped the end-of-year rankings for a second consecutive year.

However, when asked who was the stand-out player of 2011, none of the seven other women who qualified for the season-ending finale in Istanbul named Wozniacki.

Former world number one Maria Sharapova, who battled back to the top four from injury, was mentioned, as was the player of the moment Petra Kvitova, who capped a remarkable season by winning the Championships undefeated on Sunday.

Czech Kvitova has emerged as the new force in women's tennis and there is an air of inevitability about her rise to the top of tree after she beat another challenger to Wozniacki, Victoria Azarenka, to win the prestigious title on her debut.

The 21-year-old is not there yet -- she still lags 100 or so points behind Wozniacki -- but with a grand slam title to her name already and a destructive game that, when working, is almost unstoppable, the Wimbledon champion appears to be the number one in waiting.

But what of Wozniacki?

Despite spending all but a week as number one since last October, she failed to reach a single grand slam final this year and her lack of a major among her 18 career titles is beginning to weigh heavily on her shoulders.

While the WTA Tour points to the fact that the rankings system rewards consistency, the fact that Wozniacki has so far failed to shine on the biggest stages gives plenty of ammunition to those who say she is there by default.

Wozniacki, the theory goes, has benefited from injuries to the likes of Serena Williams and Kim Clijsters and from the fact that some of her peers are still developing their games.

Williams, and before her the likes of Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf and Monica Seles, used to provide the ultimate benchmark for women's tennis in various spells of domination but Wozniacki, despite racking up victories, points and dollars, lacks that authority.

She may still be just 21, but both Serena and Venus Williams, Seles, Graf, Martina Hingis and Sharapova all had a clutch of grand slam titles in the bag at the same age.

All of those, with the exception of Hingis whose brain was possibly her greatest strength, could also dominate opponents in a way that Wozniacki's solid percentage game cannot.

When it gets down to the later stages of a major, the chances are Woznaicki will run into a player with the weapons to break down her barricades.

"She's certainly not the best player in the world at her best, but at her worst she's probably the best player in the world compared to the others," former men's world number one Mats Wilander said this week.

MAJOR STRENGTH

It is a recipe for the kind of consistency in results which U.S. Open champion Samantha Stosur believes is Wozniacki's major strength.

"Kvitova's got a lot more visible weapons than what Caroline has," the Australian told Reuters after losing to Kvitova in the semi-finals at the Championships.

"But what Caroline does very are the things that a normal tennis fan may not necessarily see. I mean, she moves well, competes extremely hard, and really makes you work for it."

Stosur also said the way the rankings points are structured favoured Wozniacki's habit of rarely losing early in a tournament.

"I think you do get rewarded for winning a grand slam and you definitely get the most points by far if you're able to do that," she said. "But we've got nine other really big tournaments, and four of those are not too far behind a slam.

"They're the tournaments that Caroline manages to do very well in, week in and week out. That's how she gets her points without winning a slam."

After bowing out of the Championships with just one win from her three round-robin matches, Wozniacki headed home to recover from her 80-match season.

After a rest starts the work on taking the next step in her career, according to her father and coach Piotr -- a firm believer that his daughter should get more plaudits for finishing first in the rankings for a second year in succession.

"I know she has not won a grand slam but she has had many good results so it's a fantastic achievement," he told Reuters.

"There are many, many players now, probably the top 30 who play to a very high level. Before maybe it would be hard from the quarter-finals now the first three rounds are very tough.

"A grand slam is the next step for her but and it's a big ambition but we are taking it step by step."

With players such as Kvitova and Azarenka breathing down her neck and Serena and Clijsters soon to return to action, however, the worry for Wozniacki is that step may be backwards.

(editing by Nick Mulvenney)

SilverPersian
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:38 AM
"She's certainly not the best player in the world at her best, but at her worst she's probably the best player in the world compared to the others," former men's world number one Mats Wilander said this week.

This summed it up pretty well.

Knizzle
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:44 AM
No need for the media to beat a dead horse. She's not the worst slamless #1 in my opinion.

In The Zone
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:57 AM
No need for the media to beat a dead horse. She's not the worst slamless #1 in my opinion.

I would take a peak Safina or a peak Jankovic over peak Wozniacki any day.

dsanders06
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:58 AM
I would take a peak Safina or a peak Jankovic over peak Wozniacki any day.

This.

mickymouse
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:14 AM
So should she voluntarily relinquish her ranking, take part in fewer tournaments or lose more matches on purpose to ensure a slam winner gets to be number one?

Excelscior
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:18 AM
The article said it all.

No need to comment from me.

Sp!ffy
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:22 AM
So should she voluntarily relinquish her ranking, take part in fewer tournaments or lose more matches on purpose to ensure a slam winner gets to be number one?

She should make the necessary adjustments in her game and schedule to embody what the "best tennis player in the world" is supposed to be.

Balltossovic
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:28 AM
Maybe we could have one thread for every Caro article that comes out this off season:facepalm:

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:33 AM
So should she voluntarily relinquish her ranking, take part in fewer tournaments or lose more matches on purpose to ensure a slam winner gets to be number one?

Well she should be more concerned with improving her unimpressive game than tournament whoreing, entering enormous amounts of dinky tiny tournaments (some right before slams, not even the proper surface) to basically abuse the ranking systems loopholes in a desperate attempt to keep her undeserved #1 ranking, then proceed boast about it as if it makes her the best player in the World. :tape: :lol:

Brad[le]y.
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:41 AM
Maybe we could have one thread for every Caro article that comes out this off season:facepalm:

this :o

metamorpha
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:54 AM
The thing is, all slamless No. 1 players so far never said that indeed they should back it up with slam titles. Instead, they insisted they were the best player in the world and slam titles were not their main goal. :facepalm: In-denial.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:01 AM
I'm surprised you managed to find this hack article based on the authors limited contributions... or is this another of the OP's nome de plum?

Either way I don't see how a mashed quotes piece by an unimportant writer warrants a thread in GM?

Per the Mods should set a precedent, by closing it, or leave it open and we can all feel free to open threads with every article we find that sort of fits our personal agendas?

VeeJJ
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:36 AM
"She's certainly not the best player in the world at her best, but at her worst she's probably the best player in the world compared to the others," former men's world number one Mats Wilander said this week.

This summed it up pretty well.

This.


I would take a peak Safina or a peak Jankovic over peak Wozniacki any day.

And half this :oh:

BikezAreForever!
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:39 AM
Either way I don't see how a mashed quotes piece by an unimportant writer warrants a thread in GM?

Per the Mods should set a precedent, by closing it, ...
I am just glad you are not a mod, closing all threads remotely negative of Caro. :rolleyes:

Moveyourfeet
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:47 AM
I'm surprised you managed to find this hack article based on the authors limited contributions... or is this another of the OP's nome de plum?

Either way I don't see how a mashed quotes piece by an unimportant writer warrants a thread in GM?

Per the Mods should set a precedent, by closing it, or leave it open and we can all feel free to open threads with every article we find that sort of fits our personal agendas?

Attacking the author since you cannot rebut the content...

goldenlox
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:53 AM
Its not a bad article. The reason Caro is #1 is that the slam winners did very little for months after winning their majors.
Kim was injured, Li & Petra both lost round 1 at the USO and had months of poor results.
Petra came back at the end of the year to show again how talented she is.

Next year Caro is defending 1,000s more points than the players ranked right behind her in 1st part of 2012.
If figures the Caro, Li and Kim fall in the rankings early in 2012.
Then we will see what happens when Caro is ranked 3 or 4.

But Caro has to win majors to show she is a true 'best player' #1
Everyone in that spot does.

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:54 AM
Attacking the author since you cannot rebut the content...

I'm attacking the precedent of the thread. Do you really want a thread for every negative article and blog about a WTA player?

The author is more than capable of rebutting himself.. Have fun with the rest of his articles, and then judge his credentials yourself.

Sp!ffy
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:57 AM
I'm attacking the precedent of the thread. Do you really want a thread for every negative article and blog about a WTA player?

The author is more than capable of rebutting himself.. Have fun with the rest of his articles, and then judge his credentials yourself.

Not just any WTA player....:oh:

Burisleif
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:03 AM
Not just any WTA player....:oh:

There are plenty of part timer articles, blogs, and contributions out there about all the players... I won't be posting any articles anytime soon.

Sp!ffy
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:06 AM
Good. No one cares about what you have to say anyway.

King Halep
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:08 AM
"She's certainly not the best player in the world at her best, but at her worst she's probably the best player in the world compared to the others," former men's world number one Mats Wilander said this week.


Profound :worship:

King Halep
Oct 31st, 2011, 06:09 AM
So should she voluntarily relinquish her ranking, take part in fewer tournaments or lose more matches on purpose to ensure a slam winner gets to be number one?

she should think of following clijster and taking time off to have a baby then come back better

bandabou
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:17 AM
Till she wins a major, it's gonna be the same song. It's the way it is.

Morning Morgan
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:39 AM
As I have said before, if you are not at the twilight of your career, if you have either the No. 1 ranking or a Grand Slam, you should not be satisfied with only one of them. You need to do the right things to achieve both. Yes, I am aiming at Wozniacki, Sam Stosur, Li Na, Kvitova. Ideally, it should not be that a Grand Slam or a No.1 ranking is more important, but it has evolved along those lines in the past few years, because we have not really seen a player of that caliber emerge to dominate consistently on all stages.

However, I think people look at Grand Slams more is because GS gives an indication of a player's maximum potential, with the hope that level can be translated throughout the whole year as well. Playing your best tennis is really a question of mental focus and fortitude, and there is no doubt that mentality sets the top players and run-of-the-mill players apart. But Wozniacki needs to think about what is gonna set her apart from the top players in the future. These two years, the top players are arguably not the best mentally, to the extent that Caro's relatively superior mental strength is sufficient to break down her opponent's game, and prevent them from playing their best. But recently, all the pressure is starting to take its toll on Caro's own mentality, and worrying signs are starting to creep into her game, especially errors on the backhand which is unacceptable from her. Though Kvitova is not No. 1 yet, she had now shown her hand and is poised to almost certainly take the No. 1 ranking from Caro. Caro needs to think about not just outwilling her opponents so that she can win, but also know how to win when their opponent is mentally on. If mental strength is equal between both players, it all boils down to tennis technique and weapons, and Wozniacki is not adding to them for the last two years. If she continues in this vein, even her mental confidence might get burned.

bandabou
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:13 AM
Caro just needs to add some new elements to her game. She's shown she can be consistent..except for clay and grass. Now she has to show she can win BIG..otherwise she's just Hingis-verryyyy lite.

Bronx19
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:01 AM
Oh just harden the fuck up you Danish folk.

hablo
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:46 AM
I would take a peak Safina or a peak Jankovic over peak Wozniacki any day.

Ditto.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 1st, 2011, 01:54 AM
Disappointed? It was pretty much expected. A player who relies purely on the level of her opponent to drop will never win slam, YEC or olympic gold. The real disappointment is that Wozniacki is still #1. :shrug:

metamorpha
Nov 1st, 2011, 03:57 AM
Federer: "What is clear is in men's tennis in a season you have to get almost two Grand Slam titles to be No. 1. In the women's world rankings you can become No. 1 without winning a major, which would be unthinkable for us. That’s not to sound disrespectful towards women, it is simply a fact."

The statement implies, win two majors first before you get that No. 1 ranking...

rafaelkafka
Nov 1st, 2011, 04:46 AM
For god's sake, Caro is still very young, leave her alone lol

lang26
Nov 1st, 2011, 04:58 AM
Like Toni Braxton Would say Another Sad Love Song, People just can't find nothing else talk about Outta thousand ON WTA

lang26
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:03 AM
IT also real funny That People now taking up for JJ & Safina But When they were Number 1 Ya the same People giving them hell over the same damn reasons. Let not forget, How Ya act when they were Number 1. & That JJ is Trying find her Form again, and Safina Gone Don't Know for how long. YA wanna give them Praise get outta here that.

ExtremespeedX
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:06 AM
IT also real funny That People now taking up for JJ & Safina But When they were Number 1 Ya the same People giving them hell over the same damn reasons. Let not forget, How Ya act when they were Number 1. & That JJ is Trying find her Form again, and Safina Gone Don't Know for how long. YA wanna give them Praise get outta here that.

Safina and JJ were much better players than Wozniacki. Their problem was mental. Wozniacki is fine mentally, but lacks talent, that's why she's getting more criticism.

Steven.
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:22 AM
What are you talking about? lol Safina was beaten down by the press even more harshly than they do Wozniacki, despite Safina reaching 3 slam final and 1 other slam semi. :lol:

ico4498
Nov 1st, 2011, 05:23 AM
standards for a 'blast' have dipped considerably ...

bandabou
Nov 1st, 2011, 07:55 AM
What are you talking about? lol Safina was beaten down by the press even more harshly than they do Wozniacki, despite Safina reaching 3 slam final and 1 other slam semi. :lol:

Exactly...Safina had F SF SF F one tim at majors...someting Caro can't even DREAM about.

pav
Nov 1st, 2011, 09:03 AM
Federer: "What is clear is in men's tennis in a season you have to get almost two Grand Slam titles to be No. 1. In the women's world rankings you can become No. 1 without winning a major, which would be unthinkable for us. That’s not to sound disrespectful towards women, it is simply a fact."

The statement implies, win two majors first before you get that No. 1 ranking...
The statement implies, Federer should shut his gob and go back to flicking his hair.

Monzanator
Nov 1st, 2011, 09:39 AM
I would take a peak Safina or a peak Jankovic over peak Wozniacki any day.

Peak Safina never showed up when it mattered and she had three GS finals to do that. What's the point of chosing peak Safina when you know she's not going to deliver in the one match that really matters? :shrug: Just like Serena said, she won Rome and Madrid and that's about all :lol:

Jankovic doesn't even care anymore, so let's forget about her, shall we?

améliemomo
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:04 AM
Federer: "What is clear is in men's tennis in a season you have to get almost two Grand Slam titles to be No. 1. In the women's world rankings you can become No. 1 without winning a major, which would be unthinkable for us. That’s not to sound disrespectful towards women, it is simply a fact."

The statement implies, win two majors first before you get that No. 1 ranking...

the difference between atp and wta is that in one there are real competion with BIG CHAMPIONS whereas in the other there are not. Only real champions (serena and kim) were injured all year. Cant wait to see Wozniacki dealing with their return in 2012 and with Kvitova confidence increasing every day who will be hunting her n°1 spot.

many things to worry for the actual n°1...

Hurley
Nov 1st, 2011, 04:44 PM
What's the point of chosing peak Safina when you know she's not going to deliver in the one match that really matters? :shrug:

Oh, then by all means choose someone who never even gets to a match that matters. And bet on blue in roulette while you're at it.

barmaid
Nov 1st, 2011, 06:20 PM
Well she should be more concerned with improving her unimpressive game than tournament whoreing, entering enormous amounts of dinky tiny tournaments (some right before slams, not even the proper surface) to basically abuse the ranking systems loopholes in a desperate attempt to keep her undeserved #1 ranking, then proceed boast about it as if it makes her the best player in the World. :tape: :lol:
Bingo! Hit the nail on the head with this post:help: spend more time "listening to her coaches" applying the instructions she's given, practise, practise, practise but if she's too damn stupid to "change" and improve her game she'll remain the laughing stock of the WTA..:lol:numero uno or not!!:rolleyes:

Barmaid:wavey:

goldenlox
Nov 1st, 2011, 07:41 PM
Bingo! Hit the nail on the head with this post:help: spend more time "listening to her coaches" applying the instructions she's given, practise, practise, practise but if she's too damn stupid to "change" and improve her game she'll remain the laughing stock of the WTA..:lol:numero uno or not!!:rolleyes:

Barmaid:wavey:Caro was in 3 semifinals in the last 5 majors. And YE #1 back to back. If thats the laughing stock, what's the rest of the tour doing?
Kvitova lost ITF challenger matches this year.
Both Li and Kvitova lost round 1 of the USO.
I dont know how you figure who's the laughing stock, unless they all are, the whole WTA tour.

Sammo
Nov 1st, 2011, 08:06 PM
Omg Caro! It's Daniela Right Behind You!

matthias
Nov 1st, 2011, 08:26 PM
Woz stuff should be moved to non-tennis imo

Talula
Nov 1st, 2011, 08:58 PM
Thought it was a nice balanced article which summed it up well. As were Sam's comments.

Marlene
Nov 1st, 2011, 09:20 PM
Federer: "What is clear is in men's tennis in a season you have to get almost two Grand Slam titles to be No. 1. In the women's world rankings you can become No. 1 without winning a major, which would be unthinkable for us. That’s not to sound disrespectful towards women, it is simply a fact."

The statement implies, win two majors first before you get that No. 1 ranking...

Rios? Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter...? 10-15ish years ago the ATP #1 spot was passed along among a slew of one-slam-wonders (per year) with a turnover about as long as Kim Kardashian's marriage. Things change. Then came the Federer-era, the Nadal-era, and now the Djokovic-era with those über-dominant alpha-males . Who knows what's the next ATP era is gonna be like? Right now the WTA is more or less where the ATP was 10 years ago - there's no alpha-female, no dominatrix - the only difference is that Wozzy has been a tad bit more consistent than everybody else, including the one-slam-wonders, and that's why we're not up to 28 different #1'ers just yet.

Excelscior
Nov 1st, 2011, 09:27 PM
What are you talking about? lol Safina was beaten down by the press even more harshly than they do Wozniacki, despite Safina reaching 3 slam final and 1 other slam semi. :lol:

That's true, cause Safina got killed, every time she got a beat down by Serena or flopped out of a major. It's like she wanted to cry every time. Big brother Marat had to defend her; it got so bad with the press. Dinara was miserable.

It was damn near a scandal every Major. Wozniaki would only get that treatment, if she was still number one, after the Australian. Of course she'll get it during the Australian; but if she manages to hold on to it by the French. They're going to kill her.

It's true.

sammy01
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:01 PM
caro doesn't get slated by the press as much as safina did because caro isn't even making finals. it was all the more in your face with safina when she was losing slam finals easily that she really wasn't the best player in the world. caro is lucky in that she is normally forgotten news by the time the final comes round at slams and the attention is then on those 2 players.

sadly safina doing better than caro lead to more mocking than caro gets.

Excelscior
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:09 PM
caro doesn't get slated by the press as much as safina did because caro isn't even making finals. it was all the more in your face with safina when she was losing slam finals easily that she really wasn't the best player in the world. caro is lucky in that she is normally forgotten news by the time the final comes round at slams and the attention is then on those 2 players.

sadly safina doing better than caro lead to more mocking than caro gets.

Good Point.

sammy01
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:12 PM
Good Point.


can you imagine if the semi final of the us open this year had been the final. an off form serena slaughtering the world number 1 who didn't hit a winner till the 2nd game of the 2nd set! the finals always get a lot of attention and write ups in the papers ect and caro would have been ripped to shreads by most if that had of been the final! :help:

ico4498
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:31 PM
Rios? Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter...? 10-15ish years ago the ATP #1 spot was passed along among a slew of one-slam-wonders (per year) with a turnover about as long as Kim Kardashian's marriage. Things change. Then came the Federer-era, the Nadal-era, and now the Djokovic-era with those über-dominant alpha-males . Who knows what's the next ATP era is gonna be like? Right now the WTA is more or less where the ATP was 10 years ago - there's no alpha-female, no dominatrix - the only difference is that Wozzy has been a tad bit more consistent than everybody else, including the one-slam-wonders, and that's why we're not up to 28 different #1'ers just yet.

amen. echoed for truth, preach Marlene!:worship:

No1Curr
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:39 PM
Poor Woz. Informed tennis fans can't stand her, casual tennis fans have never heard of her. Girl needs a hug :hug:

Matt01
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:46 PM
Poor Woz. Informed tennis fans can't stand her, casual tennis fans have never heard of her. Girl needs a hug :hug:


No one cares about hugs from trolls.


can you imagine if the semi final of the us open this year had been the final. an off form serena slaughtering the world number 1 who didn't hit a winner till the 2nd game of the 2nd set! the finals always get a lot of attention and write ups in the papers ect and caro would have been ripped to shreads by most if that had of been the final! :help:


There's a difference between losing a Slam final 0:6, 3:6 and losing 2:6, 4:6. And you don't have to hit any winners to win a tennis match. And don't tell me about an "off-form" Serena when she was the best player of the US series and THE favorite to win the title :facepalm:

LuvSerena?MeToo
Nov 1st, 2011, 10:46 PM
Dolly Parton rarely worried about her figure. "I bought all those Jane Fonda videos," she once remarked. "I love to sit and eat cookies and watch them."

Marlene
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:14 PM
caro doesn't get slated by the press as much as safina did because caro isn't even making finals. it was all the more in your face with safina when she was losing slam finals easily that she really wasn't the best player in the world. caro is lucky in that she is normally forgotten news by the time the final comes round at slams and the attention is then on those 2 players.

sadly safina doing better than caro lead to more mocking than caro gets.

Let's get real here; Safina was "only" #1 for 26 weeks, and this was at a time where Serena Williams was a reigning 2-3x slam champ. It's a whole lot harder to rationalise why "someone else" is the #1 when another player, famous/infamous Serena, has won (almost) all the slams than in the current WTA situation with 4 different slam winners. Right now, the WTA doesn't have a superstar - Kim Who is more or less MIA since Australia and long forgotten; that Chinese player named Na-Li-Li-Na? is MIA results-wise; the Chech chick who won Wimbledon and barely speaks English... oh, is that the same one who just won something last week?; and Sam Stosur, well she just doesn't rock the superstar thing. In short, Caroline Wozniacki, the #1 since like forever, is name-wise as good a superstar as everybody else in the realm of non-tennis people... that's why Caro-bashing is mainly an inner-circle thing in tennis. If the WTA can arrange for Kvitova to attend some English lessons and doll her up for some posters, she might just catch on as the next big tennis thing - provided she keeps on winning things. Otherwise Caro is gonna remain the poster child with the mainstream media not really knowing WTF is going on in WTA, and consequently not questioning her #1-worthiness.

Excelscior
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:33 PM
@Marlene

I think you overestimate the appeal of Wozniaki. Plus you're contradicting yourself.

If everything you said was true, why is the press, practically in unison is trying to push her out the door (with no shoes, coat or clothes on) for Kvitova right now?

They're not even being subtle about it. Have you seen the various articles (like this one in the thread)? If they liked Caroline so much (or if she was that important), why are they having a hopeful, happy revolt/comeuppance, celebration for Caroline's #1 departure next January?

Like someone said above; "the tennis cognoscenti can't stand her, and the casual fans don't know who she is or cares". That's a paraphrase.

It's true. She can't please anyone at this point, and is not good for the WTA (if she stays number one and keeps playing poorly overall, and/or in majors), while receiving heaps of criticism. But that's her business!!

edificio
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:37 PM
No need for the media to beat a dead horse. She's not the worst slamless #1 in my opinion.

:yeah:

goldenlox
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:38 PM
Caro is #2 on the Forbes list. That means sponsors pay her tens of millions to have her promote their products.
I've seen the tennis media criticize Serena harshly. So what? It comes with the recognition.

Marlene
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:02 AM
@Marlene

I think you overestimate the appeal of Wozniaki. Plus you're contradicting yourself.

If everything you said was true, why is the press, practically in unison is trying to push her out the door (with no shoes, coat or clothes on) for Kvitova right now?

They're not even being subtle about it. Have you seen the various articles (like this one in the thread)? If they liked Caroline so much (or if she was that important), why are they having a hopeful, happy revolt/comeuppance, celebration for Caroline's #1 departure next January?

Like someone said above; "the tennis cognoscenti can't stand her, and the casual fans don't know who she is or cares". That's a paraphrase.

It's true. She can't please anyone at this point, and is not good for the WTA (if she stays number one and keeps playing poorly overall, and/or in majors), while receiving heaps of criticism. But that's her business!!

Kvitova may be the next big thing... this week, and there may be a Reuter article in circulation dissing Wozzy's achievements... this week. But next week, it's still gonna be Woz who has that #1 thing to her name, and it's still gonna be Woz who has the more recognisable name outside the tennis-bubble. That's just how it works; the mainstream media has short attention span. Kvitova certainly has a real chance of becoming the next big thing, she's just not quite there yet.

Steven.
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:55 AM
That's true, cause Safina got killed, every time she got a beat down by Serena or flopped out of a major. It's like she wanted to cry every time. Big brother Marat had to defend her; it got so bad with the press. Dinara was miserable.

It was damn near a scandal every Major. Wozniaki would only get that treatment, if she was still number one, after the Australian. Of course she'll get it during the Australian; but if she manages to hold on to it by the French. They're going to kill her.

It's true.

caro doesn't get slated by the press as much as safina did because caro isn't even making finals. it was all the more in your face with safina when she was losing slam finals easily that she really wasn't the best player in the world. caro is lucky in that she is normally forgotten news by the time the final comes round at slams and the attention is then on those 2 players.

sadly safina doing better than caro lead to more mocking than caro gets.

The thing is, I think this is like a big brother-little brother situation, where the media is the parents and Safina is big bro and Woz is little bro. Of course the parents would always be the harshest on those that came first because it was a new thing, but when it comes to little bro's 'mistake', he'll get let off more easily simply because the parent (media) would've encountered something similar before.

All despite Dinara being a better no. 1 than Caro...

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:12 AM
That's true, cause Safina got killed, every time she got a beat down by Serena or flopped out of a major. It's like she wanted to cry every time. Big brother Marat had to defend her; it got so bad with the press. Dinara was miserable.

It was damn near a scandal every Major. Wozniaki would only get that treatment, if she was still number one, after the Australian. Of course she'll get it during the Australian; but if she manages to hold on to it by the French. They're going to kill her.

It's true.

Why would someone attack Safina or any other player for being number 1 and not winning a slam? Why don't they attack the slam winners for not reaching number 1? Dinara was so desperate after those slams, it was sad to watch. it ruined her career as much as that bitch (back injury) did. It's so good to be a f*cking journalist and to bash the people that work so hard to make some results. Everyone can be that kind of journalist. I could open my beer, eat the sandwich and watch a slam final. After that I could write an article and say that XYZ is a disgrace for tennis and hype ZYX for winning a slam and conclude that ZYX is a true #1, while XYZ is a mug. What's the point? Even Roger couldn't help himself, he had to say that it's so wrong that JJ and Dinara got the #1. How does it feel when the legend of sport is saying crap about you?!?! Is it really necessary? those girls are human beings and it's not their fault that some other players can't reach #1 spot.

Matt01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:17 AM
Why would someone attack Safina or any other player for being number 1 and not winning a slam? Why don't they attack the slam winners for not reaching number 1?


Good point.

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:33 AM
Why would someone attack Safina or any other player for being number 1 and not winning a slam? Why don't they attack the slam winners for not reaching number 1? Dinara was so desperate after those slams, it was sad to watch. it ruined her career as much as that bitch (back injury) did. It's so good to be a f*cking journalist and to bash the people that work so hard to make some results. Everyone can be that kind of journalist. I could open my beer, eat the sandwich and watch a slam final. After that I could write an article and say that XYZ is a disgrace for tennis and hype ZYX for winning a slam and conclude that ZYX is a true #1, while XYZ is a mug. What's the point? Even Roger couldn't help himself, he had to say that it's so wrong that JJ and Dinara got the #1. How does it feel when the legend of sport is saying crap about you?!?! Is it really necessary? those girls are human beings and it's not their fault that some other players can't reach #1 spot.

I felt really bad for Dinara. But unfortunately, that's part of the deal when your famous, accomplished and make a lot of money. The press will criticize you. Because they make money, and their living off of players like Safina. I agree with you, that they ran her out of tennis (whether or not her back injury was legitimate or not), but it's not their fault.

As far as the number one comment; Serena had already been number one (the player she was being most compared to). So it wasn't a big deal to her. By that time Serena was long into her part time schedule, and had no desires to be number one at the time. So when Safina kept losing to Serena, or not winning slams, the criticism got worse, cause Serena had no desires on being number one again.

Yes. The press was brutal. But to them, Dinara vs Serena, was like a soap opera that they covered or created for their job. They loved talking about it; cause it created interest and a long running story (at least until Safina won a major). She didn't!

They're doing the same thing with Woz now. But to the media's credit; they gave Woz a nice grace period. Now she's got to produce after her recent/numerous failures.

It's next year with an supposed/apparent/real heir (to the position in Petra?) when you'll really start hearing the noise (plus if Serena and Clijsters successfully come back), as well.

We'll see?

JCTennisFan
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:40 AM
The article is right. And so is Sam Stosur. We wont have to worry about this for much longer anyways.... Kvitova only 100 points behind Woz! Didnt realize she was THAT close already. Woz will go down as a opportunist who took advantage of a transitional window in women's tennis...... think Hingis without the slams.

sammy01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:40 AM
Let's get real here; Safina was "only" #1 for 26 weeks, and this was at a time where Serena Williams was a reigning 2-3x slam champ. It's a whole lot harder to rationalise why "someone else" is the #1 when another player, famous/infamous Serena, has won (almost) all the slams than in the current WTA situation with 4 different slam winners. Right now, the WTA doesn't have a superstar - Kim Who is more or less MIA since Australia and long forgotten; that Chinese player named Na-Li-Li-Na? is MIA results-wise; the Chech chick who won Wimbledon and barely speaks English... oh, is that the same one who just won something last week?; and Sam Stosur, well she just doesn't rock the superstar thing. In short, Caroline Wozniacki, the #1 since like forever, is name-wise as good a superstar as everybody else in the realm of non-tennis people... that's why Caro-bashing is mainly an inner-circle thing in tennis. If the WTA can arrange for Kvitova to attend some English lessons and doll her up for some posters, she might just catch on as the next big tennis thing - provided she keeps on winning things. Otherwise Caro is gonna remain the poster child with the mainstream media not really knowing WTF is going on in WTA, and consequently not questioning her #1-worthiness.

stopped reading after the 1st few lines, caro has been number 1 for a couple of months this year when clijsters held us open, YEC, oz open, cincinatti and miami. that is actually a better 12 months than serena has put together when safina was number 1 for a lot of her spell. so if your argument is serena was so dominant that safina looked bad at number 1, then clijsters was even more dominant or just as.

JCTennisFan
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:47 AM
Why would someone attack Safina or any other player for being number 1 and not winning a slam? Why don't they attack the slam winners for not reaching number 1?

Um, maybe because the ATP and WTA are out to make MONEY. Because of this obviously they want their players to compete in as MANY tournmanets as possible. The tournaments are ALSO out to make money.. and star power brings money.

So because of all of that.... they allow players like Bartoli and Woz to play upwards of 20 tournmanets a year, drop the ones they performed poorly at, and pad their rankings. If the ranking system wasnt BROKEN then we wouldnt be having this discussion in the first place.They simply make it far too advantageous for players to play upwards of 16+ tournies a year.

The simple fix is to cap tournmant enteries at 14-16. If you play more than that..... you get nothing but prize money from it. No points, nothing. This would force players to actually PICK and CHOOSE their tournmanets with a little more care, instead of burning themselves out, playing relatively poorly, and still getting a high ranking because of it.

JCTennisFan
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:50 AM
And on the topic of Safina..... anyone ever think that maybe she got injured so early because of the incentives to OVERPLAY? Because of her overplay she was number 1 in the world without a title... and played herself into the ground. Woz is trending this direction as we speak. So maybe we should start blaming the tour for all the injuries because they are making it far too advantageous to enter in 16+ tournies a year...

ExtremespeedX
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:51 AM
People dissing Safina know little to nothing about the game. Safina was a great player. Amazing on clay and good on slow hard. She made SF of every slam as well. Had she been a little stronger mentally she'd win RG at least. Wozniacki is a workhorse with little talent, but huge fitness and stamina, able to wear down most players and win her matches on unforced errors. She can't even make a slam SF outside of hardcourts and got thrashed in championships this year.

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:52 AM
I felt really bad for Dinara. But unfortunately, that's part of the deal when your famous, accomplished and make a lot of money. The press will criticize you. Because they make money, and their living off of players like Safina. I agree with you, that they ran her out of tennis (whether or not her back injury was legitimate or not), but it's not their fault.

As far as the number one comment; Serena had already been number one (the player she was being most compared to). So it wasn't a big deal to her. By that time Serena was long into her part time schedule, and had no desires to be number one at the time. So when Safina kept losing to Serena, or not winning slams, the criticism got worse, cause Serena had no desires on being number one again.

Yes. The press was brutal. But to them, Dinara vs Serena, was like a soap opera that they covered or created for their job. They loved talking about it; cause it created interest and a long running story (at least until Safina won a major). She didn't!

They're doing the same thing with Woz now. But to the media's credit; they gave Woz a nice grace period. Now she's got to produce after her recent/numerous failures.

It's next year with an supposed/apparent/real heir (to the position in Petra?) when you'll really start hearing the noise (plus if Serena and Clijsters successfully come back), as well.

We'll see?

1. The journalists do not invest in tennis. So it's not their problem that Dinara didn't win a slam. They should do their job decently and be objective. The most disappointed ones are the players themselves, their teams and the fans. But the loyal fans will never give up on their faves. I'm a fan of two slamless #1 players, JJ and Dinara. Until they officially retire, I'll never give up on them.

2. Is it JJ's or Dinara's fault that Serena didn't care about #1 position? Someone had to be a #1 player. And, really, if Serena didn't care, then we must say that "Rome and Madrid" comment was so no necessary.

3. Caro's failures should help the other players to reach the #1 infamous position. It's laughable just to think that Petra would be there now if she could only win those challengers. The other players had their failures too, I guess.

4. The next season should be a great test for both players. I have my thoughts about the most ironic outcome of the season. Let's all hope that my predictions don't come true. :spit:

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:54 AM
Good Points JCTennisFan

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:07 AM
Um, maybe because the ATP and WTA are out to make MONEY. Because of this obviously they want their players to compete in as MANY tournmanets as possible. The tournaments are ALSO out to make money.. and star power brings money.

So because of all of that.... they allow players like Bartoli and Woz to play upwards of 20 tournmanets a year, drop the ones they performed poorly at, and pad their rankings. If the ranking system wasnt BROKEN then we wouldnt be having this discussion in the first place.They simply make it far too advantageous for players to play upwards of 16+ tournies a year.

The simple fix is to cap tournmant enteries at 14-16. If you play more than that..... you get nothing but prize money from it. No points, nothing. This would force players to actually PICK and CHOOSE their tournmanets with a little more care, instead of burning themselves out, playing relatively poorly, and still getting a high ranking because of it.

Many people mentioned some restrictions. But would it be good for lower ranked players who usually lose in the beginning of the tournaments? They must have an opportunity to play more tournaments. Of course, you can ask from top 10 players to play only 14 events by a season, but then it's not fair to them, because the other players will be able to overtake their positions by playing more tournaments. And it seems that this ranking system doesn't affect the ATP (it's a very similar ranking system). Novak was winning everything in the first part of the season, he was destroying Nadal, but nobody complained while Novak was invincible, but still a #2 player. Petra will simply have to wait for the right moment, just like Novak did.

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:19 AM
1. The journalists do not invest in tennis. So it's not their problem that Dinara didn't win a slam. They should do their job decently and be objective. The most disappointed ones are the players themselves, their teams and the fans. But the loyal fans will never give up on their faves. I'm a fan of two slamless #1 players, JJ and Dinara. Until they officially retire, I'll never give up on them.

2. Is it JJ's or Dinara's fault that Serena didn't care about #1 position? Someone had to be a #1 player. And, really, if Serena didn't care, then we must say that "Rome and Madrid" comment was so no necessary.

3. Caro's failures should help the other players to reach the #1 infamous position. It's laughable just to think that Petra would be there now if she could only win those challengers. The other players had their failures too, I guess.

4. The next season should be a great test for both players. I have my thoughts about the most ironic outcome of the season. Let's all hope that my predictions don't come true. :spit:

The journalist do invest in tennis. They help promote it.

With out them, there would be no running story lines to get people to talk about or read. It would be just people like you and me talking to each other on this website. So what you said is not true. But the thing with the press is, they'll build you up, but they'll also tear you down (when you're down). That's what they do.

You may be fans of certain players for life; but not all fans are. They'll switch or leave their fave, quite easily.

I don't think Petra really cares about being 115 pts behind number one now. Wozniaki should actually be the one that's upset.

At the beginning of the year, I think she had a 7-8,000 point lead on Petra. By the American Hardcourt season it was down, but still over 3000 pts. Remember when many Woz haters on TF/GM were dejected, cause they felt that no one would ever catch her. Remember? Well, guess what; Petra ended the year only 115 pts behind her. You brought up what Petra didn't do. Think about it. If Aga didn't choke against her BFF, Petra would be number one right now. So the real question is; what did Woz do, or didn't do?

Wozniaki and her fans, should ask themselves, how did she blow a 7000 point lead from the beginning of the year, and a 3000 point lead in the fall? Seemed like a massive choke job to me.

At let me clarify these challengers, that so many people like to bring up, regarding Petra. These were like vacations for her.

Those two tournaments in the Bahamas and at home in Prague, were sponsored by her Manager Milos Csersonek; so Petra plays these tournaments out of commitments, and their almost vacations/rest time (look where they took place).

I repeat, they're sponsored by her manager. On one of them, she got to go to the Bahamas/relax and relax. On the other one, she was home in the Czech Republic (after she won Madrid), after being freshly minted in the top 10. You don't think people wanted to see her at home at that Tennis tournament? Think about it?

But hey if it makes folks feel better; knock yourself out, cause Petra still has clearly the best winning % this year (58-13 vs Woz 62-17); she has the second amount of pts from the Grand Slams; she won 2 titles in the beginning, middle and end of the year; talk about balance; she won titles on 4 different surfaces and/or environments; she's 13-5 against top 10 players this year; she's 6/7 in Match finals; she's only one of three players (Serena, Masha and herself) that won a YEC in their first try in it's 40+ yr history, and she's only one of about 5 in history; I think, who won a Premier Mandatory, Grand Slam, and YEC in the same year!

She's also undefeated in Davis Cup this year, and may help her team win the championship next weekend.

Now that's a great year!!

I think Petra will take it, in exchange for being 115 pts behind number one/Wozniaki!

Woz can have it! Petra (or Serena, Masha, Azarenka) will just take # 1 next year!

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:38 AM
The journalist do invest in tennis. They help promote it.

With out them, there would be no running story lines to get people to talk about or read. It would be just people like you and me talking to each other on this website. So what you said is not true. But the thing with the press is, they'll build you up, but they'll also tear you down (when you're down). That's what they do.

The players promote the sport. And, of course, the sport itself must be attractive. The journalists only write about popular things. I tennis wasn't a popular sport, nobody would write about it.


You may be fans of certain players for life; but not all fans are. They'll switch or leave their fave, quite easily.

Yes, bandwagoners. The most annoying "fans" in the earth. I don't want to ask you if you, for example, want to have the friends that support you only when the sun shines, because it's off topic, but imagine yourself being a tennis player in slump. You had so many fans and now those great fans support someone who is doing better. Wow, that makes me wanna vomit.

I don't think Petra really cares about being 115 pts behind number one now. Wozniaki should actually be the one that's upset.


Why do then all Petra fans try to prove that she's a true number one? Those stupid points mean nothing, right?

At the beginning of the year, I think she had a 7-8,000 point lead on Petra. By the American Hardcourt season it was over 3000. Remember when many Woz haters were dejected, cause they felt that no one would ever catch her. Remember? Well, guess what; Petra ended the year only 115 pts behind. If Aga didn't choke against her BFF, Petra would be number one right now.


If Aga didn't choke against Petra, it would be blaaaaaaaah. Really.

So if anything, Wozniaki and her fans, should ask themselves, how did she blow a 7000 point lead at the beginning of the year, and a 3000 point lead in the fall? Seemed like she choked to me.


She's not WozniAKi.? It's WozniACKi. I'm sorry, but so many people call her WozNIAKI. There's no WozniaKi, TroiKi, LisiKi...

At let me clarify these challengers, that so many people like to bring up, regarding Petra. These were like vacations for her.


Yeah, right. Bad excuses.

Those two tournaments in the Bahamas and at home in Prague, were sponsored by her Manager Milos Csersonek; so Petra plays these tournaments out of commitments, and their almost vacations/rest time.


The commitment is one thing, the vacation is totally opposite. Those excuses are embarrassing and make her look totally unprofessional.

I repeat, they're sponsored by her manager. On one she got to go to the bahamas/relax, and the other one she was home in the Czech Republic (after she won Madrid), fresh being in the top 10. You don't think people wanted to see her at home? Think about it?


People wanted to see her, that's why it's laughable to think that she considered it as a vacation. She wanted to win it, don't make her look like someone who doesn't respect the home crowd. She ran out of gas, that's all.

But hey if it makes folks feel better; knock yourself out, cause Petra still has clearly the best winning % this year (58-13 vs Woz 62-17); she has the second amount of pts from the Grand Slams; she won 2 titles in the beginning, middle and end of the year; ; that's nice balance; she won titles on 4 different surfaces and/or environments; she's 13-5 against top 10 players this year; she's 6/7 in finals; she's only one of three players (Serena, Masha and herself) that won a YEC in their first try, and she's only one of about 5, who won a Premier Mandatory, Grand Slam, and YEC in the same year.


Why do you explain these things to me? How could that make ME feel better? Do I look like I care about that? Woz is not my fave. My faves are not even top 10 players.

She's also undefeated in Davis Cup this year, and may help her team win the championship next weekend.


True. She never played against Nadal and Djoko tough. Let's see her when she faces them

That's a great year!!

I think Petra will take it, in exchange for being 115 pts behind number one.


I agree. Those 115 points are the least important thing for her at the moment. She was number 30 in the beginning of the season. It was a hell of the season, amazing achievements.

Excelscior
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:51 AM
@Cajka

I think People talk about Wozniaki as "fake number one", cause for months on this site, that was all that Wonziaki fans could throw in peoples face (cause of her winning some/one legitimate tournament, but mostly "illegitimate" ones).

And now that she can lose it, they're throwing it back in their face.

That's my guess?

Plus, you don't get the feeling that she's anymore the true number one, like Safina was a few years ago. So that's also where a lot of that is coming from. And it's so close (115 pts).

Think about it? That's less than 2%. That's practically co-number ones (on the computer). Forget about the actual reality. The perception is much worse (and more than the 115 ranking pts)!

Brad[le]y.
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:00 AM
If Aga didn't choke against her BFF, Petra would be number one right now. :unsure: it was Wozniacki doing the choking; she led 54 40-0 in the first and lost the set. She was also up 4-2 40-0 in the third and lost the next two games.



She's also undefeated in Davis Cup this year, and may help her team win the championship next weekend.


Davis Cup is for the ATP :spit:

Cajka
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:05 AM
@Cajka

I think People talk about Wozniaki as "fake number one", cause for months on this site, that was all that Wonziaki fans could throw in peoples face (cause of her winning some/one legitimate tournament, but mostly "illegitimate" ones).

And now that she can lose it, they're throwing it back in their face.

That's my guess?

Plus, you don't get the feeling that she's anymore the true number one, like Safina was a few years ago. So that's also where a lot of that is coming from. And it's so close (115 pts).

Think about it? That's less than 2%. That's practically co-number ones (on the computer). Forget about the actual reality. The perception is much worse (and more than the 115 ranking pts)!

I don't get the feeling that anyone is #1. Even while my faves were #1 I didn't have a feeling that one of them is a true number one. And one of them had #1, slam + a lot better slam results than Petra or Caro. I've had so many faves on the position #1 (Marat, Ana, JJ, Dinara), but the there's only one who's been a true number one IMO (Djoko). But it's still an amazing achievement.

Tbh, WTA is so weird. I wouldn't be surprised to see Petra finish the next year as a slamless #1, while Caro wins USO and finishes the year as #2. It's highly unlikely, but it's WTA and I wouldn't be too surprised. :spit:

justineheninfan
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:08 AM
Um, maybe because the ATP and WTA are out to make MONEY. Because of this obviously they want their players to compete in as MANY tournmanets as possible. The tournaments are ALSO out to make money.. and star power brings money.

So because of all of that.... they allow players like Bartoli and Woz to play upwards of 20 tournmanets a year, drop the ones they performed poorly at, and pad their rankings. If the ranking system wasnt BROKEN then we wouldnt be having this discussion in the first place.They simply make it far too advantageous for players to play upwards of 16+ tournies a year.

The simple fix is to cap tournmant enteries at 14-16. If you play more than that..... you get nothing but prize money from it. No points, nothing. This would force players to actually PICK and CHOOSE their tournmanets with a little more care, instead of burning themselves out, playing relatively poorly, and still getting a high ranking because of it.

The best post in this thread by far. :worship:

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:18 AM
They do that with teens, the Capriati rules. You want a healthy top 5 player to not be allowed to play because she played 14 events?
Nonsense.
And I agree with the person before who said Safina was an excellent player.
She was injured just a few months after getting to #1.
If Kvitova didnt get bounced at the challengers, maybe she'd be #1. Or if didnt lose 1st round USO, or lose early in Beijing, early here, early there...
Why shouldnt Wozniacki be allowed to play if she's healthy and wants to?
Wozniacki & Sharapova are playing an exo in March in NYC where they're supposed to get paid 6 digits for 1 night.
They'd be doing that all the time if they werent allowed to play WTA tournaments, because the WTA wanted for some reason to restrict them to 14-16 a year

JCTennisFan
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:00 AM
They do that with teens, the Capriati rules. You want a healthy top 5 player to not be allowed to play because she played 14 events?
Nonsense.
And I agree with the person before who said Safina was an excellent player.
She was injured just a few months after getting to #1.
If Kvitova didnt get bounced at the challengers, maybe she'd be #1. Or if didnt lose 1st round USO, or lose early in Beijing, early here, early there...
Why shouldnt Wozniacki be allowed to play if she's healthy and wants to?
Wozniacki & Sharapova are playing an exo in March in NYC where they're supposed to get paid 6 digits for 1 night.
They'd be doing that all the time if they werent allowed to play WTA tournaments, because the WTA wanted for some reason to restrict them to 14-16 a year

Who said they couldnt play more than 14-16? If they want to, they can play every tournament that would be feasibly possible within a year... I could care less. But after their first 14-16 They no longer get points and therefore they no longer can replace poor results prior in the season with better finishes later on. They still could get prize money and all that good stuff, but it would do nothing to their ranking. That way they would have to actually THINK out their tour commitments beforehand.

This would really make it interesting towards the end of the year, because the bottom of the top 10 would be really watching their tournie totals as they raced towards the YEC finish. As it stands now it almost seems like some of them just start piling on the titles after the US open trying to get their way into that YEC draw.

shap_half
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:35 AM
Who said they couldnt play more than 14-16? If they want to, they can play every tournament that would be feasibly possible within a year... I could care less. But after their first 14-16 They no longer get points and therefore they no longer can replace poor results prior in the season with better finishes later on. They still could get prize money and all that good stuff, but it would do nothing to their ranking. That way they would have to actually THINK out their tour commitments beforehand.

This would really make it interesting towards the end of the year, because the bottom of the top 10 would be really watching their tournie totals as they raced towards the YEC finish. As it stands now it almost seems like some of them just start piling on the titles after the US open trying to get their way into that YEC draw.

How would you administer this? Would you register the tournaments (in addition to the slams and mandatories) you want to pull points from you? And if you have to pull out, you have back-up tournaments? That would be kinda exciting, no? But then we'd know what the maximum number of points each player would get. And then we can bring quality points back. But that would make it really difficult for players who can't get direct entry. Oh, I'm just babbling now.

But the problem I see with just getting points from your first 16 tournaments (or where every event counts) is that there's really no forgiveness. If you're having a shitty, shitty go at it for like a string of 3 or 4 tournaments, you are screwed. And it might prohibit players from playing smaller tournaments they like. It might make people think twice about playing small local tournaments. Having Caroline play in Copenhagen is really important for the tour, but she may decide to skip it with something like this, bc a SF in Rome is still 100+ points more than winning CPH.

JCTennisFan
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:48 AM
How would you administer this? Would you register the tournaments (in addition to the slams and mandatories) you want to pull points from you? And if you have to pull out, you have back-up tournaments? That would be kinda exciting, no? But then we'd know what the maximum number of points each player would get. And then we can bring quality points back. But that would make it really difficult for players who can't get direct entry. Oh, I'm just babbling now.

But the problem I see with just getting points from your first 16 tournaments (or where every event counts) is that there's really no forgiveness. If you're having a shitty, shitty go at it for like a string of 3 or 4 tournaments, you are screwed. And it might prohibit players from playing smaller tournaments they like. It might make people think twice about playing small local tournaments. Having Caroline play in Copenhagen is really important for the tour, but she may decide to skip it with something like this, bc a SF in Rome is still 100+ points more than winning CPH.

It would be something you would do prior to the season... you'd plan it out. Now if you pulled out of a tournament before you played a match then it wouldnt count. So if you had 16 tournaments in mind (well honestly 15, because I think the YEC should count as your last tournie) and you pulled out of one, two, or all 15 of them then you could go play another tournament and count it towards your 16 total. If however you compete in atleast one match uninjured, then it would count towards your tournie total. NOW if you wanted to play more than the 16 total, like a home tournie or one with special personal value, then you would inform the tour that you wanted to play the tournament but that you didnt want it to count towards your tournie total and therefor no points would be given for your performance there. The catch would be that you'd have to inform the tour of this before the beginning of the season... so you couldnt try to game the system as the season progressed. And there would probably be a cap put on how "big" of a tournamanet these "deducted" tournies could be.

bandabou
Nov 2nd, 2011, 07:27 AM
A dead horse....now it's gonna be interesting how and if Caro can silence the critics. No more places to hide.

claypova
Nov 2nd, 2011, 08:02 AM
There's a difference between losing a Slam final 0:6, 3:6 and losing 2:6, 4:6. And you don't have to hit any winners to win a tennis match. And don't tell me about an "off-form" Serena when she was the best player of the US series and THE favorite to win the title :facepalm:

why do Caro fans find it so hard to accept that Serena no where near her top form :help:

Pops Maellard
Nov 2nd, 2011, 10:09 AM
Stosur also said the way the rankings points are structured favoured Wozniacki's habit of rarely losing early in a tournament.

"I think you do get rewarded for winning a grand slam and you definitely get the most points by far if you're able to do that," she said. "But we've got nine other really big tournaments, and four of those are not too far behind a slam.

"They're the tournaments that Caroline manages to do very well in, week in and week out. That's how she gets her points without winning a slam."


Caro loses early in tournaments plenty of times. 10 times this year in fact (with 6(?) first round losses). She just plays so many tournaments that her best 16 results cover up these early losses so they don't register in her ranking.

Pops Maellard
Nov 2nd, 2011, 10:11 AM
why do Caro fans find it so hard to accept that Serena no where near her top form :help:
Because they don't want to accept that even at her B-level Serena is better than Wozniacki.

bandabou
Nov 2nd, 2011, 10:17 AM
Because they don't want to accept that even at her B-level Serena is better than Wozniacki.

:lol: Nothing worse than people just not wanting to accept the truth.

TZVETI83
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:02 PM
I think the problem with Caroline is that the stats speak for themselves, out of Jelena Jankovic, Dinara and Caroline.
Caroline has had the much worse results and she has been number one for much much longer. To say that she is an embarrasement to what has happened to the number one ranking would be quite fair. Not only is she the least talented number one ever, she is also the one with the worst results. That is why people critisize. Its much deserved.


The Year that Jankovic made number 1 (2008)

Australian Open Semifinal lost to Sharapova (Sharapova won that year)
Roland Garros Semifinal lost to Ivanovic in three tight sets (Ivanovic won that year)
Wimbledon 4th Round (bad loss to Tanasugarn)
US Open Final lost to Serena (two tight sets)
SF´s of Tour Champs lost to Venus in 3 tight sets (Venus won that year)
Won 2 Tier 1´s(Rome and Moscow), Final of one other (Miami lost in 3 sets to Serena)

The Year that Dinara Safina made number 1 (2009)

Australian Open Final lost to Serena Williams
Roland Garros Final lost to Svetlana Kuznetsova
Wimbledon Semifinal lost to Venus Williams
US Open 3d Round lost to Petra Kvitova
Won 2 Tier 1´s(Rome and Madrid), Final of one other(Cincinnati lost to Jankovic).

The Year that Caroline Wozniacki made number 1 (2010)

Australian Open 4th Round lost to Na Li 4-6 3-6 (Li lost in the Semis)
Roland Garros Quarterfinals lost to Francesca Schiavone 2-6 3-6 (Fran won that year)
Wimbledon 4th Round lost to Petra Kvitova 2-6 0-6 (Kvitova lost in the Semis)
US Open Semifinals lost to Vera Zvonareva 4-6 3-6 (Vera lost in the Finals)
Finals of Tour Champs lost to Clijsters in 3 sets.
Won 3 Tier 1´s(Montreal, Tokyo, Beijing)

The Year that Caroline Wozniacki made number 1 (2010)

Australian Open Semifinals lost to Na Li in 3 sets (Li lost in the Finals)
Roland Garros 3d Round lost to Daniela Hantuchova 1-6 3-6 (Daniela lost 4th Round)
Wimbledon 4th Round lost to Dominika Cibulkova in 3 sets (Cibulkova lost in the Quarters)
US Open Semifinals lost to Serena Williams 2-6 4-6 (Vera lost in the Finals)
1st Round of Tour Champs lost to everyone but Radwanska(won that in 3 tight sets).
Won 2 Tier 1´s(Dubai and Indian Wells)

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:23 PM
The difference is Dinara & Jelena were only #1 for a few weeks. Caroline is heading into 60+ weeks at #1. Thats the only thing consistent about the WTA the past year.

Dinara had a back injury very soon after reaching #1.

King Halep
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:47 PM
The difference is Dinara & Jelena were only #1 for a few weeks. Caroline is heading into 60+ weeks at #1. Thats the only thing consistent about the WTA the past year.

Dinara had a back injury very soon after reaching #1.

only because Clijster has hardly played

TZVETI83
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:52 PM
The difference is Dinara & Jelena were only #1 for a few weeks. Caroline is heading into 60+ weeks at #1. Thats the only thing consistent about the WTA the past year.

Dinara had a back injury very soon after reaching #1.

Exactly shows what a joke her number one rank really is.:o

Dinara and Jelena had the better results yet they were ranked at number one for much less:

Dinara Safina 26 weeks

Jelena Jankovic 18 weeks

yet they still recieved plenty of criticism.

Caroline Wozniacki has been number one for 64 weeks without one grandslam final.

Johnbert
Nov 2nd, 2011, 01:54 PM
Exactly shows what a joke her number one rank really is.:o

Dinara and Jelena had the better results yet they were ranked at number one for much less:

Dinara Safina 26 weeks

Jelena Jankovic 18 weeks

yet they still recieved plenty of criticism.

Caroline Wozniacki has been number one for 64 weeks without one grandslam final.

but it's not her fault if the opponents aren't consistent enough to take the #1 spot :shrug:

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:07 PM
It means Kim was injured, also Serena, and the one slam winners were wildly inconsistent.
Li and Kvitova were both 1st round losers in NY.
Thats what keeps Caroline at #1 for 51 weeks this year.

scandic78
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:21 PM
I want to sleep with he journalist who wrote that :lol:

Monzanator
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:35 PM
Exactly shows what a joke her number one rank really is.:o

Dinara and Jelena had the better results yet they were ranked at number one for much less:

Dinara Safina 26 weeks

Jelena Jankovic 18 weeks

yet they still recieved plenty of criticism.

Caroline Wozniacki has been number one for 64 weeks without one grandslam final.

I beg to differ. Tokyo and Beijing back-to-back is as good as Rome & Madrid for Safina :shrug: If either of them won IW & Miami back-to-back, that would have been more impressive :wavey:

Marlene
Nov 2nd, 2011, 02:59 PM
The difference is Dinara & Jelena were only #1 for a few weeks. Caroline is heading into 60+ weeks at #1. Thats the only thing consistent about the WTA the past year.

Dinara had a back injury very soon after reaching #1.

Safina was #1 for almost 6 months, from Apr 20 to Oct 11 2009 (plus one more week two weeks later), so it's a little more than a few weeks in her case. Jankovic had a total of 18 weeks as #1, however most of it was "off season weeks" and that's probably why it's remembered as "just a few weeks".

That said, one of the main factors in Safina's case was Serena Williams - a megastar with a big mouth who coyly dissed Safina's claim to the #1 spot like on a weekly basis. Had Serena been a humble, demure, press-shy Somethingpova, this wouldn't have been half the story it was.

TZVETI83
Nov 2nd, 2011, 03:02 PM
I beg to differ. Tokyo and Beijing back-to-back is as good as Rome & Madrid for Safina :shrug: If either of them won IW & Miami back-to-back, that would have been more impressive :wavey:

There is nothing to differ look at the grand slam results, Jankovic and Safina had much better results, that is no opinion it is a fact!:rolleyes:

The Year that Jankovic made number 1 (2008)

Australian Open Semifinal lost to Sharapova (Sharapova won that year)
Roland Garros Semifinal lost to Ivanovic in three tight sets (Ivanovic won that year)
Wimbledon 4th Round (bad loss to Tanasugarn)
US Open Final lost to Serena (two tight sets)
SF´s of Tour Champs lost to Venus in 3 tight sets (Venus won that year)
Won 2 Tier 1´s(Rome and Moscow), Final of one other (Miami lost in 3 sets to Serena)

The Year that Dinara Safina made number 1 (2009)

Australian Open Final lost to Serena Williams
Roland Garros Final lost to Svetlana Kuznetsova
Wimbledon Semifinal lost to Venus Williams
US Open 3d Round lost to Petra Kvitova
Won 2 Tier 1´s(Rome and Madrid), Final of one other(Cincinnati lost to Jankovic).

The Year that Caroline Wozniacki made number 1 (2010)

Australian Open 4th Round lost to Na Li 4-6 3-6 (Li lost in the Semis)
Roland Garros Quarterfinals lost to Francesca Schiavone 2-6 3-6 (Fran won that year)
Wimbledon 4th Round lost to Petra Kvitova 2-6 0-6 (Kvitova lost in the Semis)
US Open Semifinals lost to Vera Zvonareva 4-6 3-6 (Vera lost in the Finals)
Finals of Tour Champs lost to Clijsters in 3 sets.
Won 3 Tier 1´s(Montreal, Tokyo, Beijing)

The Year that Caroline Wozniacki made number 1 (2010)

Australian Open Semifinals lost to Na Li in 3 sets (Li lost in the Finals)
Roland Garros 3d Round lost to Daniela Hantuchova 1-6 3-6 (Daniela lost 4th Round)
Wimbledon 4th Round lost to Dominika Cibulkova in 3 sets (Cibulkova lost in the Quarters)
US Open Semifinals lost to Serena Williams 2-6 4-6 (Vera lost in the Finals)
1st Round of Tour Champs lost to everyone but Radwanska(won that in 3 tight sets).
Won 2 Tier 1´s(Dubai and Indian Wells)

Jankovic Slams 2008, 1 Final, 2 Semis and 1 Round of 16.
Safina Slams 2009, 2 Finals, 1 Semi and 1 Third Round.
Wozniacki Slams 2010, 1 Semi, 1 Quarter and 2 Round of 16, all straight set obliterations before the final.
Wozniacki Slams 2011, 2 Semis, 1 Round of 16 and one third Round obliteraion by no other than Hantuchova.

As far as the Tier I´s, Caro might have done better in 2010 but in 2011 she only won 2. Safina and Jankovic won 2 and made an extra final.

Anyway the slam results speak for themselves. Caro´s results are :o and anyone who says otherwise needs :help:!

Monzanator
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:21 PM
There is nothing to differ look at the grand slam results, Jankovic and Safina had much better results, that is no opinion it is a fact!:rolleyes:


When you're #1 the only important thing about slams is winning them :shrug: Last time I checked neither had one :lol: Making QF and SF is good for Top 10-20 players but not #1 IMO.

TZVETI83
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:37 PM
When you're #1 the only important thing about slams is winning them :shrug: Last time I checked neither had one :lol: Making QF and SF is good for Top 10-20 players but not #1 IMO.

Your delusional ! No one is arguing about the credibility of Jelena or Dinara´s ranking, they should have won a slam, plain and simple but the fact of the manner is that Wozniacki did not even have the results of Jelena or Dinara and was ranked at number one for more than twice as long as both of them.

Sorry but last time I checked making 2 finals and 1 Semifinal in a calendar year was quite impressive or in Jelena´s case 1 Final, 2 Semis and a 4th R. Not many top 10-20 player have those results. Still I agree their number 1 ranking was rather questionable but that does not change the fact that their results were much better than Wozniacki´s. Who has not made a Grandslam Final in more than 8 tries and is still ranked at number 1 50+ weeks later.:o

Dinara & Jelena > Caro in both talent and as number one players!:p

Monzanator
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:42 PM
There are no "should have, would have, could have" in professional sports :shrug: Wozniacki, Safina and Jankovic are riding the same boat whenever you look at it. It's not Wozniacki's fault that Henin, Serena and Venus have all encountered serious problems just when she was about to make her rise up the rankings and then Clijsters had hers in 2011 :shrug:

TZVETI83
Nov 2nd, 2011, 04:51 PM
There are no "should have, would have, could have" in professional sports :shrug: Wozniacki, Safina and Jankovic are riding the same boat whenever you look at it. It's not Wozniacki's fault that Henin, Serena and Venus have all encountered serious problems just when she was about to make her rise up the rankings and then Clijsters had hers in 2011 :shrug:

Still not getting my point I see. :p The only boat Wozniacki is riding is the one that goes down into the waterfall.

Matt01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:23 PM
At let me clarify these challengers, that so many people like to bring up, regarding Petra. These were like vacations for her.

Those two tournaments in the Bahamas and at home in Prague, were sponsored by her Manager Milos Csersonek; so Petra plays these tournaments out of commitments, and their almost vacations/rest time (look where they took place).


:haha: So pathetic.

Matt01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:26 PM
why do Caro fans find it so hard to accept that Serena no where near her top form :help:


Because I have seen the match. The last time Serena showed her "top form" was in 2002/03 but she played very well in that match.

sammy01
Nov 2nd, 2011, 05:57 PM
Because I have seen the match. The last time Serena showed her "top form" was in 2002/03 but she played very well in that match.

you don't truely believe this do you?

lets put it this way serena in the semis this year was nowhere near the serena that LOST to clijsters in 2009, that just shows how sad the semi result was this year. serena plays better in 2009 and loses, serena plays average at best this year vs the number 1 and loses 6 games.

dsanders06
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:39 PM
you don't truely believe this do you?

lets put it this way serena in the semis this year was nowhere near the serena that LOST to clijsters in 2009, that just shows how sad the semi result was this year. serena plays better in 2009 and loses, serena plays average at best this year vs the number 1 and loses 6 games.

Yup. Serena's play against Wozniacki wasn't even her best match of the TOURNAMENT - she played considerably better against Azarenka. Her level against Woz was well below even her best 2007-11 form... yet she still made Woz look like a scrub.

bandabou
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:44 PM
When you're #1 the only important thing about slams is winning them :shrug: Last time I checked neither had one :lol: Making QF and SF is good for Top 10-20 players but not #1 IMO.

:rolls: And that's the thing...Caro doesn't have the majors, doesn't have the other big tourneys..doesn't have nada. :lol:

bandabou
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:47 PM
Safina was #1 for almost 6 months, from Apr 20 to Oct 11 2009 (plus one more week two weeks later), so it's a little more than a few weeks in her case. Jankovic had a total of 18 weeks as #1, however most of it was "off season weeks" and that's probably why it's remembered as "just a few weeks".

That said, one of the main factors in Safina's case was Serena Williams - a megastar with a big mouth who coyly dissed Safina's claim to the #1 spot like on a weekly basis. Had Serena been a humble, demure, press-shy Somethingpova, this wouldn't have been half the story it was.

The media set Safina and Serena up...now Caro's the media darling and the other major winners are still unknowns. That's her luck.

goldenlox
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:48 PM
The media set Safina and Serena up...now Caro's the media darling and the other major winners are still unknowns. That's her luck.These one time slam winners are super inconsistent.
When do you get a USO where FO & Wimbledon champs both lose in round 1?
And they were playing all USO series like they were going to lose early.

dsanders06
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:57 PM
These one time slam winners are super inconsistent.
When do you get a USO where FO & Wimbledon champs both lose in round 1?
And they were playing all USO series like they were going to lose early.

Whereas Wozniacki losing in the 3rd & 4th rounds of Slams to non-contenders on their worst surfaces shows she's a paragon of consistency