PDA

View Full Version : Who has the more effortless game, Kvitova or Davenport?


Setsuna.
Feb 24th, 2012, 08:31 PM
I don't know the right answer but my vote would go to Petra. I thought it's an interesting question. Therefore i decided to make this poll.

Sammo
Feb 24th, 2012, 08:36 PM
I'd say Davenport... but she's also 6cm taller

justineheninfan
Feb 24th, 2012, 08:59 PM
How do you define effective. You cant really compare them though as the field now is so much worse.

Sombrerero loco
Feb 24th, 2012, 09:01 PM
lindsay

justineheninfan
Feb 24th, 2012, 09:03 PM
Kvitova will probably win alot more slams than Lindsay did. So in that sense her game is more effective vs the current field than Lindsays was against the field she faced (which was a much stronger one).

Stonerpova
Feb 24th, 2012, 09:07 PM
Kvitova will probably win alot more slams than Lindsay did. So in that sense her game is more effective vs the current field than Lindsays was against the field she faced (which was a much stronger one).

The question was effortless, not effective.

I would say Davenport. I feel like Kvitova puts more effort into her shots and while they are pretty to watch, Davenport's were so much cleaner and more elegant. To me at least :shrug:

n1_and_uh_noone
Feb 24th, 2012, 09:09 PM
The title says "effortless", so I take it as meaning wrt stroke production. Kvitova for me. It just seems like even when she rolls the ball in with a relaxed swing at 75% pace, it is impossible to track down. In addition, it is incredible to see such a flat hitter find those crazy angles on her crosscourt backhand.

Davenport was great too of course. Amazing timing.

JCTennisFan
Feb 24th, 2012, 09:30 PM
Davenport currently. Kvitova is more erratic in her stroke production... sometimes producing wild error counts. She also lost to Sharapova at the SFs of the AO, which is a telling sign in my opinion. Davenport was easily able to beat "The Old" Sharapova yet Kvitova has trouble with the "erratic Serve" version that Maria is now.

Basically Kvitova is a Davenport-Lite in the stroke production/effectiveness category but being left-handed helps lift her game a bit. On top of that she moves a good deal better than Lindsay ever did and thus can stay in defensive rallies longer, giving her more time to have a chance to bring the rally back into her hands. If Davenport ever got on the defensive for more than a shot or two, she was in trouble.

Stonerpova
Feb 24th, 2012, 10:50 PM
Davenport currently. Kvitova is more erratic in her stroke production... sometimes producing wild error counts. She also lost to Sharapova at the SFs of the AO, which is a telling sign in my opinion. Davenport was easily able to beat "The Old" Sharapova yet Kvitova has trouble with the "erratic Serve" version that Maria is now.

Basically Kvitova is a Davenport-Lite in the stroke production/effectiveness category but being left-handed helps lift her game a bit. On top of that she moves a good deal better than Lindsay ever did and thus can stay in defensive rallies longer, giving her more time to have a chance to bring the rally back into her hands. If Davenport ever got on the defensive for more than a shot or two, she was in trouble.

So dumb :facepalm:

Even Davenport admits now that there was something really off the day she beat Maria.

laurie
Feb 24th, 2012, 10:57 PM
First of all, this is a collection of shots, of highlights I put together. But Kvitova hits shots other women don't, like stop volleys from nothing, winners from outside the tramlines when on the run, and return winners off first serves - again, most women go after theier opponents' 2nd serves when they are slow, short and begging to be hit, Kvitova goes after first serves, her timing can be incredible.

Compare how a great like Sampras went for his shots, and how Kvitova goes for her shots, the effortless manner of both styles.

JWsgOb6beKQ

pRFq_BuUiR8

madmax
Feb 24th, 2012, 11:05 PM
first of all - it's obviously Davenport and it's not even close, the sound that her racquet was making after the contact with the ball was unlike anything I've heard on women's tour.
second of all - LOL at thinking Kvitova makes no effort to hit the ball. She uses much more spin than Lindsay and is straight up ballbasher with occasional ventures to the net. She's also much more erratic than Lindsay and is benefitting from the weak tour to have the results she has today.

shoparound
Feb 24th, 2012, 11:09 PM
first of all - it's obviously Davenport and it's not even close, the sound that her racquet was making after the contact with the ball was unlike anything I've heard on women's tour.
second of all - LOL at thinking Kvitova makes no effort to hit the ball. She uses much more spin than Lindsay and is straight up ballbasher with occasional ventures to the net. She's also much more erratic than Lindsay and is benefitting from the weak tour to have the results she has today.

That is what has separated Lindsay from other ball strikers, that clean powerful sound was amazing

Lord Choc Ice
Feb 24th, 2012, 11:11 PM
Lindsay.

Sylvester
Feb 24th, 2012, 11:16 PM
first of all - it's obviously Davenport and it's not even close, the sound that her racquet was making after the contact with the ball was unlike anything I've heard on women's tour.

Bingo.

Davenport on a good day could make tennis look like the easiest thing in the world.

Excelscior
Feb 24th, 2012, 11:33 PM
Davenport may of hit the ball (especially in her hitting zone) cleanly, more consistently at this stage for some of us than Petra?

But I feel Petra hits the ball more effortlessly (with pace and power) defending, on the run, stretching, when crouching very low and at odd angles, heights, locations and positions both on and off the court (as I'm sure Laurie's videos would attest) than Davenport. This is real world tennis. Not fantasy tennis or perfect hitting scenarios and conditions, so many ball strikers need.

In addition Petra can just flick her wrist, defending side to side on the baseline, and hit hard, deep, heavy, angled, flat or spin induced rally balls and winners.

That's effortless to me. Obviously (as JC Tennis post indicated), Davenport's size prevented much of this. But it's true. Petra can literally hit the ball in any body configuration from any location on the court, quite effortlessly, in spectacular fashion, with decent regularity.

It's because Petra's hitting zone is literally unlimited. It's certainly/particularly is from top to bottom. And many times from stretched side to stretched side, as well. She just has a tremendous effective strike zone. And Petra's just very flexible, with excellent hand eye coordination as well.

So with all due respect to Davenport, She was a fantastic "in the hitting zone" ball striker. Maybe the best. But I didn't see her do those things "outside of her hitting zone" or on the run, that Petra does already today.

That's even more effortless, I think.

hurricanejeanne
Feb 25th, 2012, 12:06 AM
Lindsay. No contest. Petra may be more explosive but day in day out Lindsay was more effortless.

TheHangover
Feb 25th, 2012, 12:26 AM
first of all - it's obviously Davenport and it's not even close, the sound that her racquet was making after the contact with the ball was unlike anything I've heard on women's tour.
second of all - LOL at thinking Kvitova makes no effort to hit the ball. She uses much more spin than Lindsay and is straight up ballbasher with occasional ventures to the net. She's also much more erratic than Lindsay and is benefitting from the weak tour to have the results she has today.

this, compare linday to kvitova is an insult to davenport

spiceboy
Feb 25th, 2012, 12:37 AM
None is really efortless. Zvereva was the queen :hearts:

JCTennisFan
Feb 25th, 2012, 01:36 AM
So dumb :facepalm:

Even Davenport admits now that there was something really off the day she beat Maria.

Wow, you really have it out for me! I kind of like it though because it means I must really have gotten under your skin at some point in time. The best part is I cant remember what it was that ive said.... that shows how we deal with things differently. I forget and move on, you apparantly harbor hate. Havent you read that people who bottle up their hate die several years earlier on average? Thats not good for you.

The point I was making (even when you exclude the double bagel smackdown) is that a Davenport of Kvitova's age would not be losing very often (if at all on the big stages) to present day Sharapova. And this is coming from a Sharapova fan that wants to see her win another slam. No one can deny that though the fight is still in maria (which is damn admirable considering she is richer than any other female tennis player and has no incentive to continue other than pride and love of the sport), the ability (and talent somewhat) has faded over time.

spencercarlos
Feb 25th, 2012, 03:32 AM
Wow, you really have it out for me! I kind of like it though because it means I must really have gotten under your skin at some point in time. The best part is I cant remember what it was that ive said.... that shows how we deal with things differently. I forget and move on, you apparantly harbor hate. Havent you read that people who bottle up their hate die several years earlier on average? Thats not good for you.

The point I was making (even when you exclude the double bagel smackdown) is that a Davenport of Kvitova's age would not be losing very often (if at all on the big stages) to present day Sharapova. And this is coming from a Sharapova fan that wants to see her win another slam. No one can deny that though the fight is still in maria (which is damn admirable considering she is richer than any other female tennis player and has no incentive to continue other than pride and love of the sport), the ability (and talent somewhat) has faded over time.
At 22 Davenport was still in the receiving end of losses to some Conchita Martinez.. so what´s your point.

Want to argue that Martinez is better than Sharapova now? :lol:

spencercarlos
Feb 25th, 2012, 03:36 AM
For this thread and as somebody said, Kvitova´s stroke production looks more unplayable than Lindsay. But Lindsay clearly was the better server.. Its a close call. Both underrated players at the net, both great returners, at this point i give a edge to Lindsay... if Kvitova somehow takes her serve to the next level, and gets more consistent at it she would be winning a lot of free points.

Excelscior
Feb 25th, 2012, 03:39 AM
For this thread and as somebody said, Kvitova´s stroke production looks more unplayable than Lindsay. But Lindsay clearly was the better server.. Its a close call. Both underrated players at the net, both great returners, at this point i give a edge to Lindsay... if Kvitova somehow takes her serve to the next level, and gets more consistent at it she would be winning a lot of free points.

Good Points. :) ;) :)

sammy01
Feb 25th, 2012, 03:54 AM
Kvitova will probably win alot more slams than Lindsay did. So in that sense her game is more effective vs the current field than Lindsays was against the field she faced (which was a much stronger one).

that is not a given. i think generally faster players have better chance of winning many slams and keeping at slam winning form for longer. players who are faster tend to adapt better as they get older, like kim being more aggressive, henin coming forward more and flattening her forehand, serena adding in a forehand angle. these things all can be added and developed as time goes on, but kvitova will never be fast and really will never improve that part of her game.

tall big hitters have shown they can win slams like davenport, pierce and sharapova but they don't tend to win many and their slam winning periods don't tend to be long or sustained.

we shall see with kvitova, but i see 3 slams as a benchmark for her, 1 this year and 1 next year and her time might be up as the other faster players around her adapt their games better.

binky-GOAT
Feb 25th, 2012, 03:57 AM
Davenport may of hit the ball (especially in her hitting zone) cleanly, more consistently at this stage for some of us than Petra?

But I feel Petra hits the ball more effortlessly (with pace and power) defending, on the run, stretching, when crouching very low and at odd angles, heights, locations and positions both on and off the court (as I'm sure Laurie's videos would attest) than Davenport. This is real world tennis. Not fantasy tennis or perfect hitting scenarios and conditions, so many ball strikers need.

In addition Petra can just flick her wrist, defending side to side on the baseline, and hit hard, deep, heavy, angled, flat or spin induced rally balls and winners.

That's effortless to me. Obviously (as JC Tennis post indicated), Davenport's size prevented much of this. But it's true. Petra can literally hit the ball in any body configuration from any location on the court, quite effortlessly, in spectacular fashion, with decent regularity.

It's because Petra's hitting zone is literally unlimited. It's certainly/particularly is from top to bottom. And many times from stretched side to stretched side, as well. She just has a tremendous effective strike zone. And Petra's just very flexible, with excellent hand eye coordination as well.

So with all due respect to Davenport, She was a fantastic "in the hitting zone" ball striker. Maybe the best. But I didn't see her do those things "outside of her hitting zone" or on the run, that Petra does already today.

That's even more effortless, I think.

:spit: Yes she is god.

Matt01
Feb 25th, 2012, 03:58 AM
At 22 Davenport was still in the receiving end of losses to some Conchita Martinez.. so what´s your point.

Want to argue that Martinez is better than Sharapova now? :lol:


She had a much more dimensional game that's for sure ;)

spencercarlos
Feb 25th, 2012, 07:49 AM
She had a much more dimensional game that's for sure ;)
For sure we know Martinez multidimensional game bought her wins over Venus, Serena , Henin, Clijsters, and also brought home 3 slams :oh:.. Also we know how competitve Conchita was against the best of her era, peak Graf and Seles Oh wait.. only 2 wins in about 40 matches :help: :facepalm: Your comments makes us consider someone like Schiavone being a better tennis player than Sharapova.. seriosly Matt? :tape:

Aryman3
Feb 25th, 2012, 07:50 AM
Radwanska, naturally

skanky~skanketta
Feb 25th, 2012, 08:10 AM
:spit: Yes she is god.
LOL! I know right. :tape:

BepaMaria
Feb 25th, 2012, 09:05 AM
Davenport by far. Kvitova is just so robotic in her movement and I find that she just forces the issue too much in some of her matches.

Anyway, Zvonareva has a more effortless game than both of them.

doomsday
Feb 25th, 2012, 09:08 AM
:spit: Yes she is god.

:lol:

doomsday
Feb 25th, 2012, 09:37 AM
that is not a given. i think generally faster players have better chance of winning many slams and keeping at slam winning form for longer. players who are faster tend to adapt better as they get older, like kim being more aggressive, henin coming forward more and flattening her forehand, serena adding in a forehand angle. these things all can be added and developed as time goes on, but kvitova will never be fast and really will never improve that part of her game.

tall big hitters have shown they can win slams like davenport, pierce and sharapova but they don't tend to win many and their slam winning periods don't tend to be long or sustained.

we shall see with kvitova, but i see 3 slams as a benchmark for her, 1 this year and 1 next year and her time might be up as the other faster players around her adapt their games better.

I don't understand why you regrouped Pierce with Sharapova and Davenport, she only won 2 majors in her career and one every five years she never had the consistency Sharapova and Davenport had just to begin with.

sammy01
Feb 25th, 2012, 09:42 AM
I don't understand why you regrouped Pierce with Sharapova and Davenport, she only won 2 majors in her career and one every five years she never had the consistency Sharapova and Davenport had just to begin with.

because pierce is just another example of a big slow player who hit big but for all her talents ended up with 2 slams. yes they were 5 years apart but she wasn't exactly dominant at the top of the game during those 5 years. she falls into the catergory of 2 maybe 3 great years for a big hitter where they make hay and win their slams (pierces were spread out more due to constant injuries) but dont sustain slam winning form for any length or period of time.

doomsday
Feb 25th, 2012, 10:10 AM
because pierce is just another example of a big slow player who hit big but for all her talents ended up with 2 slams. yes they were 5 years apart but she wasn't exactly dominant at the top of the game during those 5 years. she falls into the catergory of 2 maybe 3 great years for a big hitter where they make hay and win their slams (pierces were spread out more due to constant injuries) but dont sustain slam winning form for any length or period of time.

A category Sharapova and Davenport certainly don't fall. Sharapova and Davenport had already won 3 majors in 3/4 years and don't forget the consistency they had week-in week-out and this for over 5 years or more. Pierce was never in their group that's for sure.
I would agree to say that the big 4 is ahead of them but Pierce is clearly behind that's not even a contest.

sammy01
Feb 25th, 2012, 11:23 AM
A category Sharapova and Davenport certainly don't fall. Sharapova and Davenport had already won 3 majors in 3/4 years and don't forget the consistency they had week-in week-out and this for over 5 years or more. Pierce was never in their group that's for sure.
I would agree to say that the big 4 is ahead of them but Pierce is clearly behind that's not even a contest.

slam winning form, maria hasn't been in slam winning form for 4 years now and she has 3 slams to her name. her 2011/12 feels very much like davenports 2004/5. right now pierce, davenport and maria are very much in the same boat, 2 or 3 years where they played slam winning tennis, the rest marred by injuries which they were a threat but also passed by.

Steven.
Feb 25th, 2012, 11:40 AM
Davenport produces the most effortless power the WTA has ever seen. She is simply amazing :hearts: No contest.

Matt01
Feb 25th, 2012, 11:54 AM
For sure we know Martinez multidimensional game bought her wins over Venus, Serena , Henin, Clijsters, and also brought home 3 slams :oh:..


Comparing apples with Oranges, aren't we? Where are Sharapova's wins against Graf, Seles, Martinez, Sabatini, Novotna or Sanchez-Vicario if I may ask? :oh:


Also we know how competitve Conchita was against the best of her era, peak Graf and Seles Oh wait.. only 2 wins in about 40 matches :help: :facepalm: Your comments makes us consider someone like Schiavone being a better tennis player than Sharapova.. seriosly Matt? :tape:


Another off-topic comment from you. And game-wise and as far as dimensions to their games are concerned, I consider Martinez and Schiavone (even though Schiavone is debatable I admit) to be better tennis players than Sharapova, yes.

The Dawntreader
Feb 25th, 2012, 11:58 AM
Davenport had stunning timing. Her ability to control and manipulate pace on impact was peerless.

Steven.
Feb 25th, 2012, 12:05 PM
I think people underrate Maria in terms of variety and whatnot. Also I think the term 'one dimensional' is overused on this forum. There's more to baseline groundstrokes than just hitting it hard. Maria isn't a brainless ball basher. If you want to see Maria brainlessly bashing the shit out of the ball, watch the second set of the AO final this year and you'll realise she doesn't just brainlessly bash her way through victories.

Maria can play defensively quite well for someone with such horrendous footspeed. She's capable of mixing her shots up pretty easily from a flat, laser like groundstroke and heavy top spin shots which in itself is variety. Also, people also severely underrate her ability to drop shot and lob. Just because she doesn't use it every other point doesn't mean she can't, she just has better options especially with a big a groundstroke as hers. Same with the drive volley only argument. Who the fuck can't do a smash? So what if she prefers the drive volley?

The only essential department she's really lacking in is her standard volleys, but that's only because she's not comfortable at the net for whatever reasons.

spencercarlos
Feb 25th, 2012, 02:13 PM
Comparing apples with Oranges, aren't we? Where are Sharapova's wins against Graf, Seles, Martinez, Sabatini, Novotna or Sanchez-Vicario if I may ask? :oh:
Since both got to play the William sisters, Clijsters and Henin, the one comparing apples with oranges its you. :help:
Since both got to play the William sisters, Clijsters and Henin, the one comparing apples with oranges its you. :help:
When i brought Graf and Seles into discussion was to ilustrate Martinez record against the best players of her time, the same i did with Sharapova.


Another off-topic comment from you. And game-wise and as far as dimensions to their games are concerned, I consider Martinez and Schiavone (even though Schiavone is debatable I admit) to be better tennis players than Sharapova, yes.
Better tennis player´s debate its not just a question about shot production :help:.

Based on your biased view, then someone like Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, who is more limited in her stroke production, rather basic, to her peers like Sabatini, Martinez and Novotna, would be the inferior tennis player among the group. And we all know that is not the case by any means.

:wavey:

Matt01
Feb 25th, 2012, 02:23 PM
Based on your biased view, then someone like Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, who is more limited in her stroke production, rather basic, to her peers like Sabatini, Martinez and Novotna, would be the inferior tennis player among the group. And we all know that is not the case by any means.

:wavey:


I was talking about "better" as "game-wise and as far as dimensions to their games are concerned" and you know it. The term "better" as tennis player is even more vague and more up to debate.

VishaalMaria
Feb 25th, 2012, 02:40 PM
Davenport.

binky-GOAT
Feb 25th, 2012, 02:49 PM
I think people underrate Maria in terms of variety and whatnot. Also I think the term 'one dimensional' is overused on this forum. There's more to baseline groundstrokes than just hitting it hard. Maria isn't a brainless ball basher. If you want to see Maria brainlessly bashing the shit out of the ball, watch the second set of the AO final this year and you'll realise she doesn't just brainlessly bash her way through victories.

Maria can play defensively quite well for someone with such horrendous footspeed. She's capable of mixing her shots up pretty easily from a flat, laser like groundstroke and heavy top spin shots which in itself is variety. Also, people also severely underrate her ability to drop shot and lob. Just because she doesn't use it every other point doesn't mean she can't, she just has better options especially with a big a groundstroke as hers. Same with the drive volley only argument. Who the fuck can't do a smash? So what if she prefers the drive volley?

The only essential department she's really lacking in is her standard volleys, but that's only because she's not comfortable at the net for whatever reasons.

Yes she's pretty smart, but that doesn't mean she has good variety. She just uses her ground strokes to her best.

------

And one thing I want to get off my chest, on the WTA people confuse top-spin shots to off-pace flat shots or moonballs a lot. Simply because they lack power and it gets hard to differentiate, whereas on the ATP its obvious.

Sharapova and many other females cannot hit a top-spin shot without having to take pace off the ball, which the ball simply becomes a moonball or just a push.

If you want to see a genuine top-spin shot, look at Stosur's forehand. This type of shot is very rare on the WTA, because of the technique they play with.

Craig.
Feb 25th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Ugh, I hate this notion of X player being a better player because they have more variety or ''more to their game'' (whatever the hell that means).

delicatecutter
Feb 25th, 2012, 04:10 PM
I feel like Kvitova can hit winners at will more-so than Lindsay so I voted for Petra.

Petronius
Feb 25th, 2012, 04:29 PM
Lindsay's own comments:

"The sound of Kvitova's ground strokes was unlike any I had heard; very clean, very strong. It was so apparent she had become the best ball striker now in women's tennis."

And LOL at comparing a 35-year old woman whose career is over with a rapidly developing 21-year old girl who is yet to reach her best.

cellophane
Feb 25th, 2012, 04:33 PM
Anyway, Zvonareva has a more effortless game than both of them.

It goes on :sobbing:

Steven.
Feb 25th, 2012, 04:34 PM
Lindsay's own comments:

"The sound of Kvitova's ground strokes was unlike any I had heard; very clean, very strong. It was so apparent she had become the best ball striker now in women's tennis."

And LOL at comparing a 35-year old woman whose career is over with a rapidly developing 21-year old girl who is yet to reach her best.

now is the key word. Also, what is she going to say? Priase herself? :rolleyes: Petra is good but please, Kvittytards, let's not be delusional.

Steven.
Feb 25th, 2012, 04:40 PM
Yes she's pretty smart, but that doesn't mean she has good variety. She just uses her ground strokes to her best.

------

And one thing I want to get off my chest, on the WTA people confuse top-spin shots to off-pace flat shots or moonballs a lot. Simply because they lack power and it gets hard to differentiate, whereas on the ATP its obvious.

Sharapova and many other females cannot hit a top-spin shot without having to take pace off the ball, which the ball simply becomes a moonball or just a push.

If you want to see a genuine top-spin shot, look at Stosur's forehand. This type of shot is very rare on the WTA, because of the technique they play with.

Actually Maria is pretty known for the lasso-FH, which while technically wrong, still gets quite a lot of beautiful winners. She uses it very well to hit the lines while on the run or to hit it right into the corner. Topspin shots aren't about raw pace anyway...

The only top player ont he ATP that actually hits hard with the top spin shots is Nadal :lol: and that's only because his technique is THAT horrendous that he needs so much brute force to have any power on the fh.

danieln1
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:00 PM
Lindsay had the cleanest groundstrokes one could have

But numorous times Petra reminded me of Lindsay, especially the forehands.....

Petronius
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:09 PM
now is the key word. Also, what is she going to say? Priase herself? :rolleyes: Petra is good but please, Kvittytards, let's not be delusional.

It must be hard to hear Lindsay saying that she considers Petra as a better ballstriker than your beloved Mariabridesmaidpova. Sometimes the truth is very cruel. :hug:

Craig.
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:11 PM
It must be hard to hear Lindsay saying that she considers Petra as a better ballstriker than your beloved Mariabridesmaidpova. Sometimes the truth is very cruel. :hug:

Except that nowhere in his post did he mention Maria :hug: Gurl, try again.

Steven.
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:16 PM
It must be hard to hear Lindsay saying that she considers Petra as a better ballstriker than your beloved Mariabridesmaidpova. Sometimes the truth is very cruel. :hug:

um ok

Apoleb
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:19 PM
It must be hard to hear Lindsay saying that she considers Petra as a better ballstriker than your beloved Mariabridesmaidpova. Sometimes the truth is very cruel. :hug:

Isn't Steve the one who used to claim he isn't a Crapova fan? :spit:

Anyway, this is a tough one, because Kvitova is remarkable for how much she generates power particularly on the bh dtl from the unlikeliest position, but ffor "effortless" I would go for Davenport. Kvitty has much bigger baseball swings which naturally make her shots a little more cumbersome and also a lot more deadly. But both are effortless.

Except that nowhere in his post did he mention Maria Gurl, try again

Yet he felt the need to involve her in a previous post in a thread about effortless ballstriking.

:haha: :spit: :rolls: :facepalm: :vomit:

Steven.
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:26 PM
Isn't Steve the one who used to claim he isn't a Crapova fan? :spit:

Yet he felt the need to involve her in a previous post in a thread about effortless ballstriking.

:haha: :spit: :rolls: :facepalm: :vomit:

Probably a different user. Was always, and will forever love Maria.

And no, I was only talking about her in response to Matt01 which had nothing to do with the topic. Not even sure how she was brought up here in fact.

Kvitova fans really need to settle the fuck down, like seriously.

Gen Suck stans are really peaking right now. So sensitive over every little thing posted that doesn't worship them like a god and so far up there on their high horse. :help:

Direwolf
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:29 PM
I don't know the right answer but my vote would go to Petra. I thought it's an interesting question. Therefore i decided to make this poll.

Davenport smiles when she serves...
Kvitova barks.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Daveport shots is a class of its own...
Uncomparable.

justineheninfan
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:31 PM
Comparing apples with Oranges, aren't we? Where are Sharapova's wins against Graf, Seles, Martinez, Sabatini, Novotna or Sanchez-Vicario if I may ask? :oh:


You mean a bunch of players who were retired when she joined the tour (other than 34-35 year old Martinez). Sharapova beats the best of her era many more times than Martinez ever did. Marias most embarassing head to head is against Serena, but even Serena she did far better against than Martinez did vs Graf or Seles.

justineheninfan
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:36 PM
The point I was making (even when you exclude the double bagel smackdown) is that a Davenport of Kvitova's age would not be losing very often (if at all on the big stages) to present day Sharapova. And this is coming from a Sharapova fan that wants to see her win another slam. No one can deny that though the fight is still in maria (which is damn admirable considering she is richer than any other female tennis player and has no incentive to continue other than pride and love of the sport), the ability (and talent somewhat) has faded over time.

I think you have a short memory. The Davenport of Kvitovas current age (21) was not that good at all, even though she reached #3 in the horrific 1997. She hadnt even reached a slam final yet, didnt reach her first semifinal until her 3rd slam as a 21 year old, and was still terribly overweight. Considering she was losing to the likes of Chladkova, Po, Tauziat, a post prime Martinez on hard courts in slams at that point, yeah she would definitely lose to even a weakened Sharapova, much more regularly than Kvitova does today, considering Maria owned her completely even in much better future years (albeit a much stronger Maria too).

Apoleb
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:41 PM
I think you have a short memory. The Davenport of Kvitovas current age (21) was not that good at all, even though she reached #3 in the horrific 1997. She hadnt even reached a slam final yet, didnt reach her first semifinal until her 3rd slam as a 21 year old, and was still terribly overweight. Considering she was losing to the likes of Chladkova, Po, Tauziat, a post prime Martinez on hard courts in slams at that point, yeah she would definitely lose to even a weakened Sharapova, much more regularly than Kvitova does today, considering Maria owned her completely even in much better future years (albeit a much stronger Maria too).

Someone posted a clip of Davenport in RG 1998, and I had forgotten how fat and ridiculously unathletic she was. Kvitova looks like Michael Johnson in comparison to that. And even more funny that this Davenport was able to lay down beatings on Myth later in the year.

Raiden
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:52 PM
The people who accuse Pettards that they are exaggerating are forgetting that the pro Davenport crowd is also guilty of hyping up Lindsay. This happens not only by Lindsaytards but by Americans in general (in broadcast media for example) there is a longtime tendency among yanks to have some stupid illusion/fantasy that Linds is some kinda "clean goat" mirror opposite to the "rugged goat" Williams sisters) that's just bolloks.

So the exaggerations by tards on both sides cancel each other out and we can deal with the cold hard fact and that is that Linds looks good and hits clean only when she's dictating a rally. And that happens mostly as a consequence of her 1st serve.

Petra on the other hand can be ridiculously explosive on the return as well. Effortless transition game (from defense to offense). She doesn't rely on her service game to the extent that Lindsay did.

So I vote for Petra.

Oh and Petra doesn't need to win two more slams, or become a mickey mouse tourney hogger like Lindsay just in order to prove the above-mentioned points
.

AcesHigh
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:57 PM
The Petra hype is beyond annoying at this point

AcesHigh
Feb 25th, 2012, 05:58 PM
And lmao at "effortless transition game"

Raiden
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:00 PM
^ So you claimin Linds looks better when going to the net?

Miss Amor
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:08 PM
Lindsay's serve, return, net play, and rallying ground strokes all have better timing than Kvitova's and therefore look effortless.

MH0861
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:09 PM
Davenport's game was more effortless. She never had to move. :hearts:

plokploky
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:10 PM
I think it will take a couple more years before petra really takes off and starts dominating like I really want her to and her strokes become more refined and accurate, but come on, even though davenport was the first woman I ever supported and I loved watching her game, I don't think it would be biased of me to say that she was the cleanest of ball strikers ever. And she would never compliment herself by saying she hit the ball better than any body, but inside she knew she did.

That being said, I think many people don't want to admit that petra is still developing her strokes and I think that in 5 years time, her game will look as effortless as lindsay's

Raiden
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:35 PM
The Davenport of Kvitovas current age (21) was not that good at all, even though she reached #3 in the horrific 1997.That's one more thing that needs to be kept in mind. Davenport looked good only when there was a gap/window of opportuntiy to "cash in" just before the turn of the century during when
the Graf generation was "old and slow" (with the exception of Seles who had other issues)
the Williams sisters + Belgians were rookies.
and the only ones peaking were the likes of Hingis/Pierce/Anna KournikovaOnce the rookies reached their primes, Lindsay's limitations became evident.

Dave.
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Lindsay's serve, return, net play, and rallying ground strokes all have better timing than Kvitova's and therefore look effortless.

Davenport's game was more effortless. She never had to move. :hearts:

These.

hurricanejeanne
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:53 PM
Davenport's game was more effortless. She never had to move. :hearts:

This.

Matt01
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:57 PM
You mean a bunch of players who were retired when she joined the tour (other than 34-35 year old Martinez). Sharapova beats the best of her era many more times than Martinez ever did. Marias most embarassing head to head is against Serena, but even Serena she did far better against than Martinez did vs Graf or Seles.


Martinez and Sharapova both have pretty bad records against the best players they competed against but that doesn't change my original point that Marinez had the better game.


That's one more thing that needs to be kept in mind. Davenport looked good only when there was a gap/window of opportuntiy to "cash in" just before the turn of the century during when
the Graf generation was "old and slow" (with the exception of Seles who had other issues)
the Williams sisters + Belgians were rookies.
and the only ones peaking were the likes of Hingis/Pierce/Anna KournikovaOnce the rookies reached their primes, Lindsay's limitations became evident.


No. Lindsay looked good when she got fitter and worked on her weaknesses.
During Serena's best year (2002), Lindsay was out for almost the whole season and during Henin's best years (2003-2007), she finished 2 seasons as #1. And she leads the H2H with Venus overall and with Kim in Slams so please don't even mention these players. :p

doomsday
Feb 25th, 2012, 06:58 PM
Probably a different user. Was always, and will forever love Maria.

And no, I was only talking about her in response to Matt01 which had nothing to do with the topic. Not even sure how she was brought up here in fact.

Kvitova fans really need to settle the fuck down, like seriously.

Gen Suck stans are really peaking right now. So sensitive over every little thing posted that doesn't worship them like a god and so far up there on their high horse. :help:

what do you want? They're still bitter about her loss to Maria because you know she was en route to win the Golden Slam this year :rolleyes:

doomsday
Feb 25th, 2012, 07:09 PM
Martinez and Sharapova both have pretty bad records against the best players they competed against but that doesn't change my original point that Marinez had the better game.

The only BAD record is against Serena(1-3 at majors and overall 2-7)
Henin lead 7-3 but it's 2-2 at majors and Maria won the most important meeting. Henin is also lucky they play many times on clay while they never played on grass.
5-3 against Clijsters, not bad at all and she is tied with Venus 3-3.

Matt01
Feb 25th, 2012, 07:23 PM
The only BAD record is against Serena(1-3 at majors and overall 2-7)
Henin lead 7-3 but it's 2-2 at majors and Maria won the most important meeting. Henin is also lucky they play many times on clay while they never played on grass.
5-3 against Clijsters, not bad at all and she is tied with Venus 3-3.


Please get your facts right because this is wrong. :o And 3:7 is a bad record so stop with this crap already. :help:
And Martinez also had some good H2Hs with great players, e.g. she led Navratilova 4:1.

doomsday
Feb 25th, 2012, 07:37 PM
Please get your facts right because this is wrong. :o And 3:7 is a bad record so stop with this crap already. :help:
And Martinez also had some good H2Hs with great players, e.g. she led Navratilova 4:1.

I don't even know why we're having this conversation. Maria doesn't deserve to be compared with one slam wonder.:wavey:

justineheninfan
Feb 25th, 2012, 09:05 PM
Please get your facts right because this is wrong. :o And 3:7 is a bad record so stop with this crap already. :help:
And Martinez also had some good H2Hs with great players, e.g. she led Navratilova 4:1.

So Martinez did well vs a 34-37 year old women. Congratulations. :lol:

3-7 is a bad record, but as doomsday pointed it was 2-2 in slams. Nothing like the total hopelessness Martinez experienced vs Graf, Seles, 16 years+ Hingis, even Sanchez. Yes she did well if she was playing a 35 year old or 15 year old.

PS- I do think Henin would have a decent shot vs Maria on grass. Maria is definetely not Venus or Serena on grass, and not that much better than Henin on it. Anyway it doesnt detract from the overall point.


How pray tell did Martinez have a better game:

Serve- Sharapova (even the current Sharapova, prime Sharapova by a mile)
Return- Sharapova by a mile
Forehand- Even (throwing Martinez a bone a bit since it is by far her best shot)
Backhand- Sharpova by a mile
Volleys- both mediocre at best
Movement- Martinez
Overhead- Sharapova
Fitness- Sharapova
Mental game- Sharapova


Martinez had a better clay court game at her best with all the spins she could put on the ball and would win a French in todays field for sure, but anywhere else her overall game is much inferior.

smarties
Feb 25th, 2012, 09:30 PM
first of all - it's obviously Davenport and it's not even close, the sound that her racquet was making after the contact with the ball was unlike anything I've heard on women's tour.
second of all - LOL at thinking Kvitova makes no effort to hit the ball. She uses much more spin than Lindsay and is straight up ballbasher with occasional ventures to the net. She's also much more erratic than Lindsay and is benefitting from the weak tour to have the results she has today.

:rolleyes::lol::help:

Matt01
Feb 25th, 2012, 10:19 PM
3-7 is a bad record, but as doomsday pointed it was 2-2 in slams.


And I already pointed put that this is wrong and that Henin leads the H2H with Pova even in the Slams. Why don't you read my posts?

And let me point out for you also why Martinez had a better game than Pova: She had better variety and finesse in her game, had a bigger arsenal of shots, better volleys, better movement, better ability to play on all different surfaces (except indoors which is not a surface).

:wavey:

mirzalover
Feb 25th, 2012, 10:20 PM
Davenport

AcesHigh
Feb 25th, 2012, 10:34 PM
^ So you claimin Linds looks better when going to the net?

Is this even a question? Of course she did. It makes me cringe sometimes to see Kvitova hit an approach shot.

You can criticize Davenport's movement which was very limiting to her overall game. But timing was spectacular and that's pretty much the most important part of coming to the net. The timing on your stroke, the timing in terms of knowing when and where to strike the ball (where as in both where to take the ball and where to place it), and timing in the actual netplay

Dave.
Feb 25th, 2012, 11:14 PM
Sharapova probably has the better game but Martinez's is certainly more attractive. It's definitely a discussion worth having, unlike this one.

Smitten
Feb 25th, 2012, 11:43 PM
Davenport is more effortless. Petra has more potential for obvious reasons.

Excelscior
Feb 26th, 2012, 12:16 AM
Davenport's game was more effortless. She never had to move. :hearts:

This.

Petra is more explosive.

This is not about timing. This is about getting to very high, low or away balls, and hitting clean or spectacular winners with little effort or a flick of the wrist, when you would of never expected it.

Lindsay always looked laconic/lazy (must be what some of you guys call effortless, I guess) overweight, slovenly and sloth like to me. I'm serious. Maybe it was the laid back Cool California attitude thing? :) :lol: :). But I hated her movements and look on the court. I don't deny her pure and effortless ball striking a bit. But Anyone can have good strokes swinging in the foot print of a phone booth (as MH0861 indicated, whether he or she meant that as a compliment or not)? But what about the real tennis world?

Petra by comparison looks like an NBA guard or small forward in athleticism, flexibility, quick reaction, and explosiveness on so many of her efficiently eye popping and explosive shot making (while bending, reaching up or stretching). So I'm not exactly sure what's the point, or what this thread really means or proves in the first place, for either Gal to be honest?

OK. Let Lindsay have the pure effortless stroke crown. :shrug: :shrug::)

WowWow
Feb 26th, 2012, 12:45 AM
Davenport.

binky-GOAT
Feb 26th, 2012, 12:57 AM
This.

Petra is more explosive.

This is not about timing. This is about getting to very high, low or away balls, and hitting clean or spectacular winners with little effort or a flick of the wrist, when you would of never expected it.

Lindsay always looked laconic/lazy (must be what some of you guys call effortless, I guess) overweight, slovenly and sloth like to me. I'm serious. Maybe it was the laid back Cool California attitude thing? :) :lol: :). But I hated her movements and look on the court. I don't deny her pure and effortless ball striking a bit. But Anyone can have good strokes swinging in the foot print of a phone booth (as MH0861 indicated, whether he or she meant that as a knock or compliment). But what about the real tennis world?

Petra by comparison looks like an NBA guard or small forward in athleticism, flexibility, quick reaction, and explosiveness on so many of her efficiently eye popping and explosive shot making (while bending, reaching up or stretching). So I'm not exactly sure what's the point, or what this thread really means or proves in the first place, for either Gal to be honest?

OK. Let Lindsay have the pure effortless stroke crown. :shrug: :shrug::)

Yes she has the wrists and effortless power of Federer, athleticism/movement of Nadal, stretching/bending abilities of Djokovic.

But at the same time she has no timing in her shots.

WHAT A PLAYER!!!

justineheninfan
Feb 26th, 2012, 01:00 AM
And I already pointed put that this is wrong and that Henin leads the H2H with Pova even in the Slams. Why don't you read my posts?

And let me point out for you also why Martinez had a better game than Pova: She had better variety and finesse in her game, had a bigger arsenal of shots, better volleys, better movement, better ability to play on all different surfaces (except indoors which is not a surface).

:wavey:

Sorry I was forgetting their match at Roland Garros 2010. Maria still won their only slam final, and leads 2-1 in hard court slams. I dont deny Henin has the H2H edge on Maria, but in no way was Maria useless vs Henin or any top player the way Martinez was vs all the greats of her era. Even Serena who she has been embarassed by for years now, she took some big scalps off of- 2004 Wimbledon final, 2004 WTA Championship final, match points in the 2005 Australian Open semis too. Who is a bigger threat, Maria to Henin, Venus, Clijsters or Martinez to Graf, Seles, and Hingis. Hmm tough call. :lol:

Martinez did not have a good volley. I am not sure where you got that idea from. Maybe since she won Wimbledon once you just assume it means she was a good volleyer, and forget she didnt even hit a single volley winner in the Wimbledon final she won. Indoors might not be a surface but carpet was and Martinez was useless on that, probably worse than Maria is on any surface.

Matt01
Feb 26th, 2012, 01:25 AM
Martinez did not have a good volley. I am not sure where you got that idea from. Maybe since she won Wimbledon once you just assume it means she was a good volleyer, and forget she didnt even hit a single volley winner in the Wimbledon final she won. Indoors might not be a surface but carpet was and Martinez was useless on that, probably worse than Maria is on any surface.


I forgot about carpet (which isn't used much these days anymore anyway) where Pova is better of course.
Martinez did not have great technique on her volleys but at least she had some technique and was quite effective at putting away easy volleys which can't be said about Maria.