PDA

View Full Version : The "New Generation" has been a big bust in 2005


vogus
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:12 PM
No members of the new generation have had the expected breakout year in '05. All the current top players save Sharapova are tour veterans and they aren't really feeling a lot of pressure right now from the newcomers. The Top 20 is loaded with old-timers.

The biggest bust has been Sprem, who is on her way to dropping off the tour. Not too far behind her is Golovin, who after a promising '04, has bombed spectacularly this year, losing first round at all three grand slams. Vaidisova has had a couple of decent results but nothing (yet) to write home about. Outside of her RG quarterfinal, Karatantcheva has been a non-factor. Ivanovic has been the most impressive but still hasn't stamped her authority on any of the big tournaments. And for Sharapova (not really a member of the up-and-coming club as she is already an established player), even though she's had a good year overall, ZERO grand slam finals is a definite disappointment.

alwayshingis
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:16 PM
Vaidisova is back on hardcourts, and already has a win over a top 15 player today. She should make the QF here at least.

And Chakvetadze is part of the new group and she has been having an excellent summer.

Karatantcheva is still a little young and immature. I think we can start expecting bigger things from her around this time next year.

Natasha250688
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:19 PM
Yet another bash-the-young-players thread :rolleyes:

vogus
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:21 PM
Vaidisova is back on hardcourts, and already has a win over a top 15 player today. She should make the QF here at least.

And Chakvetadze is part of the new group and she has been having an excellent summer.

Karatantcheva is still a little young and immature. I think we can start expecting bigger things from her around this time next year.


Vaidisova and Karantcheva are the youngest, so it may be early to expect too much from them.

ezekiel
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:25 PM
It's a weird year in many ways due to outside factors but I believe it will clear out soon by year's end and then we'll see pretenders from contenders. Some of these players will soon disappear if they don't get a coach and change something. I watched Sprem vs Golovin and it was terrible. I don't see how they were labeled as potential. Sprem has absolutelly no tennis fundamentals and Golovin is just sluggish and distracted and on her way as next Dokic/Kournikova/

vogus
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:29 PM
It's a weird year in many ways due to outside factors but I believe it will clear out soon by year's end and then we'll see pretenders from contenders. Some of these players will soon disappear if they don't get a coach and change something. I watched Sprem vs Golovin and it was terrible. Sprem has absolutelly no tennis fundamentals and Golovin is just sluggish and distracted and on her way as next Dokic/Kournikova/


yeah talk about a lucky draw for those two to play each other - one of them guaranteed to get a win...

the way things are looking now, Davenport could stay #1 for another five or six years. :rolleyes:

*Karen*
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:30 PM
The girls under 18 are not allowed to play a full schedule and technically they are still junior age so I think they do very well to be in the top 50 of the womens game. I think players they are competing with outside the top ten are much stronger than when Monica, Jennifer and Hingis were the teen stars.

The thing I don't like about the younger players is many of them have lots of power to their game but no accuracy whatsoever.

vogus
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:33 PM
The girls under 18 are not allowed to play a full schedule and technically they are still junior age so I think they do very well to be in the top 50 of the womens game. I think players they are competing with outside the top ten are much stronger than when Monica, Jennifer and Hingis were the teen stars.


The under-18 rule is absolute garbage. At minimum it needs to be scaled back to under-17. It's hurting the tour by protecting the dinosaurs from competition.

clonesheep
Aug 17th, 2005, 11:45 PM
Some of these younsters were overhyped in the first place. I watched Golovin play live last year when the hype was building up and I just scratched my head. What she is doing is hitting the ball hard from baseline and nothing else. If you think of veterans like Schnyder or Dechy, although they are not top of the cream they have variety in their game and that contributes to their longevity. The youngsters don't know how to deal with situations and use different strategy with different opponents so they just hit the ball hard. Eighty percent of them will drop off like Karolina Sprem.

Mr Snuggles
Aug 18th, 2005, 12:18 AM
The young-ons are still developing their game and the old guard are still pretty much somewhere near their peak (when their not injured that is). Not every teenager can do a Sharapova. I think 2005 will turn out tobe more of a consolodation year for the next generation. 2006 will sort out the weak from the chaff, the ones with the most potential will prospure and the others quietly fade into the challenger tour circuit.

Volcana
Aug 18th, 2005, 01:02 AM
No members of the new generation have had the expected breakout year in '05. All the current top players save Sharapova are tour veterans and they aren't really feeling a lot of pressure right now from the newcomers. The Top 20 is loaded with old-timers.

The biggest bust has been Sprem, who is on her way to dropping off the tour. Not too far behind her is Golovin, who after a promising '04, has bombed spectacularly this year, losing first round at all three grand slams. Vaidisova has had a couple of decent results but nothing (yet) to write home about. Outside of her RG quarterfinal, Karatantcheva has been a non-factor. Ivanovic has been the most impressive but still hasn't stamped her authority on any of the big tournaments. And for Sharapova (not really a member of the up-and-coming club as she is already an established player), even though she's had a good year overall, ZERO grand slam finals is a definite disappointment.As you can see from the responses, your idea of 'break out' differs with that of fans of the 'New Generation'.

"Break out' is something like winning a loaded Tier II or better, while knocking off a couple top ten players, including one of the tour 'elite'. And since Sharapova and Kuznetsova both did that in 2004, it probably isn't an unreasonable standard. But there's a lot of year left.

Havok
Aug 18th, 2005, 01:08 AM
Sorry but Golovin didn't lose 1r at all the Slams this year. In Australia she was injured and lost 2r, RG she held her seed and made it to the 3r ( i believe she wasn't 100% ready physically either) and lost I believe 1r at Wimbledon where she had her ankle problems. If Golovin was such a "bust" she would be ranked around 50, but she's still inside the top 25. Also this year the Belgians came back from injury, Pierce was getting back to her old form as well as Schnyder so it made life more difficult for the "new generation" to do much.

vogus
Aug 18th, 2005, 01:13 AM
"Break out' is something like winning a loaded Tier II or better, while knocking off a couple top ten players, including one of the tour 'elite'. And since Sharapova and Kuznetsova both did that in 2004, it probably isn't an unreasonable standard. But there's a lot of year left.


my idea of break out is either what you posted, or (even better) reaching a Slam semifinal. Karatantcheva screwed up bigtime losing to Likhovtseva after beating VW in Paris. Insofar as all of the young "stars" mentioned were already being hyped LAST year, the fact that none of them has "broken out" yet is somewhat disappointing. But youre right, the year is not over.

Joana
Aug 18th, 2005, 01:17 AM
my idea of break out is either what you posted, or (even better) reaching a Slam semifinal.

I hope none of them "breaks out" in a Lucic/Dokic/Stevenson kind of way.

vogus
Aug 18th, 2005, 01:34 AM
I hope none of them "breaks out" in a Lucic/Dokic/Stevenson kind of way.

:lol:

Cp6uja
Aug 18th, 2005, 01:55 AM
Problems not in "NEW GENERATION" - problem is bigest crow in wta history. We have right now 7 "dominated players" (2BEL,2WILL,DAV,SHA and MoMo)!?!?
To many very good and experiance "old players" (27+) still play. TOP15 Lindsay, Pierce, Shnyder, Lihovceva...etc play good like in her best days. Much girles, much competition, much money, much regions in tennis than ever...
Sharapova, Ivanovic, Vaidisova and Karatantcheva is very promising players, no doubt.

Last year we dont have "crow" like this, because Belgians and WSisters is injury out and ironicly in 2004 "old" players like Pierce or Schnyder or Lihovceva dont play good like this season.

Fingon
Aug 18th, 2005, 03:03 AM
No members of the new generation have had the expected breakout year in '05. All the current top players save Sharapova are tour veterans and they aren't really feeling a lot of pressure right now from the newcomers. The Top 20 is loaded with old-timers.

The biggest bust has been Sprem, who is on her way to dropping off the tour. Not too far behind her is Golovin, who after a promising '04, has bombed spectacularly this year, losing first round at all three grand slams. Vaidisova has had a couple of decent results but nothing (yet) to write home about. Outside of her RG quarterfinal, Karatantcheva has been a non-factor. Ivanovic has been the most impressive but still hasn't stamped her authority on any of the big tournaments. And for Sharapova (not really a member of the up-and-coming club as she is already an established player), even though she's had a good year overall, ZERO grand slam finals is a definite disappointment.

Sprem is going through personal problems.

Something is not right with Golovin.

About the others, Sesil is only 15, what do you expect?

Ivanovic? have you seen her play? she has less than a year in the tour, what did other players do in such a short period of time? she already has wins over Mauresmo and as I said on another thread, talent wise, and mentality wise she is a champion.

How long was before Hingis, or even Sharapova started to win big? and those are considered early winners

TakeThat
Aug 18th, 2005, 03:17 AM
Sharapova, Ivanovic, Vaidisova and Karatantcheva is very promising players, no doubt.
Are you out of your mind putting Sharapova (an establish player: GS winner, soon to be #1 in the world, and one of the biggest names in tennis) in the same category with the talented but unproven Ivanovic, Vaidisova and Karatantcheva ? :confused: :confused: :confused:

WhatTheDeuce
Aug 18th, 2005, 03:35 AM
It's a weird year in many ways due to outside factors but I believe it will clear out soon by year's end and then we'll see pretenders from contenders. Some of these players will soon disappear if they don't get a coach and change something. I watched Sprem vs Golovin and it was terrible. I don't see how they were labeled as potential. Sprem has absolutelly no tennis fundamentals and Golovin is just sluggish and distracted and on her way as next Dokic/Kournikova/
You didnt exactly watch Sprem in form :retard:

Same for Tatiana, they're both capable of a lot more than that.

Cp6uja
Aug 18th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Are you out of your mind putting Sharapova (an establish player: GS winner, soon to be #1 in the world, and one of the biggest names in tennis) in the same category with the talented but unproven Ivanovic, Vaidisova and Karatantcheva ? :confused: :confused: :confused:

In last 7hours "unproven" Ivanovic play 4:6 7:6 7:6 7:5 2:6 6:7 (6 sets, 3 tie-breaks, 5h20min play and 1h40min pause between singl and double match), in last year Vaidisova and Karatantcheva both have better stats in 15 than MaSha.

Yes, Sharapova is best representing new generation (under18), but Ana, Nicole and Sesil deserve to be mention in this thread too.

DutchieGirl
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:02 AM
:rolleyes: What is with all the bashing of the younger players right now? Wtf do people expect? I'm sorry but the AER DOES hidner the younger players somewhat there days - they can only play fewer tourneys and so they get less experience...

Alot of younger players have had very good years this year!

Atrixo
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:34 AM
The AER is total garbage! :rolleyes:

In my opinion, it has the opposite effect it was intended to. They think that by reducing the number of tournaments a young player plays, they'll be preventing her from burnout. What they don't realize, is that many of these players will overtrain --- or play a large junior schedule as well --- in order to compensate. Add also, by letting young players play only a few tournaments a year, they are greatly increasing the pressure on them to perform. With few opportunities, each tournament result becomes extremely critical. All this pressure to perform would be lessened, if the player knew, that they would have plenty of opportunities to gain experience and prove themselves. This would also help with the development of their games. They wouldn't have to develop "one-dimensional" styles in order to compete right away. With room to breath, they could tinker and adjust their games to what suits them.

Volcana
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:42 AM
The AER is total garbage! :rolleyes:

In my opinion, it has the opposite effect it was intended to. They think that by reducing the number of tournaments a young player plays, they'll be preventing her from burnout. What they don't realize, is that many of these players will overtrain --- or play a large junior schedule as well --- in order to compensate. Add also, by letting young players play only a few tournaments a year, they are greatly increasing the pressure on them to perform. With few opportunities, each tournament result becomes extremely critical. All this pressure to perform would be lessened, if the player knew, that they would have plenty of opportunities to gain experience and prove themselves. This would also help with the development of their games. They wouldn't have to develop "one-dimensional" styles in order to compete right away. With room to breath, they could tinker and adjust their games to what suits them.Get real. Players were playing 20 tournament schedules at 14!!!! And more to the point, burning out, getting career ending injuries, and suffering from Female Athlete Triad in big numbers. The AER may not be perfect, but it a hell of lot better than nothing.

Derek.
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:46 AM
You didnt exactly watch Sprem in form :retard:

Same for Tatiana, they're both capable of a lot more than that.

Amen. :worship:

Atrixo
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:47 AM
Get real. Players were playing 20 tournament schedules at 14!!!! And more to the point, burning out, getting career ending injuries, and suffering from Female Athlete Triad in big numbers. The AER may not be perfect, but it a hell of lot better than nothing.

I wasn't implying that they should be allowed to play an unrestricted schedule at 14! :rolleyes:

The AER in it's "current form" is TOO restrictive. Players should be allowed to play an unrestricted schedule at 16, just like the men on the ATP.

Derek.
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:50 AM
Sprem will be back. It won't be the last you've heard of her.

Golovin will be back as well. Don't count her out either.

Vaidisova, Karatantcheva, and Ivanovic have all had solid years so quit acting like they are ranked #125ish. :rolleyes:

Sharapova is still only 18. It's hard to win your 2nd slam. Just ask Marat Safin. Give her time.

Fingon
Aug 18th, 2005, 04:53 AM
The AER is total garbage! :rolleyes:

In my opinion, it has the opposite effect it was intended to. They think that by reducing the number of tournaments a young player plays, they'll be preventing her from burnout. What they don't realize, is that many of these players will overtrain --- or play a large junior schedule as well --- in order to compensate. Add also, by letting young players play only a few tournaments a year, they are greatly increasing the pressure on them to perform. With few opportunities, each tournament result becomes extremely critical. All this pressure to perform would be lessened, if the player knew, that they would have plenty of opportunities to gain experience and prove themselves. This would also help with the development of their games. They wouldn't have to develop "one-dimensional" styles in order to compete right away. With room to breath, they could tinker and adjust their games to what suits them.

absolutely right, the AER is idiotic, it was established because of what happened with Capriati, not realizing that Capriati's problem (like many other players's problem) wasn't playing too many tournaments but being overexposed to the media.

It's not easy for a teenager to deal with all that attention, unless they have the proper entourage that protects them, the AER does nothing to solve that problem, Sharapova does deal with it well but that has nothing to do with the AER or the WTA but with IMG.

Parents putting too much pressure, the media following them all around.

Players are still burning out, and I would say that at a faster rate than before, the WTA has the AER in one hand and in the other forces popular players to play certain tournaments.

The WTA does nothing to protect young players from overhype, or for being the target of predators.

Each initiative designed to help young players have failed miserably because (like most wta's decisions) weren't thought through, the AER is one, the mentoring program is another.

And the AER is WORSE than nothing, doesn't solve the problem it's supposed to solve and creates others.

I was thinking for a long time of a fair way to get rid of it (because today's 17 years old players have been restricted for a number of years and it wouldn't be fair if 15 years old can play full schedule now), but seeing how slow the wta is to make amedments (Larry Scott said he was against it from the beginning and has done nothing) I would say scratch it now, then we can think of a way to compensate players that were affected by it (like giving them wildcards or special seedings). It's a cancer and it's better to get rid of it at once.

Larrybidd
Aug 18th, 2005, 05:13 AM
The under-18 rule is absolute garbage. At minimum it needs to be scaled back to under-17. It's hurting the tour by protecting the dinosaurs from competition.

The "dinosaurs" are feeding on the kids, not the other way around as you seem to suggest. If these kids were anything special they would be shooting to the top of the tour, what with all the "old" girls hobbled by injury. The kids had every chance to prove themselves, but they been for the most part exposed as hype.

I have no strong feelings one way or another about the rules limiting tournaments for young players. But I beleive that talent (REAL talent) will prove out no matter how many tournaments you play. Sharapova has had better results under the tournament restrictions than when she is free to play as much as she likes. Look at some of the other Russioans and the same pattern applies. The Russians contingent especially seems to be regressing the more they play.

Atrixo
Aug 18th, 2005, 05:42 AM
absolutely right, the AER is idiotic, it was established because of what happened with Capriati, not realizing that Capriati's problem (like many other players's problem) wasn't playing too many tournaments but being overexposed to the media.

It's not easy for a teenager to deal with all that attention, unless they have the proper entourage that protects them, the AER does nothing to solve that problem, Sharapova does deal with it well but that has nothing to do with the AER or the WTA but with IMG.

Parents putting too much pressure, the media following them all around.

Players are still burning out, and I would say that at a faster rate than before, the WTA has the AER in one hand and in the other forces popular players to play certain tournaments.

The WTA does nothing to protect young players from overhype, or for being the target of predators.

Each initiative designed to help young players have failed miserably because (like most wta's decisions) weren't thought through, the AER is one, the mentoring program is another.

And the AER is WORSE than nothing, doesn't solve the problem it's supposed to solve and creates others.

I was thinking for a long time of a fair way to get rid of it (because today's 17 years old players have been restricted for a number of years and it wouldn't be fair if 15 years old can play full schedule now), but seeing how slow the wta is to make amedments (Larry Scott said he was against it from the beginning and has done nothing) I would say scratch it now, then we can think of a way to compensate players that were affected by it (like giving them wildcards or special seedings). It's a cancer and it's better to get rid of it at once.

:worship:

mboyle
Aug 18th, 2005, 06:18 AM
Golovin made R2 at oz and R3 at the french. Her year until Wimbledon was decent.

mboyle
Aug 18th, 2005, 06:21 AM
Vaidisova just destroyed Dechy in an eye-opening manner. This could be the breakout for her...