PDA

View Full Version : Why have ivanovic/ vaidisova not been able to deliver-- and Maria has?


Reuchlin
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:13 PM
I mean, aren't they supposed to be so much more talented than Pova?
:tape:

msharafan
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:18 PM
there not more talented than maria i mean i thought that would have been obvious!

Tennace
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Nicole is 2 years younger than Maria and a year and a half younger then Ana. She still has plenty of years to deliver good success on tour, it doesnt have to be before you are 18 you know :rolleyes:

Martyś
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Some people are born to be champions, some not.

new-york
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:36 PM
the are not supposed to be more talented, but they seem to be able to show big things.

ezekiel
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:48 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent. If you look at the stats, Pova has played almost double the matches than either of the two so Ana and Sova are still inexperienced overall and haven't played many players yet

Martyś
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:51 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent.

Oh, come on Ezekiel.

:wavey: Ana will win something big, I have a feeling.

Mother_Marjorie
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I mean, aren't they supposed to be so much more talented than Pova?
:tape:

I think there was another thread about this a while back around the time of the US Open.

Talent means nothing if you don't have a killer instinct and a born drive to win. Mental toughness means everything in the sport of tennis. Maria is willing to fight to the end, and that's what makes her a great champion.

Mother_Marjorie
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:52 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent. If you look at the stats, Pova has played almost double the matches than either of the two so Ana and Sova are still inexperienced overall and haven't played many players yet

That's what they said about Steffi Graf and Chris Evert...and you see how lousy their careers turned-out.:rolleyes:

new-york
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:57 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent. If you look at the stats, Pova has played almost double the matches than either of the two so Ana and Sova are still inexperienced overall and haven't played many players yet

please.

Maria playing more matches has certainly something to do with the fact that she's winning a lot of them.
and we're not comparing Maria with Martina Hingis in term of style of play.

they will do something or not, i'm the first to hope tremendous things for Ana, really, but no excuses, right now Maria is the best youngie, until another one gets better results then her. Tough mission.

lilimi
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:00 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent. If you look at the stats, Pova has played almost double the matches than either of the two so Ana and Sova are still inexperienced overall and haven't played many players yet

:worship: :worship: :worship: i agree totally.look petrova or mauresmo...or federer in ATP.;)
sharpie should play doubles to improve her net play. she made progress on her moves (she lost some weight since French Open). she should become a serve and volley player but it seems she's in love with her baseline.i don't think she can dominate like serena williams did.

LoveFifteen
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:04 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent.

I think Hingis disproves this. :lol:

Il Primo!
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:09 PM
:worship: :worship: :worship: i agree totally.look petrova or mauresmo...or federer in ATP.;)
sharpie should play doubles to improve her net play. she made progress on her moves (she lost some weight since French Open). she should become a serve and volley player but it seems she's in love with her baseline.i don't think she can dominate like serena williams did.


You're such an idiot..

lilimi
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:09 PM
I think Hingis disproves this. :lol:

yes because she's THE genius of the game.
but unfortunately, it seems that the new tennis is all about power, not tactics at all:sad: :sad: :sad: fortunately there is anna chakvetadze who's givin me a little hope.

lilimi
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:11 PM
You're such an idiot..

:o why? because i'm talking:confused:

vogus
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:12 PM
I mean, aren't they supposed to be so much more talented than Pova?
:tape:


you should leave Ivanovic out of this. She is never going to be a #1 type player/multi Slam winner. It's already obvious.

Vaidosova is only 17. Don't rush her. Two years from now, she will be a clearly better player than Sharapova. You heard it here first.

Martyś
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:14 PM
yes because she's THE genius of the game.
but unfortunately, it seems that the new tennis is all about power, not tactics at all:sad: :sad: :sad: fortunately there is anna chakvetadze who's givin me a little hope.

No tactic at all ? What are you saying for God sake ?

Don't you understand that saying things like this about Maria, you' re bringing down such players as Mauresmo, Henin- Hardenne, Hingis, Clijsters etc., who are loosing some matches with her ?

Martyś
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:15 PM
Vaidosova is only 17. Don't rush her. Two years from now, she will be a clearly better player than Sharapova. You heard it here first.

We'll see ...

GoDominique
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:16 PM
you should leave Ivanovic out of this. She is never going to be a #1 type player/multi Slam winner. It's already obvious.

Vaidosova is only 17. Don't rush her. Two years from now, she will be a clearly better player than Sharapova. You heard it here first.
And last. :lol:

Nicole's mentality sucks ass and will most likely prevent her from doing anything big.

ezekiel
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:17 PM
I think Hingis disproves this. :lol:

Hingis was lucky or not to win so early, she shouldn't have won then if Seles and Graf were healthy or Williams sisters were younger. She is entirelly special case as she peaked at 16 and then suffered injuries, mental letdowns and physical blowout

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:18 PM
She knows her game better, so she's been able to deliver.

Kart
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:20 PM
I mean, aren't they supposed to be so much more talented than Pova?
:tape:

No.

That's not the only reason why they haven't delivered though.

Il Primo!
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:20 PM
:o why? because i'm talking:confused:

Stupid for too many things you've done before.
And badrepping me won't make you cleverer :wavey:

morningglory
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:24 PM
in the head... it's all in their heads...
Maria's been there, done that... Slam titles, YEC, no.1, LOTs of matches against the elite players... tough losses, great wins
The other two haven't gone thru a fraction of Maria's exp thus they don't really know how to get their head together in big moments...

Nicolás89
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:25 PM
like everybody says the only big difference between nicole and maria is the mental toughness of maria:sad:
and probably that will stop her (nicole) in big ocasions :sad: :tape:

i dont know what problems has ana

Russianboy90
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Nicole is 2 years younger than Maria and a year and a half younger then Ana. She still has plenty of years to deliver good success on tour, it doesnt have to be before you are 18 you know :rolleyes:
that's not right!!!!!! Ana and Masha are born at the same year (87)!!!!!!!!:o

lilimi
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:27 PM
No tactic at all ? What are you saying for God sake ?

Don't you understand that saying things like this about Maria, you' re bringing down such players as Mauresmo, Henin- Hardenne, Hingis, Clijsters etc., who are loosing some matches with her ?

no:o , they're completely different players, with their own strenghts and weaknesses;) . amélie, justine, henin hardenne, hingis, clijsters, lost these matches more physically than tactically. i think maria doesn't have game plans, that's a fact. her game is based on her serve, her fitness and her will to win, which is the best in WTA currently. without this fighting spirit, she wouldn't be so good.
the fact that she's a one dimensional player is not a sin for me, i like players like sprem or mirza who have similar games. i just consider that being talented tennistically is being able to change game plans, being complete.
i want all types of players, it is less boring;)

Martyś
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:28 PM
I'm trying to say that without tactic you wouldn't beat players like Justine Henin- Hardenne.

And I'm not going to change my mind on that :p

without this fighting spirit, she wouldn't be so good.
Of course she wouldn't.

Justine wouldn't be as good as she is without her backhand.
Amelie wouldn't be so good without her volleys.
...

the cat
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:29 PM
I think Nicole and Ana are on course in their young careers to do big things in tennis including winning grand slam singles titles. But at this stage of their careers they lack the mental toughness that Maria Sharapova has had for her entire career. But because Nicole and Ana aren't Maria doesn't mean they won't have great careers. They will if they remain healthy and hungry.

And in a couple of years once Clijsters, Henin, Mauresmo and the Willaims sisters aren't major factors in tennis anymore who do you think will take their places challenging Maria Sharapova at the top of women's tennis? It will be a group of players led by Vaidisova and Ivanovic.

lilimi
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Stupid for too many things you've done before.
And badrepping me won't make you cleverer :wavey:
:) it was the first badrep i made, because i didn't see why i should be qualified as an idiot.
ce n'est pas plus intelligent de traiter les gens d'idiots sans raison:wavey:

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:30 PM
That's what they said about Steffi Graf and Chris Evert...and you see how lousy their careers turned-out.:rolleyes:


No-one ever said that Graf was one-dimensional.

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:34 PM
:worship: :worship: :worship: i agree totally.look petrova or mauresmo...or federer in ATP.;)
sharpie should play doubles to improve her net play. she made progress on her moves (she lost some weight since French Open). she should become a serve and volley player but it seems she's in love with her baseline.i don't think she can dominate like serena williams did.

Well, Serena dominated only for a little bit more than 1 year (5 slams between June 2002 and July 2003).

franny
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:34 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent. If you look at the stats, Pova has played almost double the matches than either of the two so Ana and Sova are still inexperienced overall and haven't played many players yet

I'm sorry but neither Nicole nor Ana are multi-dimensional players. Just because you can occasionally hit a volley or hit a few slices does not mean you are multidimensional. Both Nicole and Ana are power players, and rely on hitting winners from big shots. A multidimensional player is Hingis, Mauresmo, Henin-hardenne. One-dimensional players are Sharapova, Davenport, Williams. It does not mean that one is better than the other. If you are one-dimensional, but your one dimension is amazing and beautiful, then you are going to be successful. Same was multi-dimensional players.

Plus, suppose that Ivanovic and Nicole are multidimensional players, your claim that multi-dimensional players take longer to develop is not necessarily true. When did Hingis win her first slam and when did Davenport win her first slam? Plus, Justine won her first slam four years ago at 20, not necessarily old. And what about Davenport? She is one-dimensional but it took her many years on the tour to gather her game together.

I think we can conclude from this that it is not necessarily that its one-dimensional versus multi-dimensional, but rather the individual player's psyche that controls how soon they develop. You can't just generalize and say multi-dimensional players take longer to develop than one-dimensional players. You have to look at each individual player and go from there. But then I don't even think Ana and Nicole are multi-dimensional. How many dimensions do they have except hitting the crap out of the ball and occasionally coming into the net to finish off volleys? Quite frankly, their games are the same as Maria's. Nothing that I have seen from them indicates to me that they are multi-dimensional. Talented, hell yea. Multi-dimensional, not quite.

To the main topic of the thread, I do not think you can compare the three. Nicole and Ana have not have the same amount of experience to develop. Nicole is 17 and Ana started just a couple of years ago. I have no doubt they will be champions in the future, but they just need more experience. For their age though, they have accomplished a lot already and can be very proud.

mike/topgun
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Pagliacci
I mean, aren't they supposed to be so much more talented than Pova?
It's the 1st time I've heard that Ana and Nicole are supposed to be more talented than Maria:tape:
Well, they're not if you look on how Masha's improving.
They all have great careers ahead of them but Masha's got the edge - she's got the talent and the will to be n1 in the world. I couldn't see this in Ana or Nicole...maybe it's too early for them?

vogus
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:39 PM
And in a couple of years once Clijsters, Henin, Mauresmo and the Willaims sisters aren't major factors in tennis anymore




:secret:

somebody hasn't been paying much attention this year... ;)

mike/topgun
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:43 PM
How could you put Davenport in the one-dimensional group:tape:

What is one-dimensional?

One may think that Momo is one dimensional cos she's way to passive when it comes to matches vs the big players - she has no effective plan B in those kind of matches, when she tosses the ball back waiting for errors.

Hitting a slice, dropshot or a volley doesn't make you "multidimensional":tape:

back on the topic - Ana's got to make something with her movement...Nicole must get her head fixed. :o

Serge007
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM
What is one-dimensional?
one-dimensional, multi-dimensional are the funny wtaworld tales.

Ana's got to make something with her movement...
no. she's got to make something with her BH. it's ugly.

Paneru
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:59 PM
maybe because they are three individuals
developing at different rates perhaps? :p

Look @ Venus/Hingis;
Venus definitely had more raw talent than
Martina but Martina developed her game
all around sooner than Venus was able to.
BTW, Venus is a few months older than martina, no?

doesn't mean that Nikki & Ana won't
catch-up to & or pass Maria in the not
too distant future.

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:02 PM
maybe because they are three individuals
developing at different rates perhaps? :p

Look @ Venus/Hingis;
Venus definitely had more raw talent than
Martina .....


Er .... ?:rolleyes:

mike/topgun
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Serge007
no. she's got to make something with her BH. it's ugly.
True, there's NO comparison between her FH and the BH...she's almost like Steffi in that department. Well, she needs to be a better mover, if she's to win big titles against big players. The main reason that Masha won thier match was that she hit hard and accurate from both wings, and moved better...
Nicole is a mystery - she can play like a genius in one tournament then she's got a slump. It's either physical or mental.

mike/topgun
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:27 PM
At the moment Maria is on top.
Ana and Nicole must work hard to get there. And it's not so certain, as to be n1 in the world one needs to have the character too.

mashamaniac
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:32 PM
the answer to this thread's name is here:
that masha is special in every case and in every single way

tennisrox
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:48 PM
Nicole is a mystery - she can play like a genius in one tournament then she's got a slump. It's either physical or mental.

Partly physical partly mental, but mostly bad footwork. She doesn't have great technique on her groundies.
She needs time. Both of them do. Players mature at different rates.

azdaja
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:55 PM
this thread would make more sense if it were not about 17-19 years old players.

Lenafan
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:58 PM
Give Nicole more time before you make blanket proclamations. She's still only 17 I believe. Neither of the players mentioned are a finished product including Sharapova. There were Sharapova is overrated threads surfacing around here before the US Open and now her fans think she can beat Federer. They all have aspects of their game to improve on. Nicole does have some great qualities that are unique to most players including players her age. Good serve and strong desire to win and belief in herself. Henin was thought of as someone who wasn't mentally tough enough after her loss to Clijsters in the French and look what happened. I don't know enough about Ivanovic's game and while her supporters went overboard after her Rogers Cup win, there are enough sharp posters here who believe in Ivanovic so I guess I will take their word for it. Amelie didn't win a slam until later in her career. Capriati went through growing pains before she lived up to her potential. As did Pierce. The examples are endless. I don't understand the need to label anyone's career who haven't even reached the age of 20. There is noone on the tour other than Justine on clay who's a sure thing or even remotely approaches the domination of the Williams sisters, Hingis, Seles, Graf in their prime.

égalité
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:59 PM
Because Maria's better :shrug:

Lenafan
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:01 PM
this thread would make more sense if it were not about 17-19 years old players.

I wrote my post before looking at yours. Guess you beat me to the punch.

Neptune
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:30 PM
I agree,Vaidisova has genious in her tennis sometimes,she can play like it was so easily but the second after you seen that,she plays the big shit.....She has lot things to improve.But you can certainly don't know about her future. Number one or not? Better than Maria or Not? I believe yes but that only because I believe so much in Vaidisova 's talent.That's the first time I'm so amazed by a young tennis player!

bellascarlett
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:42 PM
one dimensional players peak sooner as they having nothing to think about while multidimensional ones take longer until their mental side catches up with talent. If you look at the stats, Pova has played almost double the matches than either of the two so Ana and Sova are still inexperienced overall and haven't played many players yet

:spit: :spit:

Wait, who are we talking about here?

Multidimensional...yeah right...:tape:

bellascarlett
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:48 PM
The 3 players are still young and have time on their side to develop more. One thing is for sure though, Maria has more of that champion's mentality at least for now. That mental toughness sets her apart visibly. It's what she had when she won Wimbledon at 17 and even before that; the kind I have yet to see in the other young players mentioned in this thread and even in those that aren't.

Also, apart from her mini-slump weeks after she won Wimbledon, (which I think had more to do with the overwhelming feeling of being a Slam champion at that age and dealing with expectations and which she got over before that season ended,) Maria has been terribly & amazingly consistent.

And I suggest people look back not even at the Wimbledon match but that AO semifinal match Maria played against Serena in 2005. She was only 17 then and yet when I remember that match, I don't see any of the young players with that kind of hunger, desire, fight and albeit she didn't win that match due to inexperience, mental toughness. Watch it and you'll know what I'm talking about. Just amazing for someone that young.

Derek.
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:05 PM
Not everyone is destined to win a slam at 17.

Just because Nicole and Ana haven't haven't won a slam yet doesn't mean they are going to end their career any worse than Maria.

I still believe Nicole and Ana have more talent than Maria and I think that will show when all three are able to play their best at the same time.

Both Nicole and Ana are more versitle which is why Nicole has gone farther @ RG than Maria ever has.

Andy.
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I think its just people want to believe that they are more talented.

Neptune
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:25 PM
I think its just people want to believe that they are more talented.

Or just you who believe that Maria has a chance to beat her on the future;) (sorry this one was easy:lol: ;) )

Tennace
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:27 PM
that's not right!!!!!! Ana and Masha are born at the same year (87)!!!!!!!!:o

Maria was born in April, Ana in November.

Someone can be born on January 1st and someone one December 31st of the same year. So to you this means they are the same age yet they are 364 days apart :confused:

:weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo:

bellascarlett
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:30 PM
I think its just people want to believe that they are more talented.

some of them, yes.

it's more wishful thinking until facts support the argument.

Tennace
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:30 PM
People are stuck in the past.

Nicole has gotten mentally stronger than she used to be. Remember only 3 weeks ago when she trailed Mauresmo 1-6, 2-5 and won saving 3 MPs??? She has to be mentally strong to make a comeback like that.

bellascarlett
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Maria was born in April, Ana in November.

Someone can be born on January 1st and someone one December 31st of the same year. So to you this means they are the same age yet they are 364 days apart :confused:

:weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo:

:confused:

What's the point of bringing up January and December when neither was born on those months?! :lol:

Fact remains both were born in the same year - Maria was born in April and Ana in November.

WIMBLY2004
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:36 PM
Or just you who believe that Maria has a chance to beat her on the future;) (sorry this one was easy:lol: ;) )

How about most people believe Maria will beat her when they meet:lol:

Neptune
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:40 PM
How about most people believe Maria will beat her when they meet:lol:

Sorry,Hasn't it's better;) :p

Milli
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Wtf,if Maria wasn't talented,she wouldn't have won two slams while only a teenager (as Marat once said,one can be luck,but two is something:p ) :eek: I don't think Nicky and Ana are waaay more talented then Maria..please! Ana is extremly talented,Nicole as well of course,but they're still kinda immature as players if you know what I mean. As a player,Maria has matured a lot earlier,and while being very similar to Ana's age,she already is a pretty much formed player ;) Why,I have no idea lol. Well she was competing with older and more experienced players all her life so she is used to it. I think it has more to do with mental strenght then with talent. Imo,they're all pretty much equally talented,but it's about who has mentality and who puts in most of the hard work.

franny
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:43 PM
Not everyone is destined to win a slam at 17.

Just because Nicole and Ana haven't haven't won a slam yet doesn't mean they are going to end their career any worse than Maria.

I still believe Nicole and Ana have more talent than Maria and I think that will show when all three are able to play their best at the same time.

Both Nicole and Ana are more versitle which is why Nicole has gone farther @ RG than Maria ever has.

You don't have to be versatile to win Roland Garros. If you did, Hingis would have like 10 by now. Playing on clay requires footwork, not being versatile. Nicole reached the semis because she played like a madwoman who was hitting the bejezus out of everything. She did not beat Venus or Mauresmo by being "versatile." Her game is power, and that's what she used to win.

SilK
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:10 PM
I liked Maria, disliked Maria... but she could very well become the greatest. :|

T-GIRL87
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:35 PM
To some extent i can understand the originals poster's remark. While I don't believe that Vaidsova and ivanovic are more talented than pova, it has been a question mark as to why neither of the younger players have yet to make a break through, given the absence of many top players. Vaidsova did make an impressive run to the semis of the french, but hasn't since shown any consistency in her results. While it is true that champions don't happen over night, I guess as with every generation we expect the new crop of young players to come into their games all at the same time.

Ben.
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:38 PM
why place alot of pressure on ana & nicole just because they haven't been able 2 produce results like maria has. give them more time & both ana & nicole will deliever. u can't expect players at young ages like 17 or 18 to win slams consistently (with the exception of maria of course).

pooh14
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:19 PM
some people peak earlier, some people peak later. simple as that.
an example, roger federar who peak at a later age compare to nalbadian, hewitt and few others.

i prefer those who peak later. they seem to last longer rather then suffering from burnout

padawanpot
Oct 30th, 2006, 12:01 AM
Maria has incredible self-belief. But it doesn't stop her from working hard on the things she knows she needs to work on. Even her opponents (Kim) have noticed how she's different from the Maria of a few years back. Maybe the learning curve for the other players is just longer. We can't really know who wants it more - but if you base it on a grunt-o-meter... Haha.

Corswandt
Oct 30th, 2006, 12:36 AM
And in a couple of years once Clijsters, Henin, Mauresmo and the Willaims sisters aren't major factors in tennis anymore who do you think will take their places challenging Maria Sharapova at the top of women's tennis? It will be a group of players led by Vaidisova and Ivanovic.

I think (unless Ana and Nicole make something to address the weaknesses on their games - see below) that others will emerge and the 2007-2009 era will be even more open than the current one. Up until today, I thought that the next few years would be a transitional stage, with Maria being the most consistent, though far from dominant, player.

But after watching a tired Maria annihilate a Petrova who had been playing some of her best ever tennis during this tournament, all I can say is may the Lord have mercy on her opponents, because Maria sure won't.

Maria can't really be compared to anyone since the kind of pressure that makes other players fold and choke has the exact opposite effect on her: it whips her into a fighting frenzy and makes her play her best.

Anyh00, about WTAW's most favourite and least favourite young 'uns:

Both Ana and Nicole are inconsistent (though Nicole is much worse in that regard), but they can be expected to become more consistent as they gain experience. But they have massive flaws on their games, which they may or may nor overcome.

Ana - low 1st serve % (though she seems to be working on that), can be pinned to her much weaker BH side, can get too carried away and go for too much with her FH (attempting to hit winners off big first serves from her opponents, for instance). That she is slow almost goes without saying.

Nicole - uses big, wide swings on her groundstrokes - that makes them look stylish to the laymen like myself, but also means she needs more time to set them up than other players do, and her footwork isn't fleet enough to do the needed last minute corrections when she plays against an opponent who hits hard and deep (case in point her recent matches vs Petrova), unless she is playing in clay that gives her some extra time; often she just stands where she is and blindly shoots to whatever direction she happens to be facing at the moment; never holds back and has absolutely no margin for error in her game

What they will achieve in the future depends on how they will work to solve these problems.

Derek.
Oct 30th, 2006, 12:47 AM
Ana and Nicole are inconsistent (though Nicole is much worse in that regard), but they can be expected to become more consistent as they gain experience.

Nicole is actually the more consistent one.

Derek.
Oct 30th, 2006, 12:50 AM
You don't have to be versatile to win Roland Garros. If you did, Hingis would have like 10 by now. Playing on clay requires footwork, not being versatile. Nicole reached the semis because she played like a madwoman who was hitting the bejezus out of everything. She did not beat Venus or Mauresmo by being "versatile." Her game is power, and that's what she used to win.

She used more than power.

Sure her serve/forehand combo did most of the work, but she also attacked the net and even threw in a few drop shots here and there.

Sharapova comes to net too, but it's mostly swinging volleys.

Nicole and Ana have better volleys and slices than Maria.

Maria is tougher mentally, more consistent, and moves better. Most of this comes from experience.

brayster87
Oct 30th, 2006, 12:53 AM
maybe because sharapova is a better player!!

blumaroo
Oct 30th, 2006, 02:24 AM
I think (unless Ana and Nicole make something to address the weaknesses on their games - see below) that others will emerge and the 2007-2009 era will be even more open than the current one. Up until today, I thought that the next few years would be a transitional stage, with Maria being the most consistent, though far from dominant, player.

But after watching a tired Maria annihilate a Petrova who had been playing some of her best ever tennis during this tournament, all I can say is may the Lord have mercy on her opponents, because Maria sure won't.

Maria can't really be compared to anyone since the kind of pressure that makes other players fold and choke has the exact opposite effect on her: it whips her into a fighting frenzy and makes her play her best.

Anyh00, about WTAW's most favourite and least favourite young 'uns:

Both Ana and Nicole are inconsistent (though Nicole is much worse in that regard), but they can be expected to become more consistent as they gain experience. But they have massive flaws on their games, which they may or may nor overcome.

Ana - low 1st serve % (though she seems to be working on that), can be pinned to her much weaker BH side, can get too carried away and go for too much with her FH (attempting to hit winners off big first serves from her opponents, for instance)

Nicole - uses big, wide swings on her groundstrokes - that makes them look stylish to the laymen like myself, but also means she needs more time to set them up than other players do, and her footwork isn't fleet enough to do the needed last minute corrections when she plays against an opponent who hits hard and deep (case in point her recent matches vs Petrova), unless she is playing in clay that gives her some extra time; much of the time she just stands there and blindly shoots to whatever direction she happens to be facing at the time

What they will achieve in the future depends on how they will work to solve these problems.

Agreed with almost everything. Except that I've never seen Ana being as consistent as Nicole was at RG.

Jakeev
Oct 30th, 2006, 02:54 AM
I think there was another thread about this a while back around the time of the US Open.

Talent means nothing if you don't have a killer instinct and a born drive to win. Mental toughness means everything in the sport of tennis. Maria is willing to fight to the end, and that's what makes her a great champion.

This really should have been the end of this thread because it nails the reasons dead on.

Ana and Nicole do not possess, at least at this point, the fire and determination Maria has at winning.

Maria is also stronger than both players. Her forehand is probably not as big as either of the other two, but she still generates enough power to be the dominating factor week end and week out.

madame_maria
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:22 AM
:worship: :worship: :worship: i agree totally.look petrova or mauresmo...or federer in ATP.;)
sharpie should play doubles to improve her net play. she made progress on her moves (she lost some weight since French Open). she should become a serve and volley player but it seems she's in love with her baseline.i don't think she can dominate like serena williams did.

WTF?! :o

do you even know what you are saying?

thomas.chung
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:31 AM
I think it is Maria's desire and background that drove her to her success. Like many of her fellow Russian players, she needs to succeed, that is her "destiny", she knows it, and her father definitely knows. Unlike Ivanovic, Nicole and Golovin, she was not born a well off girl at all. Tennis was her only way out, like a lot of girls in Russia. Unlike the Williamses family, right from the start, the Sharapov family chose tennis as THE only out, in fact, they gambled on it. If she doesn't succeed, she would leave the family in even worse condition than before. Talent aside, I think it was the need that drove Sharapova to her success. And despite the fact I don't like this girl very much, I still admire her and her will. You can tell, every shot she makes was with a desire, a wish that she could win. Unlike lesser players like Ivanovic, who takes it a "it's fine, next point" attitude. For Sharapova, she plays every point as "now or never" attitude. That is the difference.

rommel99
Oct 30th, 2006, 05:16 AM
Partly physical partly mental, but mostly bad footwork. She doesn't have great technique on her groundies.
She needs time. Both of them do. Players mature at different rates.

what about a little luck?? dunno, not bashing maria here. im starting to like her really, but nicole and ana is in the same league as maria was before she won wimbledon.. then suddenly for two weeks the stars aligned for maria, she won wimbledon.. im not saying shes lucky to win wimbledon, but it was unexpected, she deserves that grand slam, but no one can deny that ivanovic and vaidisova has also the talents to win a grand slam, but they dont have the consistency and the belief YET to win 7 matches in two weeks, after maria won wimbledon, the belief that she really is one of the best came to her, and then it followed.

Ben.
Oct 30th, 2006, 07:15 AM
difference is between maria & ana/nicole is obviously the courage 2 fully believe in yourself no matter what circumstances u r in when playin a match & consistency.

tennisrox
Oct 30th, 2006, 07:36 AM
what about a little luck?? dunno, not bashing maria here. im starting to like her really, but nicole and ana is in the same league as maria was before she won wimbledon.. then suddenly for two weeks the stars aligned for maria, she won wimbledon.. im not saying shes lucky to win wimbledon, but it was unexpected, she deserves that grand slam, but no one can deny that ivanovic and vaidisova has also the talents to win a grand slam, but they dont have the consistency and the belief YET to win 7 matches in two weeks, after maria won wimbledon, the belief that she really is one of the best came to her, and then it followed.

Luck plays a part in everything, but luck only comes into the picture when you are both physically and mentally ready to make the best of it. Nicole and Ana are neither.

Maria at this point is more mature than either of them both physically and mentally. Most of all maria has a champions mentality and an iron will, thats what has gotten her so far. I don't consider her particularly special in terms of raw talent. I'd say ivanovic is more talented in terms of innate timing and ball-sense (although she too has some physical limitations), but maria works her behind off and makes the best of her ability. Her forehand is not a great shot, she is not a great mover, her footwork is average, she is not well balanced, she doesn't have the best hand-eye co-ordination, she has little hope of adding finesse shots that can do some damage with her innate timing, and hand-eye co-ordination, but what she does have is incredible levels of determination, and discipline. That is what has helped her maximise her potential.
It is because of sheer willpower that Maria is easier to train than the others. Ivanovic is more instinctive and natural and so she is harder to train conciously. Maria on the other hand has been trained and disciplined from a very young age, and to a large extent is less under the influence of subconcious impulses, so she'll obey the coaches orders to a T and become the star pupil. Unfortunately most coaches are geared towards efficiency, and quick results, but seldom explore the limits of what it is possible to do with shots. They short-circuit creative impulses by constantly supressing the subconcious, by regimented concious repetition. Instinctive players always take much longer to mature than the disciplined, coach-made percentage players. But the end result is often greater longevity, and much better results. I guess i'm saying that natural talent is harder, and riskier to tame, but the quality of the end product is far superior.
Maria will fit the box she's been moulded into, but she won't explore anything outside it, like a huge number of academy-made players. So far the box is good enough, but it won't always be this way. Eventually the box will run out of answers, as has happened on the mens side, when they've been confronted by uninhibited natural talent. BTW I think she'll always be better than nicole. Nicole is no more a natural than sharapova, but maria's attitude is what makes the difference at a subconcious level.

rommel99
Oct 30th, 2006, 11:13 AM
Luck plays a part in everything, but luck only comes into the picture when you are both physically and mentally ready to make the best of it. Nicole and Ana are neither.

Maria at this point is more mature than either of them both physically and mentally. Most of all maria has a champions mentality and an iron will, thats what has gotten her so far. I don't consider her particularly special in terms of raw talent. I'd say ivanovic is more talented in terms of innate timing and ball-sense (although she too has some physical limitations), but maria works her behind off and makes the best of her ability. Her forehand is not a great shot, she is not a great mover, her footwork is average, she is not well balanced, she doesn't have the best hand-eye co-ordination, she has little hope of adding finesse shots that can do some damage with her innate timing, and hand-eye co-ordination, but what she does have is incredible levels of determination, and discipline. That is what has helped her maximise her potential.
It is because of sheer willpower that Maria is easier to train than the others. Ivanovic is more instinctive and natural and so she is harder to train conciously. Maria on the other hand has been trained and disciplined from a very young age, and to a large extent is less under the influence of subconcious impulses, so she'll obey the coaches orders to a T and become the star pupil. Unfortunately most coaches are geared towards efficiency, and quick results, but seldom explore the limits of what it is possible to do with shots. They short-circuit creative impulses by constantly supressing the subconcious, by regimented concious repetition. Instinctive players always take much longer to mature than the disciplined, coach-made percentage players. But the end result is often greater longevity, and much better results. I guess i'm saying that natural talent is harder, and riskier to tame, but the quality of the end product is far superior.
Maria will fit the box she's been moulded into, but she won't explore anything outside it, like a huge number of academy-made players. So far the box is good enough, but it won't always be this way. Eventually the box will run out of answers, as has happened on the mens side, when they've been confronted by uninhibited natural talent. BTW I think she'll always be better than nicole. Nicole is no more a natural than sharapova, but maria's attitude is what makes the difference at a subconcious level.

i agree, im saying that she got lucky for two weeks, she deserves that win but at that young age i wouldve said she was really lucky to win that match, im giving her her glory, she played amazing, like the stars aligned for her, she was losing against davenport and it rained, she played flawlessly against serena in the finals, but she still have to win and she did it, like i said i think ivanovic and vaidisova right now has the capabilities to win, but they dont because i dont think they actually can win a grand slam right now, heck before sharapova won wimbledon, we never expected her to win, but we knew before that that she would win a grand slam, thats why i think winning early for her made her believe alot earlier that she can win grand slams that young, unlike ivanovic and vaidisova

xan
Oct 30th, 2006, 01:53 PM
Maria will fit the box she's been moulded into, but she won't explore anything outside it, like a huge number of academy-made players. So far the box is good enough, but it won't always be this way. Eventually the box will run out of answers, as has happened on the mens side, when they've been confronted by uninhibited natural talent.

This part of your post is total nonsense. The reason Maria has achieved so much in tennis so far is that she is continually learning, adapting and improving her game. She is adding new elements to her game all the time, and this is why the results have been coming thick and fast.

Helen Lawson
Oct 30th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Big Masha is better in every way than the other two.

franny
Oct 30th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Luck plays a part in everything, but luck only comes into the picture when you are both physically and mentally ready to make the best of it. Nicole and Ana are neither.

Maria at this point is more mature than either of them both physically and mentally. Most of all maria has a champions mentality and an iron will, thats what has gotten her so far. I don't consider her particularly special in terms of raw talent. I'd say ivanovic is more talented in terms of innate timing and ball-sense (although she too has some physical limitations), but maria works her behind off and makes the best of her ability. Her forehand is not a great shot, she is not a great mover, her footwork is average, she is not well balanced, she doesn't have the best hand-eye co-ordination, she has little hope of adding finesse shots that can do some damage with her innate timing, and hand-eye co-ordination, but what she does have is incredible levels of determination, and discipline. That is what has helped her maximise her potential.
It is because of sheer willpower that Maria is easier to train than the others. Ivanovic is more instinctive and natural and so she is harder to train conciously. Maria on the other hand has been trained and disciplined from a very young age, and to a large extent is less under the influence of subconcious impulses, so she'll obey the coaches orders to a T and become the star pupil. Unfortunately most coaches are geared towards efficiency, and quick results, but seldom explore the limits of what it is possible to do with shots. They short-circuit creative impulses by constantly supressing the subconcious, by regimented concious repetition. Instinctive players always take much longer to mature than the disciplined, coach-made percentage players. But the end result is often greater longevity, and much better results. I guess i'm saying that natural talent is harder, and riskier to tame, but the quality of the end product is far superior.
Maria will fit the box she's been moulded into, but she won't explore anything outside it, like a huge number of academy-made players. So far the box is good enough, but it won't always be this way. Eventually the box will run out of answers, as has happened on the mens side, when they've been confronted by uninhibited natural talent. BTW I think she'll always be better than nicole. Nicole is no more a natural than sharapova, but maria's attitude is what makes the difference at a subconcious level.

I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone can deny Sharapova's talent. Before Sharapova began winning, everyone was calling her extremely talented. I remember this board loved her before she won Wimbledon. Most commentators and tennis experts thought she was going to be something special in the future. Then she started winning, and it seems that the more she won, the more people denied her talent and attributed her winning to pure will. It is almost as if before, people can say, she has talent but she has yet the success. Now people are saying, she has success but she has not the talent. I just do not understand that.

The way I see it, Sharapova is extremely talented, and most of it is natural. You cannot teach a woman to play her best tennis when it matters most. It is instinctive, and it is inborn. Even when one develops that fortitude, it is not taught, but acquired through instinctual developments of the psyche. It is talent. One cannot teach a woman to pull off the shots that Sharapova pulls off. I watch her matches, and I often find myself just flabbergasted at the type of shots she pulls off. They may not be finesse shots, but the sheer force and placements of her shots are extraordinary. From 3-5 feet behind the baseline she can pull off a huge down the line forehand winner that literally falls into the corner, time and time again (like in the finals against Henin). Stretched out wide she can somehow hit a magnificient crosscourt forehand into the corner at full pace. Down set points she always seems to come up with aces. The serve is immaculate and strategized before each toss. The ball above her shoulder, she can whip the shot and have it thump back onto the court, often pushing her opponent so far back and hitting them with so much pace that they can at most only return the shot into the net. She has the ability to hit a forehand swing volley from beyond the service line. This to me is talent. For a while there, I feel that her talent was wasted by mindless ball bashing and inappropriate approaches to the net. But since the summer, when I watched her play, I can see that she thinks. She moves her opponents around and wears them down. She hits from corner to corner until she has an opening, then finishes the point with a swing volley. People can deny her talent if they want, but the shots she comes up with are amazing in my opinion. It saddens me when people can't appreciate those shots, and instead claim that her success is based purely on her mentality, when quite frankly it is not. I just do not think that people appreciate the technical talent of this girl.

tennisrox
Oct 30th, 2006, 03:53 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone can deny Sharapova's talent. Before Sharapova began winning, everyone was calling her extremely talented. I remember this board loved her before she won Wimbledon. Most commentators and tennis experts thought she was going to be something special in the future. Then she started winning, and it seems that the more she won, the more people denied her talent and attributed her winning to pure will. It is almost as if before, people can say, she has talent but she has yet the success. Now people are saying, she has success but she has not the talent. I just do not understand that.

The way I see it, Sharapova is extremely talented, and most of it is natural. You cannot teach a woman to play her best tennis when it matters most. It is instinctive, and it is inborn. Even when one develops that fortitude, it is not taught, but acquired through instinctual developments of the psyche. It is talent. One cannot teach a woman to pull off the shots that Sharapova pulls off. I watch her matches, and I often find myself just flabbergasted at the type of shots she pulls off. They may not be finesse shots, but the sheer force and placements of her shots are extraordinary. From 3-5 feet behind the baseline she can pull off a huge down the line forehand winner that literally falls into the corner, time and time again (like in the finals against Henin). Stretched out wide she can somehow hit a magnificient crosscourt forehand into the corner at full pace. Down set points she always seems to come up with aces. The serve is immaculate and strategized before each toss. The ball above her shoulder, she can whip the shot and have it thump back onto the court, often pushing her opponent so far back and hitting them with so much pace that they can at most only return the shot into the net. She has the ability to hit a forehand swing volley from beyond the service line. This to me is talent. For a while there, I feel that her talent was wasted by mindless ball bashing and inappropriate approaches to the net. But since the summer, when I watched her play, I can see that she thinks. She moves her opponents around and wears them down. She hits from corner to corner until she has an opening, then finishes the point with a swing volley. People can deny her talent if they want, but the shots she comes up with are amazing in my opinion. It saddens me when people can't appreciate those shots, and instead claim that her success is based purely on her mentality, when quite frankly it is not. I just do not think that people appreciate the technical talent of this girl.

Did I say she's not talented? You don't win two slams and reach no.1 in the world without talent. Read my post a little more carefully and understand what I said first.
If she's really so natural, where would she be without the forehand that lansdorp fashioned, and the serve that was modeled after the sampras serve. She doesn't have natural footwork and poise like a graf, but she has improved to a great extent through years of endless footwork drills. She's improved greatly on her natural limitations because her concious mind is very malleable. She's quite gifted in that aspect.
I'm talking here of natural instinctive talent, and talented coach-created players. Sharapova fits the second category. She has outstanding concious muscle-memory and picks up faster than other players through repetition. That in itself is a form of talent.
A greater natural talent would excel in all the areas that sharapova lacks ie posture, timing, hand-eye co-ordination, feel etc which is why I feel that ivanovic has more natural talent than sharapova. All those things can't be taught, and are inborn. More natural talent does not necessarily guarantee greater sucess, unless all the variables come together favourably. But when it does work, it works to create a far superior player than any coach can create through intense training eg. Federer over a roddick, or a Kuerten over a Muster.

It boils down to two things: Concious and subconcious talent. If a player relies more on the concious as in sharapova's case she can be trained easily, and pick up artificial strokes faster. If a player relies more on the subconcious as in justine-henin's case you are going to end up with more natural strokes, and a more original style. The fact is, even if she wins more slams than justine, you are not going to see too many people who will say that sharapova is the greater natural talent. And I daresay that people will say that sharapova's greatest attribute as a player is her determination, more than anything unique about her game. Does it diminish her slam tally? Nope. But i'm not going to say that she's any more talented than I think she is. Talented enough, but not really special.

tennisrox
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:17 PM
This part of your post is total nonsense. The reason Maria has achieved so much in tennis so far is that she is continually learning, adapting and improving her game. She is adding new elements to her game all the time, and this is why the results have been coming thick and fast.

Who said she isn't improving, or that she doesn't deserve her current results? You clearly didn't read my post properly. The question is how much can she improve, and how much does she need to improve to dominate for a prolonged period. Does she have what it takes? Being moulded to fit a coach-made box, imposes limitations on how much one can improve, and how many dimensions one can add. She's improved, but she's still basically the same player, and not that different from anyone else out there. Is that player enough to dominate for a prolonged period, and is it enough to handle anyone better who may emerge, specifically someone more natural ?
You'll see what i mean in a couple of years. Right now she's ahead of her peers, but it won't stay this way. Then we'll see just how how far a coaches box of tricks can take her towards greatness.

Neptune
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:41 PM
I have to agree.Maria is a mold.When she is on the court and she faces some problems with the play of her opponent.She doesn't try new things or change her game.She plays like she has always played.
Ivanovic can be creative on a court.She has a big talent and when all her game will be on place,she will be a great player.
But I don't know what to say about Vaidisova.She tries new things sometimes.But I don't know if she can go out of the mold??


Sorry for bad english:mad:

franny
Oct 30th, 2006, 06:15 PM
Did I say she's not talented? You don't win two slams and reach no.1 in the world without talent. Read my post a little more carefully and understand what I said first.
If she's really so natural, where would she be without the forehand that lansdorp fashioned, and the serve that was modeled after the sampras serve. She doesn't have natural footwork and poise like a graf, but she has improved to a great extent through years of endless footwork drills. She's improved greatly on her natural limitations because her concious mind is very malleable. She's quite gifted in that aspect.
I'm talking here of natural instinctive talent, and talented coach-created players. Sharapova fits the second category. She has outstanding concious muscle-memory and picks up faster than other players through repetition. That in itself is a form of talent.
A greater natural talent would excel in all the areas that sharapova lacks ie posture, timing, hand-eye co-ordination, feel etc which is why I feel that ivanovic has more natural talent than sharapova. All those things can't be taught, and are inborn. More natural talent does not necessarily guarantee greater sucess, unless all the variables come together favourably. But when it does work, it works to create a far superior player than any coach can create through intense training eg. Federer over a roddick, or a Kuerten over a Muster.

It boils down to two things: Concious and subconcious talent. If a player relies more on the concious as in sharapova's case she can be trained easily, and pick up artificial strokes faster. If a player relies more on the subconcious as in justine-henin's case you are going to end up with more natural strokes, and a more original style. The fact is, even if she wins more slams than justine, you are not going to see too many people who will say that sharapova is the greater natural talent. And I daresay that people will say that sharapova's greatest attribute as a player is her determination, more than anything unique about her game. Does it diminish her slam tally? Nope. But i'm not going to say that she's any more talented than I think she is. Talented enough, but not really special.

Wait, so to be great you have to rely on the subconscious and can get places without a coach? That makes no sense. No one learns techniques on their own. Henin-hardenne had a coach who taught her to hit her serve and her forehand. In fact, how many times has she tweaked her serve? When she tweaks it, it does not come naturally, but through a conscious reevaluation of her service motion with her coach and team. The same with Hingis, Ivanovic, Vaidisova, and everyone else in the game. They had coaches who taught them techniques and how to hit. Graf's footwork was natural and unconscious? No, she practiced and practiced. Same with Seles. They practiced just as much as Maria to get to where they were, and the same goes for Maria. This whole conscious and unconscious talent is quite simply nonsense. If one have "unconscious" talent, how does one judge it? Where do you go determining if a player has "unconscious" talent? How do you measure it? Do you just stick a racket in a player's hand and tell them to hit and then if she is able to perform you say she is naturally talented? "Posture, timing, hand-eye coordination, feel." How does one judge whether one acquires those things through natural ability or practice? Or are you saying that those things cannot be acquired through practice? Because Venus Williams had horrible volleys early on in her career. She worked on it, and acquired now very good volleys and has shown some feel at the net. You don't think Roger Federer hits 200 balls a day in order to make sure his timing is right? You don't think Martina Hingis practices her drop shots to make sure it's done right? How does one judge another player's hand-eye coordination? Do you give them a "hand-eye coordination" test? All those things you said in support of your argument are arbitrary. There is no way to determine whether those things are naturally inborn to a player or if they are acquired through repetition. You can't simply just pick a player and say, this player has bad hand-eye coordination and then pick another player and say that they do when there is no indication of how either got it or did not get it. How do you know that Ana Ivanovic was not taught to hit her forehand the same way as her coach, or that her forehand was model after Graf's the same way that Maria's serve was modeled after Sampras'? Everyone is taught how to hit a ball, everyone has a coach in their development stage. You simply cannot judge what is conscious and unconscious talent unless you pit two players who have never played tennis before and ask them to hit by themselves and see within a set time how far each has advanced. But that is not the case with these players we are comparing right now. All these players we have in discussion have had coaches and help teach them how to hit balls. Thus, to attribute the speed of their develop to the existence of such a thing as "subconscious" talent is to undermine the entire developmental process where a coach has a major impact on the player.

I believe that this argument that Maria develops faster because she is an unnatural talent is invalid. From what I see here, people seem to be trying to rationalize Maria's development to the pure fact that she is "unnatural." People are saying:

If a player is not naturally talented, then they develop faster. Maria Sharapova developed faster. Therefore, she is not naturally talented. This logic is ridiculous and invalid, yet it's what many people here are saying.

Even if one says, "if Maria Sharapova is unnaturally talented, then she develops faster. She is unnaturally talented, so therefore, she developed faster," one would still have to prove that she unnaturally talented. But how? We cannot use your benchmark because as I have shown, those things are all arbitrary. You simply can't judge the level of one's hand-eye coordination, posture, timing, feel all based off what is inborn and what is not. Those things all can be acquired through practice and all can be acquired naturally. So how does one tell which players acquired them naturally and which players didn't? You can't. Other people say that she has no feel, and that that is why she is not naturally talented. 'Feel" too can be practiced and developed. Venus and Serena both developed very good volleys, not because they were natural at it but because they practiced. How do we know that Vaidisova and Ivanovic did not spend considerably more time during their childhoods developing their volleys than Maria, and that that is why they are better positioned when they volley or that their reaction time is faster?

Basically, I'm just trying to say that one can't use the benchmark you gave for saying who is naturally talented and who is not, because talent by itself can only be determined if we only see the finished product that only talent created. If you take a talented player, and you give her a coach, and years of working with a coach, then obviously there are going to be things that a coach has done and things that her natural talent has done. To differentiate those two things is difficult and nearly impossible. Thus, statements like X is more naturally talented than Y is often unsupported and quite frankly extremely susceptible to error.

streag
Oct 30th, 2006, 07:51 PM
Though I'm not Sharapova fan, I don't think that she is less 'naturally talented' than Ana or Nicole. What she lacked when growing compared to these two girls is strength. So when you see her inability to cope with relatively pacy passing shots you tend to think she has no 'feel'. But I think she has too weak forearms and wrists to be able to hit anything resembling a decent volley unless she has time to swing. You need more power in your hands to make punch volley with one short forceful motion. It's almost impossible if you have long spaghetti-weak limbs. Her racket is tuned for power, not for control perhaps right from childhood so it perhaps contributed to her slow development in volleys department. I think she has touch and is capable of fine shots. I remember her doing pretty funky half-volleys, drop-volleys and dropshots enough times to not count them as luck.

So for the most part I agree with franny with some minor reservations. I think someone who's been on the coaching scene long enough and has wealth of experience can tell with more or less certainty which player is more talented. It all comes from intuition and experience, as there are no quantitative tests.

morningglory
Oct 30th, 2006, 07:58 PM
bcuz Maria has a BH... end of discussion anyone?
So simple... but I think that's one major contribution. If you are weak on one wing all ur opponent has to do is play to that wing whenever she can