PDA

View Full Version : Why does Petrova always struggle on grass?


AnnaK_4ever
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:38 PM
Really, Nadia has abysmal record on grass courts: just one Wimbledon QF (which she reached with very weak draw) and one Rosmalen SF. 19-14 in win-loss. What's her problem with the surface?
I'm asking because I have just read her small pre-season interview
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20958907-3162,00.html
in which she says about Melbourne Park courts, "It is a bit faster and the ball stays a bit lower. With my ground strokes and serve, it's going to suit me well."
But if fast courts with low bounce suit her game why does she stumble on grass then?

goldenlox
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:41 PM
Nadia was injured and missed Wimbledon this year. In 2005 she played well at Wimbledon.
She's fine on grass. If she's healthy for Wimbledon in 2007, everyone will see it.

Craigy
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:44 PM
She hasn't been in her best form around the time of Wimbledon I guess...

In The Zone
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:50 PM
Petrova has not been in this form around the time of Wimbledon. She was never Top 10 material until 2004. So that's what, 3 Wimbledons? And she missed one. She just needs time.

Wayn77
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
You should see a marked improvement in 2007. :yeah:

The sliced backhand from the baseline on grass is the shot that needs some serious attention from Ms Petrova.

I am expecting a semi-final berth at the very least!

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:03 PM
She's been off form... blah-blah-blah... She's 24. How long has she been out of form? Six, seven years? It's too large period of time to bring such excuses.

The question with no answer so far. Which is pity because I really don't understand why she can't win on grass with her great serve, net play and groundies :confused:

goldenlox
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:10 PM
It's not that she's off form. She didn't play on grass this year.
Last year she was very strong at Wimbledon.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:28 PM
It's not that she's off form. She didn't play on grass this year.
Last year she was very strong at Wimbledon.

Last year she lost to Dulko in Rosmalen and barely beat No.62 Peschke (the highest-ranked opponent she met) to advance into Wimbledon QF.
The only Top 20 player she has ever beat at Wimbledon was No.17 Farina in 2001.

!<blocparty>!
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:46 PM
She should have taken Maria to 3 in the 2005 QF's had it not been for a couple of lucky net cords at key points deep into the second. :o:sad:

In form, she's a good grass-court player.

Ferosh
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:46 PM
Because of her extreme western grip.

timafi
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:47 PM
Because of her extreme western grip.

come on now so does Amelie:wavey:

goldenlox
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:47 PM
Last year she played a very close match against Sharapova in the Wimbledon quarters.
Similar to their other 2 slam QF's.
This was her best year, with 5 titles. But she missed almost 5 months with a hip injury, including the grass season.

The grip isn't an issue. She has good volleying skills, and she'll do well on grass.

jazar
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:51 PM
the key to winning grass court matches is to come in, volley and close out the net. thats what has been missing from her grass court play. really, i'd say she has a much better chance at the french than wimbledon

PLP
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:54 PM
She's been off form... blah-blah-blah... She's 24. How long has she been out of form? Six, seven years? It's too large period of time to bring such excuses.

The question with no answer so far. Which is pity because I really don't understand why she can't win on grass with her great serve, net play and groundies :confused:

:lol: Well, I love Nadia but I think part of the problem stems from the fact that the bounce is irregular, low, and fast so Nadia doesn't have much time to set up for her shots. Martina for example has amazing results on carpet but has been streaky on the grass, though she obviously has won Wimbledon.

Also there is no grass-season so many players never even really get used to playing on it.
I think this year could be her breakthrough year on grass! We'll see...

Europe rocks
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:57 PM
She has a big serve, good groundies and a solid volley, so she should do well on grass, but maybe she struggles with the transition between clay and grass. Generally when she has done well on clay she has struggled a bit with the grass :shrug: Hopefully she will do better this year, especially as she has no points to lose and it would be a great chance to get her ranking back up to number 3.

Ferosh
Dec 21st, 2006, 08:57 PM
come on now so does Amelie:wavey:

:o

Ok, that was a bullshit excuse. But, you have to remember that up until late 2005 Nadia had yet to win a WTA title. I don't know what could have been this year had she not gotten injured at such a critical point of the season. 2007 is definitely a make or brake year for Petrova. She will be going into the Australian with really good confidence. She has to put everything together and get that slam, because after 2007 it's a tossup.

goldenlox
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:00 PM
She has a big serve, good groundies and a solid volley, so she should do well on grass, but maybe she struggles with the transition between clay and grass. Generally when she has done well on clay she has struggled a bit with the grass :shrug: Hopefully she will do better this year, especially as she has no points to lose and it would be a great chance to get her ranking back up to number 3.A lot of players who do well on clay are injured, or worn out, coming into the grass season.

Craigy
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:13 PM
come on now so does Amelie:wavey:

But the rest of Amelie's game is perfect for Wimbledon :p

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:04 AM
A lot of players who do well on clay are injured, or worn out, coming into the grass season.

Really?
That's why in 2001 Capriati won Charleston and Roland Garros and made it to the SF at Wimbledon, Clijsters reached finals at Roland Garros and Rosmalen and QF at Wimbledon, Henin - SF at Roland Garros, won Rosmalen and finished runner-up at Wimbledon.
In 2002 Serena and Venus played finals in both Paris and London.
In 2003 Justine and Kim won Berlin and Rome respectively and both played final at Roland Garros and semis at Wimbledon.
In 2004 Mauresmo won Berlin and Rome, reached QF in Paris and SF at Wimbledon; Sharapova - QF at French Open and won Birmingham and Wimbledon; Kuznetsova reached final in Warsaw, QF in Berlin/Rome, 4th round at RG and won Eastbourne.
Last year Petrova herself played final in Berlin, semis at Roland Garros and quarters at Wimbledon.
This year Henin made four finals a row in Berlin, Paris, Eastbourne, Wimbledon; even Myskina played final in Istanbul, 4th round at RG, final again in Eastbourne and QF in London.

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:10 AM
Yeah, really. Wimbledon is the only major Justine hasn't won, and it comes after her best results on clay.
Capriati couldn't repeat her RG success at Wimbledon either.
Nadia won 2 Tier I's on clay this year, and wasn't healthy enough to play grass.
The last 3 Wimbledon champs did very little at RG in the last 3 years.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:20 AM
What does Nadia's (in)ability of playing on grass have to do with the last three Wimbledon champions?

Tenis Srbija
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:21 AM
Cause she doesn't have the groundstrokes for gras...that's quite obvious!!!

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:23 AM
Nadia is very good on grass. She didn't lose a match on grass this year, and played very well at Wimbledon last year.
There is no problem for her on grass.

Lefty.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:26 AM
Nadia is very good on grass. She didn't lose a match on grass this year, and played very well at Wimbledon last year.
There is no problem for her on grass.

But Nadia didn't play on grass this year. :confused:

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:34 AM
Grass court Win-Loss records and ratio:

Sharapova - 0.881 - 37-5
Serena - 0.854 - 35-6
Venus - 0.833 - 45-9
Henin - 0.800 - 36-9
Hingis - 0.774 - 24-7
Clijsters - 0.771 - 37-11
Kuznetsova - 0.750 - 18-6
Myskina - 0.706 - 36-15
Mauresmo - 0.705 - 31-13
Pierce - 0.692 - 27-12
Dementieva - 0.641 - 25-14
Petrova - 0.576 - 19-14

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:38 AM
Nadia is 4-1 at the last 2 Wimbledons. That's 80%.
I'm not worried about her 2002 %. Or any other %.
I have tape of her playing at Wimbledon, and she is very good there.
When the grass season comes in 2007, a healthy Nadia will be as much of a force as she is on clay.

Monica_Rules
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:46 AM
I have often wondered this question cos she has a big serve and big groundies. Shes a good vollier aswell and has had good doubles result.

Maybe its a mental thing with her and she just doesn't feel comfortable on grass? But she seems to be progressing in the past few years.

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:49 AM
Nadia lost to Weingartner at RG in 2004. That's the way she was.
But she is improving, and hasn't played on grass since before she won her first tournament.
Now she's won 6.

Wayn77
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:52 AM
I have often wondered this question cos she has a big serve and big groundies. Shes a good vollier aswell and has had good doubles result.

Maybe its a mental thing with her and she just doesn't feel comfortable on grass? But she seems to be progressing in the past few years.

Her grass-court groundies from the back of the court tend to fall apart when the pressure is on. A problem she needs to correct/conquer.

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:59 AM
Her backhand is very good on grass. So is her serve.
Nadia will be a force on grass if she can stay healthy.

Wayn77
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:03 AM
and not forgetting her magnificent volley - even Navratilova was impressed.

I am looking forward to watching Nadia at Wimbly this year, if she is fit she will do well.

Il Primo!
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:04 AM
It was just a matter circumstances

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 11:27 AM
Nadia Petrova, the world No. 6, said she found the Rebound Ace courts at Melbourne Park faster during practice sessions this week.
"I really like the way this court is playing, it's really suiting my game," Petrova said after hitting in the Show Court 3 stadium.
"It is a bit faster and the ball stays a bit lower. With my ground strokes and serve, it's going to suit me well."

goldenlox
Dec 22nd, 2006, 10:18 PM
The last time Nadia played on grass, she had never won a tournament.
I expect her to be better on grass than any other surface.
Just like Amelie, she needs to play a allcourt, attacking game, that keeps her opponents out of rhythm.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/qax21/Nadia%20Petrova/NADIAPETROVA0003.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/qax21/Nadia%20Petrova/NADIAPETROVA25.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/qax21/Nadia%20Petrova/NADIAPETROVA49.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/qax21/Nadia%20Petrova/poster.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n232/princesspetrova/2006%20STUTTGART/petrovastuttgart17.jpg

streag
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:37 AM
It's a question of psychology and to the lesser extent forehand grip. If you don't have courage to play aggressively and prefer to stay @ baseline spinning forehands into the opposite side of the court you have little chance to succeed on grass.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:45 AM
That's true. To beat the real contenders on grass, Nadia has to attack.

Ben.
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:53 AM
she has the game to do well on grass i reckon. her volleys r good, she has the height to intimidate her opponents who try & pass her at the net, has good reach to retrieve difficult shots at the net & has great variety on the serve which can be useful on grass u know.

it's just a matter of putting all these things together & executing it when it comes to playing well on grass.

.Andrew.
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:56 AM
Petrova does pretty well on grass. She really pushed Sharapova in the Wimbledon QFs' last year... Those losses probably came when Nadia wasn't as good a player yet.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:57 AM
Yeah. And I think Wimbledon should be good for Nadia, like it is for Amelie.
They both can volley, and that disrupts the rhythm of the match.
It could mess up her opponent's timing.

Nadia can get to the quarters by staying at the baseline, but to really go far, she has to create an almost frenetic situation, where her opponent feels she has to pass a lot.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 12:37 PM
Grass court Win-Loss records and ratio:

Sharapova - 0.881 - 37-5
Serena - 0.854 - 35-6
Venus - 0.833 - 45-9
Henin - 0.800 - 36-9
Hingis - 0.774 - 24-7
Clijsters - 0.771 - 37-11
Kuznetsova - 0.750 - 18-6
Myskina - 0.706 - 36-15
Mauresmo - 0.705 - 31-13
Pierce - 0.692 - 27-12
Dementieva - 0.641 - 25-14
Petrova - 0.576 - 19-14What do these numbers mean if Nastya is ahead of Amelie?
Nastya is an RG champion, Amelie is a Wimbledon champion.

Viktymise
Dec 23rd, 2006, 12:45 PM
She's been pretty decent on grass since 03 i think, she lost to and in form Venus in 03, nothing she could have done that day and she's not lost any matches she's supposed to win at Wimbledon in her past visits since 03

.Andrew.
Dec 23rd, 2006, 12:45 PM
Nadia can play on grass. I think it is pretty simple. She plays well and has a devastating game from the baseline. And similar to Amelie (like everyone is saying) she has a big serve and that can allow her to serve & volley. The only way I see Nadia losing on grass is if: she is versing someone better than her on the day (happens to everyone :p ), making lots of unforced errors, and when using net game people need to find a way to pass her which is going to be hard because she is quick and nimble at the net.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 23rd, 2006, 12:56 PM
What do these numbers mean if Nastya is ahead of Amelie?
Nastya is an RG champion, Amelie is a Wimbledon champion.

Martinez is a Wimbledon champion, Seles is a Roland Garros champion. Who's better on grass?

And what these numbers show is Amelie never cares of any grass court tournament which is not called Wimbledon losing the first rounds consistently.

Oh, and once again, I'm not asking if Petrova will be a force on grass next year. I wonder why she has not been a force on grass in the recent years.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 12:59 PM
Nadia hasn't been a force on grass because she was injured this year, and she didn't close out close sets against Sharapova in 2005.
That's her problem at every major. Closing out a player like Sharapova, when Nadia is a few points away from winning a set.

lilimi
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:14 PM
i don't think nadia struggle on grass. this year she didn't play because of injury. it's also hard to adapt your game on grass after having played on clay.she can do well on this surface.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:22 PM
i don't think nadia struggle on grass. this year she didn't play because of injury. it's also hard to adapt your game on grass after having played on clay.she can do well on this surface.

Do you know how many finals, semis, quarters has Nadia reached on the surface?

Shonami Slam
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:25 PM
If you wan't to conclude it with reason, then you obviously don't follow petrova much :lol:
really - i can see her losing in the 3rd or fourth round of Wimbledon just as easily as reaching the semis or finals.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:33 PM
If you wan't to conclude it with reason, then you obviously don't follow petrova much :lol:
really - i can see her losing in the 3rd or fourth round of Wimbledon just as easily as reaching the semis or finals.

You're right. I don't follow her much cos I don't like her game at all. But she is great server, very good volleyer, not so bad mover... what else do you need to succeed on the grass?

Shonami Slam
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:42 PM
You're right. I don't follow her much cos I don't like her game at all. But she is great server, very good volleyer, not so bad mover... what else do you need to succeed on the grass?

the right mind to connect the dots.
to a lesser extent, Nadia is like patty - at most ball contacts, she has so many oportunities, that her mind goes random. she's choosing shots better and better, but she's still going for wrong blanks at the faster surfaces. when playing a lesser player, or yet another shot-selection brain-farter (for example, golovin this year - tons of wrong choices from her this year, and too bad she still isn't maturing enough at that prospect).
if she can dominate, boom her serve and swallow up any short balls, then her lovely volley comes into play, she can slice it up in dangerous curvings that shatter up the opponents comfort, and blast the shots cross-court. but when she gets brain-tight with too little time to construct herself she's going to collapse for nonsensicle reasons.

the question should have been why indoors and carpet, and that, i think, is more to the fact she has enough experience on the surface, grew up on it more, and didn't play so many awkward grass players on it in her career.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 01:52 PM
Nadia always had a lot of game. She had to be better mentally. Closing out sets, closing out matches.
She finally won her first title in 2005, then she won 5 this year.
She is going in the right direction.

Wayn77
Dec 23rd, 2006, 03:18 PM
That's true. To beat the real contenders on grass, Nadia has to attack.

That pretty much sums it up Goldenlox. She has all the weapons - she needs to attack and impose her game on grass against the top seeds.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:01 PM
When Sharapova was serving to Nadia at 5-6, love-15 at Wimbledon, Nadia came to net on the next 2 points.
But missed an easy volley, then messed up an easy overhead.
It's mental. Nadia knows what she has to do, but she has to play well on big points.

Wayn77
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:03 PM
Didn't we see something similar trying to close out the first set against Maria in the Linz final?

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:09 PM
Yeah, but Wimbledon is much bigger than a Tier II.
But it was the same thing. Nadia didn't handle the pressure.

Shonami Slam
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:11 PM
nadia's career is definatly one of the more influenced by a countrywomen.
we always talk about Huber and Graf, Henin and Clijsters, Serena and Venus - this is another case of great player bieng shadowed media-wise and on-court by an even bigger star of the closest kind.

the fact that 5 of the 5 sets tied at 5-5 went Sharapova's way tells you the whole story about Nadia bieng a worthy rival throughout evrything except those two or three mental shots.
three tight quarterfinals, all three going to the women later nicknamed (pre-maturly) semi-pova.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:18 PM
Nadia watch Nastya and Sveta win majors. Nadia hasn't peaked when you have to.
But it's hard to judge now, because she wasn't healthy for RG, Wimbledon and the US Open this year.
The majors next year will tell more.

Shonami Slam
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:21 PM
I truly believe the AO QF are hers. whom she then meets and how she deals with it will provide us the story of how 2007 will look like for her.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:33 PM
The AO is just one tournament. I can see Nadia getting beat in Melbourne and then having a huge spring, when some slam pressure is not there.

Shonami Slam
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:38 PM
yeah, i'm now hoping nadia does better at those "one tournaments"... it's the one million ones she got over last year.
anyway - i won't be cross with her if her first slam isn't RG.
paris indoors should be an achievable goal to set up for herself as well.

goldenlox
Dec 23rd, 2006, 04:48 PM
I thought Nadia had reached the highest level of the sport when she had her hip injury after Berlin this year.
But this fall, she wasn't quite as good.
Now she has to get back to the level that won Doha and Berlin.

Corswandt
Dec 24th, 2006, 12:45 AM
another shot-selection brain-farter (for example, golovin this year - tons of wrong choices from her this year, and too bad she still isn't maturing enough at that prospect)

Usually, everything's fine for Golovin as long as she's doing her windscreen wiper routine; but when she actually has to make the decisions herself and finish off the point, particularly in decisive moments, the result is indeed wrong shot selection more often than not. Inexperience, but also a side-effect of playing passively by default.

As for Petrova, the way I see it there's two main reasons for her mental walkabouts:

I) she sticks very closely to the textbook and tries to hit the perfect shot every time; but of course nobody's perfect, so she ends up making needless errors and getting increasingly frustrated and down on herself. Putting this into somewhat harsher terms, she isn't quite good enough to pull off the "perfect" game she attempts to play.

II) she's very intelligent, therefore very self-conscious, and prone to be over-analytical and to put things in perspective. Sports at the highest level ask for single-minded focus, not for the ability to put things in perspective.

goldenlox
Dec 24th, 2006, 02:55 AM
It has to be a mental thing for Nadia not to win a title until she's 23.
She has overcome that, but she still hasn't played her best in week 2 of a major.

Reuchlin
Dec 24th, 2006, 07:12 AM
nadia is also not very good at hitting balls with bad bounces--something that Venus has mastered.

goldenlox
Dec 24th, 2006, 01:56 PM
I think it's more that Nadia gets down on herself when things go bad.
I was looking forward to Nadia playing on grass this spring. Then she got injured and missed the grass season.
I think grass should be fine for a player who can serve well and is good at the net.