PDA

View Full Version : Which is the best youngster?


Pages : [1] 2

tennisrocks123
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:42 AM
Oldest to Youngest:
1- Kirilenko (19 yrs)
2- Chakvetadze (19 yrs)
3- Peer (19 yrs)
4- Ivanovic (19 yrs)
5- Golovin (18 yrs)
6- Krajicek (17 yrs)
7- Radwanska (17 yrs)
8- Vaidisova (17 yrs)

Davenselesport
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:48 AM
Vaidisova seems most impressive for her age... however Golovin and Ivanovic really have amazing potential for the future

antonella
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:54 AM
Seems that Vaidisova has been '17' for the last few years, wonder what her real age is??

Vincey!
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:58 AM
I guess Vaidisova is the most impressive but I think if Golovin hasn't been injured she could be ranked higher and be pretty close of the top 10

selyoink
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:09 AM
Probably Vaidisova. I hope it will turn out to be Tati.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:11 AM
Seems that Vaidisova has been '17' for the last few years, wonder what her real age is??

Umm, she turned 17 in April.

So if 8 months seems like a few years to you then you might want to see someone. :lol:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:13 AM
So far it's Nicole and hopefully it will continue to be that way. :angel:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:17 AM
Nicole's H2H vs. those players...

Vaidisova vs. Kirilenko 1-0
Vaidisova vs. Chakvetade 2-0
Vaidisova vs. Peer 1-0
Vaidisova vs. Ivanovic 0-1
Vaidisova vs. Golovin 3-1
Vaidisova vs. Krajicek 0-0
Vaidisova vs. A. Radwanska 0-0

Total: 7-2

Sharapova's_Boy
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:19 AM
From that list, Vaidisova easily.

.Andrew.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:26 AM
Vaidisova is the best youngster. Followed by Ivanovic, Golovin, Kirilenko, & Chakvetadze.

LudwigDvorak
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:31 AM
Vaidisova, definitely. Golovin is up there, though.

Apoorv
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:35 AM
Sharapova ( 19 yrs. )

cartmancop
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:36 AM
Vaidisova has been most impressive thus far, in terms of overall consistency against solid competition.

It will be interesting to look @ this group in 7 years and see how it all turned out...

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:45 AM
Sharapova ( 19 yrs. )

You need to look at the choices, dear. :wavey:

Lulu.
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:15 AM
Golovin

Apoorv
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:34 AM
You need to look at the choices, dear. :wavey:


I saw and pointed out someone missing. :)

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:14 AM
Ivanovic & Vaidisova are up the top with Golovin & Chakvetadze just behind

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:22 AM
Golovin

How can you say Golovin?

I mean out of fanship?

Because she's 0-5 vs. Ivanovic and 1-3 vs. Vaidisova.

PLP
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:38 AM
This is very difficult for me because I :hearts: many of these players:

1. Anna C
2. Ana I
3. Nikki
4. Shahar

Well, part of me really wanted to put Nikki first but the A's have Tier 1 titles. Yes they may be a bit older, but barely. I feel all 3 will have break through performances this year though ;) .
I was very impressed with how much Nicole improved on redclay this year and think she COULD improve the most out of the 3 this year. Shahar just really impresses me...fighting until the end :worship:

PLP
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:41 AM
Nicole's H2H vs. those players...

Vaidisova vs. Kirilenko 1-0
Vaidisova vs. Chakvetade 2-0
Vaidisova vs. Peer 1-0
Vaidisova vs. Ivanovic 0-1
Vaidisova vs. Golovin 3-1
Vaidisova vs. Krajicek 0-0
Vaidisova vs. A. Radwanska 0-0

Total: 7-2

:worship:

That's very impressive I must say!!! It surprises me that she has only played Ana once!?
Does anyone know what their Junior H2H was like?? :drool:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:42 AM
This is very difficult for me because I :hearts: many of these players:

1. Anna C
2. Ana I
3. Nikki
4. Shahar

Well, part of me really wanted to put Nikki first but the A's have Tier 1 titles. Yes they may be a bit older, but barely. I feel all 3 will have break through performances this year though ;) .
I was very impressed with how much Nicole improved on redclay this year and think she COULD improve the most out of the 3 this year. Shahar just really impresses me...fighting until the end :worship:


Why shouldn't Nicole be first?

Shame on her for not being well in a depleted Montreal or not getting a walkover from Sharapova earlier in the tournament like Anna did in Moscow.

She's ranked higher than both.

She leads Anna 2-0 in H2H and really has been the much more consistent of the three for the past two years basically. :shrug:

Putting Nicole third behind those two is incredibly stupid/biased.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:46 AM
:worship:

That's very impressive I must say!!! It surprises me that she has only played Ana once!?
Does anyone know what their Junior H2H was like?? :drool:


Nicole won their only meeting in juniors at the 2004 Australian Open in the quarterfinals, 1-6 6-1 6-3. :)

jazar
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:17 AM
vaidisova at the moment, as she has found the most consistency, but i think ivanovic has the most potential-she has all the shots and the most rounded game

PLP
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:22 AM
Why shouldn't Nicole be first?

Shame on her for not being well in a depleted Montreal or not getting a walkover from Sharapova earlier in the tournament like Anna did in Moscow.

She's ranked higher than both.

She leads Anna 2-0 in H2H and really has been the much more consistent of the three for the past two years basically. :shrug:

Putting Nicole third behind those two is incredibly stupid/biased.

;) I REALLY did think about it and I just couldn't put her 1st without that big title, though I agree she is quite impressive, I :hearts: Nicole.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:24 AM
Vaidisova, followed by Ivanovic, and btw, it's Michaella. :)

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:29 AM
;) I REALLY did think about it and I just couldn't put her 1st without that big title, though I agree she is quite impressive, I :hearts: Nicole.

I think top 10/RG SF/consistency/leading H2H vs. one makes her better than them. ;)

Nicole beat a lot of the people they lost too.

Ana lost to Mauresmo a few times this year and Nicole beat her twice.

They both lost to Stosur and Nicole beat her three times this year.

It's obviously Nicole at this point.

Ana only went past a quarterfinal once and that was Montreal.

Anna made 2 SF's plus two tournament victories.

Nicole made six semifinals all which were at Tier II or better tournaments.

Plus one tournament victory.

Nicole is clearly the best teenager behind Sharapova.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:31 AM
IMHO the order so far is...

1) Nicole Vaidisova
2) Anna Chakvetadze
3) Ana Ivanovic
4) Tatiana Golovin
5) Shahar Peer
6) Maria Kirilenko
7) Michaella Krajicek
8) Agnieszka Radwanska

But I think Ana will soon be better than Anna.

The Dawntreader
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:36 AM
Vaidisova is obviously better so far, has won more titles and has been in the top 10. however i feel Aga will become a better player in time. She just has such potential and such promise in her game. She seems like a great all-rounder a la Hingis.

Go aga!:D

Shimizu Amon
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:47 AM
Well I go for Vaidisova but I'm hoping that Golovin will improve her game even more so next year I can vote for her :).

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:48 AM
Vaidisova is obviously better so far, has won more titles and has been in the top 10. however i feel Aga will become a better player in time. She just has such potential and such promise in her game. She seems like a great all-rounder a la Hingis.

Go aga!:D


:lol:

I hope you don't think she will be better than all of those on the list above. :haha:

I mean she is good, but she has nothing to hurt any of the above really.

The Dawntreader
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:50 AM
:lol:

I hope you don't think she will be better than all of those on the list above. :haha:

I mean she is good, but she has nothing to hurt any of the above really.

She may in time;)

Obviously, she's not as good or has the experience of any of the above. She hasnt played a fully year on tour yet so we'll see how it goes. Already has some impressive scalps already:)

RG Moonballer
Dec 30th, 2006, 09:23 AM
1. Nicole Vaidisova
2. Ana Ivanovic
3. Shahar Peer
4. Anna Chakvetadze
5. Tatiana Golovin
6. Maria Kirilenko
7. Agnieszka Radwanska
8. Michaela Krajicek

HenryMag.
Dec 30th, 2006, 09:54 AM
Nicole! No doubt!

Craigy
Dec 30th, 2006, 09:56 AM
Golovin :banana:

Craigy
Dec 30th, 2006, 09:59 AM
How can you say Golovin?

I mean out of fanship?

Because she's 0-5 vs. Ivanovic and 1-3 vs. Vaidisova.

Head to heads don't always mean that one player is better than another.
I personally think Golovin is better because her game is more than likely not to break down. Nicole can go like this: Winner, UE, UE, UE, ace, winner, UE, UE :p

Kai
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Nicole.

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:07 AM
Head to heads don't always mean that one player is better than another.
I personally think Golovin is better because her game is more than likely not to break down. Nicole can go like this: Winner, UE, UE, UE, ace, winner, UE, UE :p

Yea,definitely.She has to work on it and varied more her game will be better ,be more patient during one point.Which Golovin already done it.She has a very mature game for her age.I except a lot from her the next two years.But her mental toughness has to be improved.

Princeza
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:11 AM
vaidisova has best potential then ana &tati
radwanska will come in few years

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:59 AM
Anna C for sure. She's won 10 of her last 11, including beating Nadia, Lena D, Jankovic, Safina.
Then Ivanovic, Vaidisova, Golovin.

Tennis-Chick
Dec 30th, 2006, 12:20 PM
Golovin and Vaidisova

frenchie
Dec 30th, 2006, 12:33 PM
Ivanovic
then Chakvetadze

RG Moonballer
Dec 30th, 2006, 12:56 PM
I can't believe that people believe that Radwanska is better than Kirilenko, Peer or Golovin. I mean - come on. Not at this stage of her game.

Mina Vagante
Dec 30th, 2006, 01:05 PM
golovin, she has a great game and a great attitude.

Viktymise
Dec 30th, 2006, 01:57 PM
Vaidisova, future no1 ;)

Elwin.
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:21 PM
Michaella Krajicek; head to head!!

Michaella- Kirilenko 0-0
Michaella-Chakvetadze 1-0
Michaella- Peer 0-0
Michaella- Ivanovic 1-1
Michaella- Golovin 0-1
Michaella- Radwanska 0-0
Michaella- Vaidisova 0-0

Dutglish
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:31 PM
I rate Tati very highly. Still waiting on her first full season of sustained good results, but she's shown on several occasions what she's capable of. After that it's Vaidisova. Not a fan by any means, but with a little more diversity in her play she should be able to maintain her challenge for a higher ranking.

Viktymise
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Golovin hasn't won a tournament of any sort yet, when she does she can be considered the best youngster, right now, Vaidisova and Ivanovic are still better

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:40 PM
Golovin hasn't won a tournament of any sort yet, when she does she can be considered the best youngster, right now, Vaidisova and Ivanovic are still betterIt doesn't matter. Her play In Miami and NYC was very good.
Nicole has only won dinkfests. And Ana I. hasn't proven much either.
I think Anna C has shown the most, and that's just in the last few months.

If any of them is going to be a #1, they have to improve a lot.

blumaroo
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:41 PM
If we look at results then clearly Nicole is the most accomplished.
But when looking at potential for me personally it would go like this:

1. Ana Ivanovic
2. Nicole Vaidisova
3. Anna Chakvetadze
4. Tatiana Golovin
5. Michaella Krajicek
6. Agnieszka Radwanska
7. Maria Kirilenko
8. Shahar Peer

Tenis Srbija
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:43 PM
Gotta agree with "blumaroo"... Ana has most potential of all, but not results.

C'mon Ana :worship:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:43 PM
I disagree with most accomplished. Those 2 wins at RG were against players who often meltdown there.

Tennace
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:44 PM
It doesn't matter. Her play In Miami and NYC was very good.
Nicole has only won dinkfests. And Ana I. hasn't proven much either.
I think Anna C has shown the most, and that's just in the last few months.

If any of them is going to be a #1, they have to improve a lot.

Nicole has made a GS semifinal, which none of the other players listed have accomplished yet. Anna and Ana have won Tier 1 titles.

Tati played well in 2 different tournaments.

I would much rather prefer Nicole's GS semi and multiple tier 1 semis or a tier 1 title over a GS quarterfinals and 1 tier 1 semifinal :)

Viktymise
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:46 PM
It doesn't matter. Her play In Miami and NYC was very good.
Nicole has only won dinkfests. And Ana I. hasn't proven much either.
I think Anna C has shown the most, and that's just in the last few months.

If any of them is going to be a #1, they have to improve a lot.

Golovin doesn't have the standout weapons that Vaidisova or Ivanovic have, plus Golovin can get overpowered much easier and the fact that she hasn't won a title yet questions the mental part of her game

Tennace
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:47 PM
I disagree with most accomplished. Those 2 wins at RG were against players who often meltdown there.

But to get to Tati's GS qf she had to beat a completely off form Petrova and Chakvetadze. Not that hard of a task.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:47 PM
As I said, her RG was a result of a fluke draw. If Nicole was in the quarter with Hingis and Kim, she wouldn't have a slam SF, she wouldn't be top 10, and we wouldn't be pretending she did something special.

Tennace
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:49 PM
As I said, her RG was a result of a fluke draw. If Nicole was in the quarter with Hingis and Kim, she wouldn't have a slam SF, she wouldn't be top 10, and we wouldn't be pretending she did something special.

Nicole played well during RG and would have given Martina or Kim a tough task. She could have beaten them, she was in form. I am not saying she would have but they would have had close matches.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:50 PM
Golvin was very good in Miami. I saw her play. I have it on tape.
She played well in NY.
I'm talking about her quality of play, not micro-analyses of her draws.
Anna C played well in Moscow.
Nicole has no edge on them.

muniu
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:50 PM
As I said, her RG was a result of a fluke draw. If Nicole was in the quarter with Hingis and Kim, she wouldn't have a slam SF, she wouldn't be top 10, and we wouldn't be pretending she did something special.

oh just shut up:o
Nicole bt Anna in Stanford and Now She is better :lick: easy:bounce:

Viktymise
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:51 PM
As I said, her RG was a result of a fluke draw. If Nicole was in the quarter with Hingis and Kim, she wouldn't have a slam SF, she wouldn't be top 10, and we wouldn't be pretending she did something special.

Golovin got a fluke draw in Miami, only had to beat a very off day Dementieva and Zheng to get to the semi's and in New York she only beat a slumping Petrova and Chakvetadze didn't play that well in the 4th round. Nicole played much better in Paris than Golovin did in Miami or USO but she still did well, she beat who she had to beat i still just think Nicole has the more potential and right now and has more weapons

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:52 PM
As I said, her RG was a result of a fluke draw. If Nicole was in the quarter with Hingis and Kim, she wouldn't have a slam SF, she wouldn't be top 10, and we wouldn't be pretending she did something special.

She really played great at The French Open.Her opponent's game was suiting to her game.

Call her lucky,you can also miss the fact,to be a great player,you have to be lucky sometimes.Just look at the others teens who did great in the past years.

Viktymise
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:53 PM
Nicole reacted very well at RG after losing 2 very close 1st sets to Mauresmo and Venus, 2 sets she probably should have won, came out and kept coming at them, thats what really impressed me about her

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 02:55 PM
Call her lucky,you can also miss the fact,to be a great player,you have to be lucky sometimes.Just look at the others teens who did great in the past years.I've seen players like Lena L make the semis at RG.
The draw is vital there.

geri234
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:02 PM
for me it's like this:

1) Ana Ivanovic
2) Nicole Vaidisova
3) Tatiana Golovin
4) Anna Chakvetadze
5) Shahar Peer
6) Michaella Krajicek
7) Agnieszka Radwanska
8) Maria Kirilenko

but I really hope Shahar will make it to the top

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:04 PM
I've seen players like Lena L make the semis at RG.
The draw is vital there.

Lena is not a teen,as far as I know.;) You can't compare.I will prefer you to talk about her game than her supposed "lucky draw".That's too easy to say about each players.
Why do you think Golovin will be better than Nicole?Explain.;)

Sugar_Kane
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:19 PM
Even though she's not on the list Maria is by far the best youngster.

Sharapova vs. Kirilenko 2-1
Sharapova vs. Chakvetadze 2-0
Sharapova vs. Peer 3-0
Sharapova vs. Ivanovic 1-0
Sharapova vs. Golovin 4-0
Sharapova vs. Krajicek 1-0
Sharapova vs. A. Radwanska 0-0
Sharapova vs. Vaidisova 0-0

Her h2h against them all is 13-1:o

Borislove
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:24 PM
1. Ana Ivanovic
2. Nicole Vaidisova
3. Anna Chakvetadze
4. Tatiana Golovin
5. Shahar Peer
6. Maria Kirilenko
I have never seen Krajicek and Aga in action so I can say something about them only thanks to statistics that's why I didn't include them on the list.
Ana has more potential than other players which we can see in her best matches. Nicole is the best nowadays, first of all in mental part of game. Anna has the most various game, not a lot of power but great variety of shots.

Borislove
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:32 PM
Ana's head-to-head:
Ivanovic vs. Kirilenko 2-1
Ivanovic vs. Chakvetadze 3-2
Ivanovic vs. Peer 0-1
Ivanovic vs. Golovin 5-0
Ivanovic vs. Krajicek 1-1
Ivanovic vs. A. Radwanska 1-0
Ivanovic vs. Vaidisova 1-0

Against all of them 13-5

RJWCapriati
Dec 30th, 2006, 03:38 PM
Vaidisova

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Golvin was very good in Miami. I saw her play. I have it on tape.
She played well in NY.
I'm talking about her quality of play, not micro-analyses of her draws.
Anna C played well in Moscow.
Nicole has no edge on them.

LMFAO.

No edge.

GL you are completely ridicoulus.

Nicole has proved she is better than them a lot.

She's 2-0 vs. Anna and 3-1 vs. Tati.

I mean just look at their achievements.

Had Sharapova not withdrawn, Anna wouldn't have won Moscow.

Had Montreal not been so depleted, Ana probably wouldn't have won Montreal.

Unfortunately, Nicole hasn't gotten that luck in the Tier I.

Big deal.

You are ridiculous.

You can't take someone's achievements away because they haven't done one thing.

I'm sorry, but you are truly stupid and immature.

Nicole's game has the potential to take her farther than both Tati and Anna.

When they are facing the big dogs, what weapons do they have?

Tati has a good serve and forehand, but she's not going to overpower anyone.

Anna is solid everywhere, but no killer shot.

Everyone acts like Anna was so amazing, but really we didn't have enough tournaments after Moscow to see if she is continuing her form. The tournament Anna played after Moscow, she lost first round.

Tati made a semifinal in Miami, she played awesome there.

Nicole made a semifinal at a Grand Slam plus two semifinals at Tier I's and then three semifinals at Tier II's.

Anna played a solid second have of the year while Nicole was here and there and Nicole STILL finished three spots higher than her.

I don't know how anyone could say Golovin when she is way down at #22.

I mean, people, get past your hate from Nicole and realize what's really going on here.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:24 PM
As I said, her RG was a result of a fluke draw. If Nicole was in the quarter with Hingis and Kim, she wouldn't have a slam SF, she wouldn't be top 10, and we wouldn't be pretending she did something special.

It was no fluke GL.

She came back from a set down twice, in the later stages of GS's to beat two former GS champions. I mean supposedly they are world class players. Don't you think they'd be able to beat a 17 year old blonde girl who has no talent?

But no.

Nicole came roaring back, broke both of their serves early and never let go.

She outclassed both, she was tougher mentally, she won the bigger points, and that is why she came out the winner. She really should have beaten Venus like 6-2 6-3.

Nicole also backed up her RG win over Mauresmo in indoor which is totally different from clay (incase your petitie brain didn't know that), and saved match points in order to win. Again she stayed tougher than the then #1 player in the world.

But oh yes, Tati's run to the semis in Miami, and a piece of cake draw for a GS QF and Anna's Moscow win (where she was helped a lot by Sharapova) are so much better than that GS SF, leading H2H's, top ten, clearly better results for the past two years, and a much bigger game than those two.

Goldenlox, please.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:29 PM
You are clueless. Sharapova has never played well in Russia.
That's exactly where you want to play her.

Viktymise
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:30 PM
LMFAO.

No edge.

GL you are completely ridicoulus.

Nicole has proved she is better than them a lot.

She's 2-0 vs. Anna and 3-1 vs. Tati.

I mean just look at their achievements.

Had Sharapova not withdrawn, Anna wouldn't have won Moscow.

Had Montreal not been so depleted, Ana probably wouldn't have won Montreal.

Unfortunately, Nicole hasn't gotten that luck in the Tier I.

Big deal.

You are ridiculous.

You can't take someone's achievements away because they haven't done one thing.

I'm sorry, but you are truly stupid and immature.

Nicole's game has the potential to take her farther than both Tati and Anna.

When they are facing the big dogs, what weapons do they have?

Tati has a good serve and forehand, but she's not going to overpower anyone.

Anna is solid everywhere, but no killer shot.

Everyone acts like Anna was so amazing, but really we didn't have enough tournaments after Moscow to see if she is continuing her form. The tournament Anna played after Moscow, she lost first round.

Tati made a semifinal in Miami, she played awesome there.

Nicole made a semifinal at a Grand Slam plus two semifinals at Tier I's and then three semifinals at Tier II's.

Anna played a solid second have of the year while Nicole was here and there and Nicole STILL finished three spots higher than her.

I don't know how anyone could say Golovin when she is way down at #22.

I mean, people, get past your hate from Nicole and realize what's really going on here.

I agree, Chakvetadze was lucky to have won moscow. She wouldn't have beaten Sharapova indoors, Dementieva played her usual topsy turny match, really lena should have won in straights but a very sloppy 1st set and she had to give everything in the 2nd which left her nothing for the 3rd. Petrova was injured in the final, Anna herself said this after her won. Nicole was unlucky not to have beaten Petrova in the semi's of moscow aswell, in a final between Nicole and Anna C i know who id put my money on

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:31 PM
You're both clueless. Sharapova has no win anywhere near an Anna C in Russia.
Nowhere near.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:34 PM
It doesn't matter. Her play In Miami and NYC was very good.
Nicole has only won dinkfests. And Ana I. hasn't proven much either.
I think Anna C has shown the most, and that's just in the last few months.

If any of them is going to be a #1, they have to improve a lot.

Dinkfests my ass.

She still had to beat great players in order to win.

Petrova who had just beaten Nicole at the US Open.
Golovin - you know, that one girl you claim that is better than Nicole.
Kirilenko - she had just won Beijing.
Jankovic

She didn't even lose a set when she won Seoul.

She beat Petrova 7-5 in the 3rd, another top ten player which she stayed tougher mentally than and won the bigger points.

This was Nicole at 16.

GL, you try to go onto the tour, whichever one because I can never tell if you're a girl or a boy, and try to win three straight titles at 16 years old.

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:34 PM
You're both clueless. Sharapova has no win anywhere near an Anna C in Russia.
Nowhere near.

That's the only thing you can say.You talk,you talk but you have not argument........I'm totally agree with Derek and Lenavee even if I like Anna.

TTomek
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:35 PM
Anna and Tati :p

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:35 PM
You're both clueless. Sharapova has no win anywhere near an Anna C in Russia.
Nowhere near.

She withdrew from their match.

As most of us know, Sharapova probably would have won.

I was happy when she withdrew, but now I'm pissed because if she hadn't, we likely wouldn't have to listen to you come up with another reason to degrade Nicole's achievements and top ten status.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:36 PM
I'm giving you an argument. Saying Sharapova would have beaten Anna in Moscow is meaningless, it's like saying Sharapova would beat Justine on clay. Sharapova's best win in Russia is Bychkova, who had a sp.
Anna was the best player at that Tier I.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:39 PM
I'm giving you an argument. Saying Sharapova would have beaten Anna in Moscow is meaningless, it's like saying Sharapova would beat Justine on clay.
Anna was the best player at that Tier I.

:lol:

Goldenlox, please.

Justine is 5-2 and a three time RG champion so she is clearly the favorite.

Sharapova beat Anna both times they have met, even one time where Maria was in tons of pain, and still came out the winner.

But oh, because Anna was playing good tennis, Sharapova, 2 time GS Champion, former #1, and world class player wouldn't be able to handle her.

Get real, GL.

But keep on going as your arguements get more and more pathetic as you go on. :lol:

Nicolás89
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:39 PM
nicole top 10 others on the list top 20 or top 60 so its pretty clear :wavey:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Anna beat Dinara, Lena and Nadia that week.
If you can't understand that, it's your problem, not mine.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:42 PM
And if Nicole had a tough draw at RG, there wouldn't be a discussion like this.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:43 PM
Chakvetadze's H2H vs. the girls...

Chakvetadze vs. Ivanovic 2-3
Chakvetade vs. Vaidisova 0-2
Chakvetadze vs. Golovin 1-2
Chakvetadze vs. Krajicek 0-1
Chakvetadze vs. Peer 2-0
Chakvetadze vs. Radwanska 0-0
Chakvetadze vs. Kirilenko 2-1

Total: 7-9

Oh, she's clearly the best of the bunch. :lol: :tape:

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:44 PM
That's funny.You explain Nicole was lucky at Rg because the others players was crap.And then,you say Maria was playing bad in Moscow,that's why Anna will win against her.And,funny,because you don't call this "an easy draw" but "Anna was the best player".......

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Anna's record the 2nd half of 2006 speaks for itself. And she has almost nothing to defend for months.
Same with Jankovic. They were super, and late in the year.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Anna beat Dinara, Lena and Nadia that week.
If you can't understand that, it's your problem, not mine.

Dinara was in crap form.

I mean even Daniela beat her easily not to long before that. ;)

Elena is very inconsistent, and this was a tough match anyway.

The win over Nadia was good as she looked to be returning from form.

It was a good win, but if Sharapova wouldn't have withdrawn, you would have no arguement. Not as if you really have one now.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:47 PM
That's funny.You explain Nicole was lucky at Rg because the others players was crap.And then,you say Maria was playing bad in Moscow,that's why Anna will win against her.And,funny,because you don't call this "an easy draw" but "Anna was the best player".......It's not an easy draw when you beat 2 YEC players and an alternate at the YEC.

I'm saying, trying to play the Sharapova withdrawal as ultra important, goes against Sharapova's record there.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:48 PM
Anna's record the 2nd half of 2006 speaks for itself. And she has almost nothing to defend for months.
Same with Jankovic. They were super, and late in the year.

Lost to Morigami, Shaughnessy, Li, Zvonareva, Zvonareva, Henin-Hardenne, Vaidisova, A. Bondarenko, Hingis, Voskoboeva, Golovin, Davenport, Stosur.

Those are her losses since May.

Still a bit hit and miss I think. :shrug:

supergrunt
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:48 PM
Definatley Nicole.. she just has.. it :) I think Jamea is worthy of the list as well. :)

Athanasios
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:48 PM
I voted for Vaidisova, even though I like Kirilenko more.

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:51 PM
It's not an easy draw when you beat 2 YEC players and an alternate at the YEC.

I'm saying, trying to play the Sharapova withdrawal as ultra important, goes against Sharapova's record there.

Come on,Dementieva is the most easy top 10 players to upset.
And,Nadia was cleary tired after her long semi against Nicole....I can carry on like this for years........But,that's no sense.You don't want to recognize that Nicole is a good player...

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:51 PM
Nicole 2006: 39-16
Anna 2006: 37-20
Ana 2006: 35-18
Tatiana 2006: 26-19

Nicole had the most wins and still played less tournaments than those.
And it's not as if Nicole's wins came at dinky tournaments.
She only played one Tier III in 2006, which she won of course.
Those wins were coming at the Tier II level and above.

supergrunt
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I mean she beat Sharapova in straights on grass! And Venus even went to talk to her... she must be the real deal. :)

supergrunt
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:52 PM
Jamjam that is

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Lost to Morigami, Shaughnessy, Li, Zvonareva, Zvonareva, Henin-Hardenne, Vaidisova, A. Bondarenko, Hingis, Voskoboeva, Golovin, Davenport, Stosur.

Those are her losses since May.

Still a bit hit and miss I think. :shrug:Definately. So is Jankovic.
But going into Moscow, her draw was real.
Going into RG, it was obvious that Sveta got lucky. All the real contenders were in the other half.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:55 PM
Tati's H2H vs. the girls...

Golovin vs. Vaidisova 1-3
Golovin vs. Ivanovic 0-5
Golovin vs. Chakvetadze 1-2
Golovin vs. Radwanska 1-0
Golovin vs. Krajicek 1-0
Golovin vs. Peer 0-0
Golovin vs. Kirileko 0-1

Total: 4-11

:tape:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:55 PM
Come on,Dementieva is the most easy top 10 players to upset.
And,Nadia was cleary tired after her long semi against Nicole....I can carry on like this for years........But,that's no sense.You don't want to recognize that Nicole is a good player...I'm not saying she isn't a good player. I'm saying that her RG SF was draw related. So was Sveta's final appearance.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:57 PM
It's obvious Nicole and Ana are the best of the bunch and have the most potential.

If any of the other girls listed caught them on a normal, good day, they'd probably lose.

So far, Nicole has achieved the most out of the bunch and I don't think you can really ignore that. But go ahead and try GL.

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:58 PM
I'm not saying she isn't a good player. I'm saying that her RG SF was draw related. So was Sveta's final appearance.

Oh,Venus and Mauresmo are bad,we all know that......It's better to play Nadia and Dementieva in a Tiers one event.There is a lot of pressure,more than for a Gs,that's well know!

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:58 PM
I'm not saying she isn't a good player. I'm saying that her RG SF was draw related. So was Sveta's final appearance.


Nicole had just been demolished by Amelie in January.

But Nicole got over that, stayed tough and won.

And she beat her again in Moscow.

Everyone says Venus gave her the match.

Venus had about 70 UE's.

But Nicole had about 60 UE's of her own.

I mean, UE's didn't play that big of a role.

It was more about Nicole winning the big points. A great sign for a 17 year old in her first GS QF to do vs. 5-time GS champion such as Venus.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Nicole was a good player back in 2005. Other players might have caught up. We will find out as the years go by.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Oh,Venus and Mauresmo are bad,we all know that......It's better to play Nadia and Dementieva in a Tiers one event.There is a lot of pressure,more than for a Gs,that's well know!At RG, that's the softest quarter.

Craigy
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Meh, this thread is also going down the drains.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:01 PM
Nicole was a good player back in 2005. Other players might have caught up. We will find out as the years go by.

As if she isn't still now? :lol:

Getting into the top 10 so young is just not good enough these days. :(

Those girls may have improved, but so has Nicole.

Which is why she owns a 7-2 record vs. them.

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:03 PM
At RG, that's the softest quarter.

:help: ok,I give up.....Nicole will be Russian,You will be crazy about her!But,sadly for you,she's czech!

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:07 PM
Golovin established herself earlier than any of the players listed.

But, both Nicole and Ana came out of no where basically to beat Tati.

#156 Ivanovic d. #26 Golovin 7-5 6-7(2) 7-6(3)
#111 Vaidisova d. #29 Golovin 6-4 6-3 6-4

Both in 2004.

Both have continued to rise up faster, while Tati has stalled a bit.

Now Nicole is a top ten player and Ivanovic is a top 15 player.

Tati is a top 25 player.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:08 PM
I said Sveta got lucky with her draw.
I wrote it in her cheering thread when the draw came out.

I can't believe you Nicole fans think that half at RG was anything other than soft.

P_Fer
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Out of those options, I have to go with Vaidisova

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Next time Goldenlox, pick a fight against someone your own size where you actually stand a decent chance to win. :wavey:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:11 PM
I said Sveta got lucky with her draw.
I wrote it in her cheering thread when the draw came out.

I can't believe you Nicole fans think that half at RG was anything other than soft.


Whatever.

Nicole still backed up her RG run by going deep in several other big tournaments and beating Mauresmo once again.

Roland Garros didn't propel her into the top ten.

It certainly helped, but it was actually her semfinanl runs at Stanford and San Diego (where she beat Anna again) that put here there. ;)

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:16 PM
What got her into the top 10 was Dinara getting ill in the fall.
But that doesn't matter. 10, 13.. that's close enough. Look where they were in July...

Dexter
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:31 PM
#111 Vaidisova d. #29 Golovin 6-4 6-3 6-4:weirdo:

Dexter
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:34 PM
What got her into the top 10 was Dinara getting ill in the fall.
But that doesn't matter. 10, 13.. that's close enough. Look where they were in July...wtf? Nicole got into Top10 before US Open :lol:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:45 PM
I meant, obviously, the YE top 10.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:55 PM
:weirdo:

6-4 3-6 6-4. :ras:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:56 PM
I meant, obviously, the YE top 10.

And Dinara basically got in there because Nicole didn't defend her three tournament run last year. :wavey:

Once Dinara became a top ten player she got beaten easily by Hantuchova and Chakvetadze.

Berlin_Calling
Dec 30th, 2006, 05:57 PM
azarenka should be in the list ;)

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:00 PM
azarenka should be in the list ;)

I love Vika to death, but she's ranked #92 in the world, so no.

Tenis Srbija
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Well in order to someone gets into top 10, someone has to drop out... :rolleyes:

And almoust always in tennis, someone didn't defened some points... :ras:

Dexter
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:01 PM
I meant, obviously, the YE top 10.fair enough ;)

to be honest it was Dinara who was lucky to get into Top10 for a couple of weeks as a result of Nicole's pts from Asia's tournaments being taken off, whilst she couldn't win against Hantuchova :tape: :help:

Here's for a great 2007 for all youngsters! :D

Especially Ana & Nicole! :angel:

:inlove:
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:28 PM
I have to say Nicole. ;)

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 06:49 PM
whilst she couldn't win against Hantuchova :tape: :help::


Don't be hatin' on my queen now. :angel:

But I must admit I was shocked with the result myself. :tape:

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:06 PM
I can't believe that people believe that Radwanska is better than Kirilenko, Peer or Golovin. I mean - come on. Not at this stage of her game.

I can't believe you think that Aga's better than anyone at this stage - she hasn't even played a full year on tour... and does she have any WTA titles?

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:24 PM
Golovin established herself earlier than any of the players listed.

But, both Nicole and Ana came out of no where basically to beat Tati.

#156 Ivanovic d. #26 Golovin 7-5 6-7(2) 7-6(3)
#111 Vaidisova d. #29 Golovin 6-4 6-3 6-4

Both in 2004.

Both have continued to rise up faster, while Tati has stalled a bit.

Now Nicole is a top ten player and Ivanovic is a top 15 player.

Tati is a top 25 player.

Golovin's older than Vaidisova thoguh, so it's kinda natural that she'd establish herself first - especially with the AER, right?

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:27 PM
I said Sveta got lucky with her draw.
I wrote it in her cheering thread when the draw came out.

I can't believe you Nicole fans think that half at RG was anything other than soft.

Yet Anna C's draw was the hardest imaginable at a Tier 1? :tape: :haha:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:50 PM
Golovin's older than Vaidisova thoguh, so it's kinda natural that she'd establish herself first - especially with the AER, right?

I know.

But my point was they were able to beat an established Golovin. ;)

Karolina_Sprem
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:51 PM
From the list I would say Vaidisova....

But in my opinion I would say Vania King... She's a great young player....

Go, Go Vania.....

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:52 PM
From the list I would say Vaidisova....

But in my opinion I would say Vania King... She's a great young player....

Go, Go Vania.....

She's not as good as the ones listed.

She probably could beat Aga though.

Lulu.
Dec 30th, 2006, 07:57 PM
I forgot all about Jamea Jackson. Shes pretty good also

Nicolás89
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:08 PM
I forgot all about Jamea Jackson. Shes pretty good also

naa she is too much like the williams sisters for me:lol:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:28 PM
Yet Anna C's draw was the hardest imaginable at a Tier 1? :tape: :haha:It was as tough as anything Nicole's ever done.
Much tougher than anything Krajicek has ever done.

tennisrocks123
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:58 PM
Nicole has a better serve and backhand, but Ana's forehand is DEADLY and is better at net.

AnneSo006
Dec 30th, 2006, 08:59 PM
Tati of course! ;)

Geertvg
Dec 30th, 2006, 09:06 PM
I think the results speak for itself. Nikki! :)

Nicolás89
Dec 30th, 2006, 09:27 PM
Nicole has a better serve and backhand, but Ana's forehand is DEADLY and is better at net.

i dont think that nicole has a better backhand
both backhands arent very good though:help:

nicole is good at the net (when she goes at net ofcourse, not very often), ana yeah is good at net too mmm and nicole forehand is very deadly too, even more deadly than anas forehand for me

in movement nicole is a litle bit faster than ana (both are slow)
and in defense nicole can defend herself ana just cant
in serve nicole is much much better than ana
so in overall performance nicole is a better player, at the time, for me

thats my opinion:wavey:

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:12 PM
I know.

But my point was they were able to beat an established Golovin. ;)

:lol: I didn't disagree with that.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:14 PM
It was as tough as anything Nicole's ever done.
Much tougher than anything Krajicek has ever done.

wtf does Misa have to do with anything? Your discussion was about Nicole and Anna C. I NEVER said Misa had done anything close to what either Nicole OR Anna had done, so there's no need to get shitty and try to start bagigng her.

Yes, Anna C's draw may have been AS TOUGH (your words), but no more or less, so therefore Nicole is the better player at the moment of those 2 (in particular as those were the 2 being discussed).

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Tati of course! ;)

"of course" because?

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:20 PM
You can disagree about beating Amelie and Venus at RG, vs beating Nadia, Lena and Dinara in Moscow.
All 4 Russians are from Moscow, and 3 of them still live there, except for Dinara, That's an important tournament for Lena and Nadia.
So that was a huge win for Anna, and she won 10 straight matches.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:23 PM
For now Vaidisova looks the best and then Ana. Hopefully Ana can change it this year!

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:24 PM
You can disagree about beating Amelie and Venus at RG, vs beating Nadia, Lena and Dinara in Moscow.
All 4 Russians are from Moscow, and 3 of them still live there, except for Dinara, That's an important tournament for Lena and Nadia.
So that was a huge win for Anna, and she won 10 straight matches.

The last year,in 2005,Nicole win 18 straight matches and also win 3 tournements in a row by beating Nadia,Jelena........

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:25 PM
I'm including winning a Tier I in those 10 straight. Not a tour of Tier IV's.

SilK
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:26 PM
I personally think Golovin is the best out of the bunch, but that's just me. Not looking at results, but looking at type of player she is and her tennis ability. Followed by Kirilenko, if Maria only focused more on tennis and get some stability tennis-wise. Stella McCarthy ain't gonna cut it as a coach... :p :p :p

After that... I think Nicole has proven herself, but she's a Sharapova part two. There is nothing wrong with that, Maria achieved great things, but Nicole lacks the mental toughness of Maria. Nicole feels like a come and go'er, some day her time is just over.

Game-wise, Peer, Radwanska & Krajicek IF they continue to grow and approve can be around for the long run. All in the top20 for years... IMHO Krajicek's only problem is her father. She needs to pull a Richard and get a coach and get to work!

Ivanovic... I just don't know what to think. I've seen her play several times and I just don't know.

Chakvetadze is the one I am not impressed by at all. Sure she has some good wins. Sure she won a Tier 1. But she's so inconsistent. I don't see her around for a long time. :shrug:

Anyway, ALL of these girls are top20 material. And all of these girls will be playing each other frequently when the Henin/Mauresmo/Belgians/current Russians days are over.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:30 PM
I personally think Golovin is the best out of the bunch, but that's just me. Not looking at results, but looking at type of player she is and her tennis ability.

Ivanovic... I just don't know what to think. I've seen her play several times and I just don't know.



Yeah better don't look at the results:

Head To Head

Ana - Tati 5-0

7-5 6-7 7-6
6-3 6-4
6-4 5-7 7-5
7-5 6-3
6-4 6-2


Watch more matches of Ana and eventually..........you will know :devil:

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:31 PM
You can disagree about beating Amelie and Venus at RG, vs beating Nadia, Lena and Dinara in Moscow.
All 4 Russians are from Moscow, and 3 of them still live there, except for Dinara, That's an important tournament for Lena and Nadia.
So that was a huge win for Anna, and she won 10 straight matches.

I do disagree, because so far Anna has had 1 great tourney (maybe 1.5 - coz Guangzhou wasn't THAT tough) and that's all, whereas Nicole has had better results consistantly more than Anna C has. Moscow may be an important tourney for Nadia and Elena, but it may also cause them to have more pressure because they really wanna win their home tourney - like Amelie at RG... :shrug: Dinara was playing crap during the indoor season (because she was sick), so that win I wouldn't even count. Nice for Anna that she won 10 straight matches, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of her vs Nicole's achievements. I don't have anything against Anna, but you are seriously deluded if you can pick ONE tournament of Nicole's and try to say it's not legit, when she's had so many other good results too, and then try to use ONE tourney of Anna's to proove that she's better than Nicole. Sorry, she's just not. The rankings tell the story. Anna C may go on to be better than Nicole, time will tell, but at the moment, Nicole's achievements (and ranking) are better than Anna's. Plus Nicole is like 2 years younger than Anna!

SilK
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Yeah better don't look at the results:

Head To Head

Ana - Tati 5-0

7-5 6-7 7-6
6-3 6-4
6-4 5-7 7-5
7-5 6-3
6-4 6-2

Watch more matches of Ana and eventually..........you will know :devil:

Kirilenko def. Ana 6-4 6-4
Chakvetadze def. Ana 4-6 6-2 6-4
Chakvetadze def. Ana 4-6 6-4 6-1
Poutchkova def. Ana 6-3 4-6 6-2
Krajicek def. Ana 6-3 6-4

All matches played this year. All matches Ana lost to player who in my opinion are lesser player than Golovin. Results mean nothing. There are countless player who've have bad H2H records and then came back over the years to level or lead even. Don't forget that half of the Ana vs. Tatiana matches were really close. That said...

I think it's a shame you can't look at it from another perspective instead of the crazed-Ana-fan perspective. She's a good player, but when I look at it from a point of view from someone who likes tennis and knows a little bit about it... I think Golovin has better abilities carreerwise. That's it.

Don't get into defense-mode, or jump to conclusions just because I said something about your fav. you do not agree with. Ana is a good player.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:41 PM
I'm including winning a Tier I in those 10 straight. Not a tour of Tier IV's.

Btw, Tokyo and Bangkok were Tier THREE, not tier 4... only one of those 3 she won in a row was a tier 4.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:45 PM
Game-wise, Peer, Radwanska & Krajicek IF they continue to grow and approve can be around for the long run. All in the top20 for years... IMHO Krajicek's only problem is her father. She needs to pull a Richard and get a coach and get to work!


The only problem is, it's a totally different situation than it was with Richard. Misa and her Dad get on really well, and she doesn't want to break with him...although there may be a slight "godsend" in that department, coz Petr's health is not so good (especially his knees), so I dunno if he's gonna wanna keep travelling so far for much longer. Then she might HAVE TO go out and get a new coach. Although she does work with some other coaches in Prague at the club where she trains.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:46 PM
Anna didn't come good until the summer. She also was injured and retired in her Montreal semi.
We'll see as the years go by.

I think the Bradenton girls are trained 24/7 to mature early. So Nicole and Tati having big results, young, doesn't mean, to me, that they continue to improve and improve.

SilK
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:48 PM
The only problem is, it's a totally different situation than it was with Richard. Misa and her Dad get on really well, and she doesn't want to break with him...although there may be a slight "godsend" in that department, coz Petr's health is not so good (especially his knees), so I dunno if he's gonna wanna keep travelling so far for much longer. Then she might HAVE TO go out and get a new coach. Although she does work with some other coaches in Prague at the club where she trains.

I know. I know. I only wanted to say I think she needs to get a coach besides her dad. Didn't mean to imply anything bad. ;)
It's probably still a money issue as well. Coaching etc. are expensive and Misa isn't making THAT MUCH yet. I think that when Richard becomes her manager things will change... don't you?

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:49 PM
I do disagree, because so far Anna has had 1 great tourney (maybe 1.5 - coz Guangzhou wasn't THAT tough) and that's all, whereas Nicole has had better results consistantly more than Anna C has. Moscow may be an important tourney for Nadia and Elena, but it may also cause them to have more pressure because they really wanna win their home tourney - like Amelie at RG... :shrug: Dinara was playing crap during the indoor season (because she was sick), so that win I wouldn't even count. Nice for Anna that she won 10 straight matches, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of her vs Nicole's achievements. I don't have anything against Anna, but you are seriously deluded if you can pick ONE tournament of Nicole's and try to say it's not legit, when she's had so many other good results too, and then try to use ONE tourney of Anna's to proove that she's better than Nicole. Sorry, she's just not. The rankings tell the story. Anna C may go on to be better than Nicole, time will tell, but at the moment, Nicole's achievements (and ranking) are better than Anna's. Plus Nicole is like 2 years younger than Anna!


Goldenlox is a retard.

All she thinks is Russian tennis, but she can't even except Russia's best player.

I used to think she was a good poster, but now she's showing her true side.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Anna didn't come good until the summer. She also was injured and retired in her Montreal semi.
We'll see as the years go by.

I think the Bradenton girls are trained 24/7 to mature early. So Nicole and Tati having big results, young, doesn't mean, to me, that they continue to improve and improve.


Nicole beat Anna in the summer time too.

If peak Nicole played peak Anna there would be no contest.

Nicole would win.

And that's the truth.

Nicole and Ana's game allows them to be able to eventually beat the top players even when the top players are playing well too.

Anna needs people to be off because she can't create as much on her own. She'll always need errors to beat the bigger and stronger girls with her game. No big weapon.

Craigy
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:51 PM
:lol: This thread

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:52 PM
:lol: This thread

It's mostly this long because if GL's ignorance.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:53 PM
Anna didn't come good until the summer. She also was injured and retired in her Montreal semi.
We'll see as the years go by.

I think the Bradenton girls are trained 24/7 to mature early. So Nicole and Tati having big results, young, doesn't mean, to me, that they continue to improve and improve.

Yeah, but it doesn't mean they won't continue to improve either. We don't know what will happen in the future.

Craigy
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'm not even gonna read back through this thread :lol: :o

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:54 PM
I like this discussion because all the arguments have some merit.
Nicole matured early, and has 2 years of good results.
Tati played very well in Miami and NYC.
Ana won a Tier I.
Anna C won a Tier I

They all have a chance to be long term top 10 players.
Maybe challenge for #1 if they keep improving.

Mileen
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:55 PM
[QUOTE=goldenlox;9697229]Golvin was very good in Miami. I saw her play. I have it on tape.

I'm talking about her quality of play, not micro-analyses of her draws.
QUOTE]


:worship: :worship: Award for best Quote of 2006!

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:59 PM
Kirilenko def. Ana 6-4 6-4
Chakvetadze def. Ana 4-6 6-2 6-4
Chakvetadze def. Ana 4-6 6-4 6-1
Poutchkova def. Ana 6-3 4-6 6-2
Krajicek def. Ana 6-3 6-4

All matches played this year. All matches Ana lost to player who in my opinion are lesser player than Golovin. Results mean nothing. There are countless player who've have bad H2H records and then came back over the years to level or lead even. Don't forget that half of the Ana vs. Tatiana matches were really close. That said...

I think it's a shame you can't look at it from another perspective instead of the crazed-Ana-fan perspective. She's a good player, but when I look at it from a point of view from someone who likes tennis and knows a little bit about it... I think Golovin has better abilities carreerwise. That's it.

Don't get into defense-mode, or jump to conclusions just because I said something about your fav. you do not agree with. Ana is a good player.

I can be really realistic and I will be this realistic this time too.
I don't know why you show the worst results of Ana in 2006. (ok you forgot Stosur). Golovin lost last year to: Santangelo, Bartoli, Dulko, Zheng, Pratt and Frazier. So I don't see your point in that. I kinda know how far Ana is at the moment. Now I can't really say who's further, cause Golovin played well in the last months and Ana played worse after Montreal.
2007 will say a lot more.

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 10:59 PM
I like this discussion because all the arguments have some merit.
Nicole matured early, and has 2 years of good results.
Tati played very well in Miami and NYC.
Ana won a Tier I.
Anna C won a Tier I

They all have a chance to be long term top 10 players.
Maybe challenge for #1 if they keep improving.

You try to say something good because Dutchiegirl "kiss your ass" by saying your arguments are biased.You're really funny,don't change!;)
Btw,Your post are always interesting when you're not talking about Russian players.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:00 PM
I know. I know. I only wanted to say I think she needs to get a coach besides her dad. Didn't mean to imply anything bad. ;)
It's probably still a money issue as well. Coaching etc. are expensive and Misa isn't making THAT MUCH yet. I think that when Richard becomes her manager things will change... don't you?

I wasn't disagreeing that she could do with a new coach, and I didn't think you were implying anything bad. I was just saying that as the situation is at the moment, I doubt Misa's gonna break with her Dad, because they get on really well (and well, we all know why Richard broke with their Dad). Misa does use other coaches in Prague, but they never go with her to tourneys - which is probably what she needs more as well. But I think it'd be good if her Dad could still travel with her too - for a little bit longer anyway.

It will be interesting to see what will happen with Richard and becoming Misa's manager - Misa's contract is up in Jan, and Richard has said he won't even look at becoming Misa's manager until August or something so... :shrug: Then she'll have to have no manager till then if she wants him to be her manager. And I dunno how far Richard would go to stop their Dad being Misa's coach - think it'd be a hard situation for him, and he'd have to be very careful not to "blow up" the family again...

Tenis Srbija
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:00 PM
I adore this "Who is best" threads :lol: :lol:

I'm best, I am!!! :banana: :p

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:01 PM
It's mostly this long because if GL's ignorance.Your problem is you are close minded.
Anyone who saw Golovin play Sharapova both times could see how much game Tati has.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:02 PM
Goldenlox is a retard.

All she thinks is Russian tennis, but she can't even except Russia's best player.

I used to think she was a good poster, but now she's showing her true side.

It's OK - I know. ;)

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:04 PM
Btw,Your post are always interesting when you're not talking about Russian players.That's a topic I closely follow.
I usually know how well they were playing at a given tournament.
Most people are posting just off results, or numbers.
It's different than what is actually happening.
Like Golovin's play this year. It's better quality than her numbers reflect.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:04 PM
I like this discussion because all the arguments have some merit.
Nicole matured early, and has 2 years of good results.
Tati played very well in Miami and NYC.
Ana won a Tier I.
Anna C won a Tier I

They all have a chance to be long term top 10 players.
Maybe challenge for #1 if they keep improving.

I'm sorry, now you're saying all arguments have some merit... well you weren't giving any of our arguments merit before. :lol:

And as you just said... Nicole has TWO YEARS of good results... the others just 1 or 2 tourneys with a good result... that says it all!

So at the moment, Nicole is the better of them. As I said, it may change in the future, we don't know what will happen, but right NOW...it's Nicole...closely followed by the 2 An(n)a's.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:07 PM
Your problem is you are close minded.
Anyone who saw Golovin play Sharapova both times could see how much game Tati has.

Yeah, but Tati's problem is she's always getting injured and so can't consistantly have the results. It's a shame, and if she could play a full year, and have the results, then she'd most likely be right up there with Nicole.

SilK
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:08 PM
I can be really realistic and I will be this realistic this time too.
I don't know why you show the worst results of Ana in 2006. (ok you forgot Stosur). Golovin lost last year to: Santangelo, Bartoli, Dulko, Zheng, Pratt and Frazier. So I don't see your point in that. I kinda know how far Ana is at the moment. Now I can't really say who's further, cause Golovin played well in the last months and Ana played worse after Montreal.
2007 will say a lot more.

The point was the exact same point you were trying to make with posting the Ivanovic - Golovin H2H. It doesn't matter... THAT was the point.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:08 PM
I didn't change my argument. I was against the idea that Nicole is on a higher level. Especially if you are using the 2 wins at RG over name players.
They weren't playing great tennis against Nicole. Nowhere close.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:11 PM
That's a topic I closely follow.
I usually know how well they were playing at a given tournament.
Most people are posting just off results, or numbers.
It's different than what is actually happening.
Like Golovin's play this year. It's better quality than her numbers reflect.

Yeah, and you seem to be posting off the same thing for Nicole. Of course we follow our faves more, and want them to be the best, but they can't ALL be the best. I mean I could have come in here and said that Misa's the best of all - but I can be a loyal fan, and still not be blinded - I'm not blind to think that Misa's the best of the ones in the poll - in fact results wise I'd think she's one of the last. No one is saying that these players you're talking about suck (well at least I haven't seen anyone saying they suck), just that Nicole has had the more consistant BETTER results than the other three - Ana, Anna and Tati (for whatever reason).

Neptune
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:11 PM
That's a topic I closely follow.
I usually know how well they were playing at a given tournament.
Most people are posting just off results, or numbers.
It's different than what is actually happening.
Like Golovin's play this year. It's better quality than her numbers reflect.

I know.Tennis is more than Results and statistics (I really don't love statistics,that means nothing for me!).It's also the level of game,and I'm following like you tennis on television.
I'm really hoping a great year for Tati.She was playing great during all the year (except when she was injured).
But,IMO,Nicole has cleary the best potential between the both.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:14 PM
I didn't change my argument. I was against the idea that Nicole is on a higher level. Especially if you are using the 2 wins at RG over name players.
They weren't playing great tennis against Nicole. Nowhere close.

:lol: What? NO ONE is using just TWO wins of Nicole to say that she is better. You were the one trying to say that her GS SF was not legit, and then trying to use ONE tourney (Moscow) to say that Anna is better. Nicole has had plenty of good wins this year, and made SF's at a few Tier 1's and 2's - someone posted it before, more than once...

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:17 PM
The point was the exact same point you were trying to make with posting the Ivanovic - Golovin H2H. It doesn't matter... THAT was the point.

I think the H2H says something more than the worst results of the 2 of them.
5-0, that's clear. When you compare players, you look at what they win not what they lose. Just an example, does it matter if you lose 10 times in the 1st round if you win all the grandslams?

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:20 PM
I'm talking about the quality of play of teens who haven't reached the top.
Draws are very important in the analysis.
That's why I rejected the Sharapova in Moscow stuff. Her game has never been good in Moscow.

I'm discussing this with people who don't follow the sport that closely, or don't seem to follow it close.

I don't care about how many majors Venus won. At RG, she's lost to Vera, Sesil and Nicole. To judge her, you have to watch the match.

SilK
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:28 PM
I think the H2H says something more than the worst results of the 2 of them.
5-0, that's clear. When you compare players, you look at what they win not what they lose. Just an example, does it matter if you lose 10 times in the 1st round if you win all the grandslams?

Thank you for making this easier for me. To take your example... (to an extreme) if Golovin won two Grand Slams this year vs. maybe a Tier 1 or 2 title for Ana, does that make Ana a better player than Golovin because she has a big lead in H2H's? I will make the answer easy for you, it's NO.

'what' being the keyword to your OWN example... the H2H says nothing about 'what' they won.

In the end, to me that still does not matter. I'm watching at tennis ABILITY. Maybe my way of looking at it is hard to understand for a lot of people who focus on H2H's and tournaments won. An example: I found Anna Kournikova ONE OF THE BEST players of her generation ('96/'00), but she never won a tournament and negative H2H against most of the top players from that era. But she had great potential, talent and ability. She just lacked that little extra that players that had less potential, talent & ability did have.

Only time will tell if Golovin has that little extra, if she can step it up and live up to her full potential. To me Ana has LESS potential, talent and ability than Golovin, but Ana might have that little something extra that Golovin might turn out not to have.... as you said, time will tell.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:30 PM
I'm talking about the quality of play of teens who haven't reached the top.
Draws are very important in the analysis.
That's why I rejected the Sharapova in Moscow stuff. Her game has never been good in Moscow.

I'm discussing this with people who don't follow the sport that closely, or don't seem to follow it close.

I don't care about how many majors Venus won. At RG, she's lost to Vera, Sesil and Nicole. To judge her, you have to watch the match.

Don't follow the sport closely? :haha: You really are nuts! I've been following tennis for at least 13 years! Do you see how many posts I have on here - no I don't follow tennis closely at all! :haha:

You were the one going on about Tati and not micor-analysing her draw so... :shrug: Now you say draws ARE important? Yes, they are... then Nicole still has better results, and has beaten better players MORE OFTEN! :lol: So you arguement still doesn't work!

How many times has Maria played in Moscow? Like 2 times (for a total of 3 matches)...and you don't know how she would have played against Anna. We all know you don't like Maria, so of course that is why you disregard the fact that she might have possibly beaten one of your faves in her hometown.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:30 PM
Thank you for making this easier for me. To take your example... (to an extreme) if Golovin won two Grand Slams this year vs. maybe a Tier 1 or 2 title for Ana, does that make Ana a better player than Golovin because she has a big lead in H2H's? I will make the answer easy for you, it's NO.

'what' being the keyword to your OWN example... the H2H says nothing about 'what' they won.

In the end, to me that still does not matter. I'm watching at tennis ABILITY. Maybe my way of looking at it is hard to understand for a lot of people who focus on H2H's and tournaments won. An example: I found Anna Kournikova ONE OF THE BEST players of her generation ('96/'00), but she never won a tournament and negative H2H against most of the top players from that era. But she had great potential, talent and ability. She just lacked that little extra that players that had less potential, talent & ability did have.

Only time will tell if Golovin has that little extra, if she can step it up and live up to her full potential. To me Ana has LESS potential, talent and ability than Golovin, but Ana might have that little something extra that Golovin might turn out not to have.... as you said, time will tell.I agree. Thsee are very good points. Great stuff.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:33 PM
e draws are important Don't follow the sport closely? :haha: You really are nuts! I've been following tennis for at least 13 years! Do you see how many posts I have on here - no I don't follow tennis closely at all! :haha:

You were the one going on about Tati and not micor-analysing her draw so... :shrug: Now you say draws ARE important? Yes, they are... then Nicole still has better results, and has beaten better players MORE OFTEN! :lol: So you arguement still doesn't work!

How many times has Maria played in Moscow? Like 2 times (for a total of 3 matches)...and you don't know how she would have played against Anna. We all know you don't like Maria, so of course that is why you disregard the fact that she might have possibly beaten one of your faves in her hometown.I'm talking about Derek, not you.
Maria might play great in Moscow in the future. Very possible.
But off her first match this year, Anna had a big shot.

The draws are important because reaching a Tier I SF could mean great tennis, or great draw, or both.
That's why it's quality for Tati against Sharapova, not just getting there.

DutchieGirl
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:34 PM
I'm talking about Derek, not you.
Maria might play great in Moscow in the future. Very possible.
But off her first match this year, Anna had a big shot.

Well maybe you could possible fond the QUOTE function and use it, or at least put someones name in the post, so we know who you are referring to, or replying to. Would make life easier for everyone.

SilK
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:36 PM
I agree. Thsee are very good points. Great stuff.

:hatoff: thank you.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Your problem is you are close minded.
Anyone who saw Golovin play Sharapova both times could see how much game Tati has.


You're the one who can't get being biased, not me.

But I'm not anti-whoever like you are towards Nicole to not be able to realize who's better. :weirdo:

Nicole is clearly out-performed the other people in this poll for the last two years. If Nicole had done what Tati has done and Tati did what Nicole has done, I would have no problem in saying that so far, Tati is clearly the better player. But you can't seem to do this because you seem to have an great amount of hatred towards Nicole.




I didn't change my argument. I was against the idea that Nicole is on a higher level. Especially if you are using the 2 wins at RG over name players.
They weren't playing great tennis against Nicole. Nowhere close.


Whatever. Nicole wasn't playing that great either. But she still fought and made the semis of a grand slam.

Tati, Ana, or Anna have yet to make a SF at a GS.

Anna hasn't even made a QF yet.



I'm talking about the quality of play of teens who haven't reached the top.
Draws are very important in the analysis.
That's why I rejected the Sharapova in Moscow stuff. Her game has never been good in Moscow.

I'm discussing this with people who don't follow the sport that closely, or don't seem to follow it close.

I don't care about how many majors Venus won. At RG, she's lost to Vera, Sesil and Nicole. To judge her, you have to watch the match.


I never said Venus played amazing and Nicole played even more amazing to beat her.

I think I brought up the fact that together they had 130+ UE's. :weirdo:

Oh yes, I don't follow tennis that closely, I've just been able to prove all of these points all day long with only the internet and was able to do it all in time to respond to all of your ignorant, anti-Nicole posts.

Get over yourself GL.
You're not that pretty.
Put on some more makeup.

You don't know much about tennis besides a few of the Russians.

So go back to the RR and stay there.

:wavey:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:45 PM
I didn't mean them as anti-Nicole.
I disagree about quality of play. And quality of wins, that RG semi vs Moscow title.

But we can agree to disagree :wavey:

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:48 PM
:hatoff: thank you.Everyone should read your post :worship:

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:52 PM
I didn't mean them as anti-Nicole.
I disagree about quality of play. And quality of wins, that RG semi vs Moscow title.

But we can agree to disagree :wavey:


It's just not that RG semi.

Nicole has been the better player for basically their whole tennis careers.

Cross out RG and Moscow and Nicole is still clearly better.

kittyking
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:54 PM
Nicoles the only one there ranked in the top 10, so I vote for her - not hard

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:55 PM
My whole points is that Anna is improving. She retired in the Montreal SF, wasn't healthy in New Haven. Not sure if she was near 100% in NY.
In the fall, she was playing the best I've seen her play.

Derek.
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Everyone should read your post :worship:


They are indeed great points because my favorite, Hantuchova, has never really reached her potential, and I really think she has more potential than some of the girls in the top 10 now, but I can't go and say that she is better than Dementieva because Dementieva has clearly had the better results.

And Nicole clearly has had better results than Anna, Ana, and Tati.

That's why she's ranked higher than them.

Anyway, I still think Nicole and Ana have the most potential out of the group.

They have the most potential to hurt the top players because of their serves and forehand.

Tati's shots are a bit bigger than Anna so I think she has a bit more potential than Anna to achieve big things. It's about even though.

But I don't get how you can take Golovin or Chakvetadze's all-court game with no real big weapon over Vaidisova's and Ivanovic's serve and groundies. They may not be as quick, but their weapons clearly make up for whatever they "lack" (according to Silk) and that's why they have achieved more, ranked higher, and own the H2H's.

You can't ignore the facts.

goldenlox
Dec 30th, 2006, 11:59 PM
I think Dani has a good game also. Her timing was unlucky.
When she was really good, the Williams sisters were at their peak.
Then she lost the weight. Dani has a lot of game. Showed it in Zurich.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:14 AM
They are indeed great points because my favorite, Hantuchova, has never really reached her potential, and I really think she has more potential than some of the girls in the top 10 now, but I can't go and say that she is better than Dementieva because Dementieva has clearly had the better results.

And Nicole clearly has had better results than Anna, Ana, and Tati.

That's why she's ranked higher than them.

Anyway, I still think Nicole and Ana have the most potential out of the group.

They have the most potential to hurt the top players because of their serves and forehand.

Tati's shots are a bit bigger than Anna so I think she has a bit more potential than Anna to achieve big things. It's about even though.

But I don't get how you can take Golovin or Chakvetadze's all-court game with no real big weapon over Vaidisova's and Ivanovic's serve and groundies. They may not be as quick, but their weapons clearly make up for whatever they "lack" (according to Silk) and that's why they have achieved more, ranked higher, and own the H2H's.

You can't ignore the facts.

I think you have a good point mentioning Hantuchova.

Anyway, I do think certain players lack certain things but have weapons that make up for that. If you strip down to JUST TENNIS the Sharapova's, Vaidisova's and Williams'es are not the best players.

In their defense, tennis is about much more than JUST TENNIS. But that is not very important in this particular thread, because we're talking about youngsters. We're making predictions, we're talking about our views on (the future mostly) of these obviously young and talented players (all of them)... and that's where we disagree.

Not looking at everything that could go wrong (personal problems, injuries, etc. etc.) I think Golovin has the best shot at a great carreer if she keeps devoloping... it's all IFS & MAYBES you know? Nicole has had the better carreer, Ivanovic & Chakvetadze have the big title... but are they better than the other youngsters this thread is about? I don't think so.

It's rather complicated because there are so many ways of looking at all the terms we're using here. There are no rules to when you're 'good'... what we're doing is talking about 'most succesful' when we mention results & H2H's. There's the difference... succesful player vs. being a good player.

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:18 AM
And h2h's can be deceiving. Myskina has a winning h2h with Sharapova.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:46 AM
And h2h's can be deceiving. Myskina has a winning h2h with Sharapova.

Well when the H2H's aren't recent yes. :lol:

Sharapova has won the last two anyway.

austennis
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:47 AM
Vaidosova might have been the highest ranked player in @ no.10 but i tink u have to look at ivanovic and golovin.. both have a lot more potential.. and variety in their games
Ivanovic has also won a Tier 1 title.. something missing from nicoles resume and golovin was on her way 2 reaching the final in miami when she was injured..

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:49 AM
I think you have a good point mentioning Hantuchova.

Anyway, I do think certain players lack certain things but have weapons that make up for that. If you strip down to JUST TENNIS the Sharapova's, Vaidisova's and Williams'es are not the best players.

In their defense, tennis is about much more than JUST TENNIS. But that is not very important in this particular thread, because we're talking about youngsters. We're making predictions, we're talking about our views on (the future mostly) of these obviously young and talented players (all of them)... and that's where we disagree.

Not looking at everything that could go wrong (personal problems, injuries, etc. etc.) I think Golovin has the best shot at a great carreer if she keeps devoloping... it's all IFS & MAYBES you know? Nicole has had the better carreer, Ivanovic & Chakvetadze have the big title... but are they better than the other youngsters this thread is about? I don't think so.

It's rather complicated because there are so many ways of looking at all the terms we're using here. There are no rules to when you're 'good'... what we're doing is talking about 'most succesful' when we mention results & H2H's. There's the difference... succesful player vs. being a good player.


In order to get to the top of tennis you need weapons.

Sharapova has her fight, groundstrokes, and serve.
Mauresmo has her all-court game and strong volleys.
Clijsters has her speed and solid groundies.
Serena and Venus have good serves, move well, and have great groundstrokes.
Davenport had her serve and groundies.
Henin-Hardenne has her mental toughness, her serve, and her groundies.

I mean what does Golovin have that will take her higher than any of the others?

I mean the only thing she does better than Nicole and Ana is moving.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:50 AM
Vaidosova might have been the highest ranked player in @ no.10 but i tink u have to look at ivanovic and golovin.. both have a lot more potential.. and variety in their games
Ivanovic has also won a Tier 1 title.. something missing from nicoles resume and golovin was on her way 2 reaching the final in miami when she was injured..

She was still down a break in the third set when she got injured.

It's hard to tak you serious when you have that avatar. :lol:

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:51 AM
I saw the 2005 New Haven final. Lindsay won easily over Amelie.
Pat McEnroe said Amelie hasn't won a major because she doesn't have weapons, not because she chokes.
After that, Amelie won 2 majors.

Weapons can be a solid steady game.
Justine and Amelie don't blow you off the court.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:55 AM
In order to get to the top of tennis you need weapons.

Sharapova has her fight, groundstrokes, and serve.
Mauresmo has her all-court game and strong volleys.
Clijsters has her speed and solid groundies.
Serena and Venus have good serves, move well, and have great groundstrokes.
Davenport had her serve and groundies.
Henin-Hardenne has her mental toughness, her serve, and her groundies.

I mean what does Golovin have that will take her higher than any of the others?

I mean the only thing she does better than Nicole and Ana is moving.

There is a lot of room for improvement...

What weapons does Hingis really have?
Still, she beat all the players you've mentioned above.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:55 AM
I saw the 2005 New Haven final. Lindsay won easily over Amelie.
Pat McEnroe said Amelie hasn't won a major because she doesn't have weapons, not because she chokes.
After that, Amelie won 2 majors.

Weapons can be a solid steady game.
Justine and Amelie don't blow you off the court.

Justine does.

Justine hits very hard.

I mean she overpowers a lot of players.

Amelie wins because she's a great mover, has a great backhand, and has great volleys. Her serve is good too.

Neither Tati nor Anna have shown anything like that.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:58 AM
What weapons does Hingis really have?
Still, she beat all the players you've mentioned above.


She beat a lot of them because of their errors or not having faced someone like her.

Sharapova lost to her the first time because she had never played someone like that. Then she figured her out.

Hingis is able to exploit Davenport's poor movement.

Hingis can't beat the current Henin-Hardenne or Clijsters.

I'm not saying Anna or Tati couldn't get the to the top, because they definitely can, but if I had to put money on these girls, I'd put it on Nicole and Ana to get to the top.



There is a lot of room for improvement...


You can't just develop a weapon like that.

You're either born with natural power or not.

Hingis wins because she's incredibly smart and finds ways to outsmart her opponents.

You can't really say Tati or Anna can do what Martina can.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:59 AM
Golovin has got a solid, well-placed serve. A good on court mentality. An all-court game. She doesn't really have a BIG weak point, which means she doesn't have to rely on any weapons like a lot of players do. When Vaidisova had an off day she couldn't rely on anything else and Golovin SMACKED her off court... that right there is a weapon. Golovin, IF she keeps progressing will be consistent with an all round polished game.

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:59 AM
Hingis is another one without huge weapons.
A consistent player with decent power, can do very well if they are mentally tough.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:02 AM
Golovin has got a solid, well-placed serve. A good on court mentality. An all-court game. She doesn't really have a BIG weak point, which means she doesn't have to rely on any weapons like a lot of players do. When Vaidisova had an off day she couldn't rely on anything else and Golovin SMACKED her off court... that right there is a weapon. Golovin, IF she keeps progressing will be consistent with an all round polished game.


Golovin did not smack anyone of the court.

Nicole hit her own self off the court. 3 winners to 25 UE's speaks about what happened there.

Even someone like Hantuchova on a good day can beat Golovin like she did in Luxembourg.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:02 AM
Amelie wins because she's a great mover, has a great backhand, and has great volleys. Her serve is good too.

Ooh come on, WHEN did Amerlie exactly start with the volleys?

This is what I am trying to keep saying: ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

Amelie changed her game, made it solid, but she has NO big weapons. When he backhand has an off day she is a little lost. Mentally she has problems. Her serve is not amazing. Amelie screams SOLID. Amelie screams IMPROVEMENT.

Golovin can develop... she has definitely shown enough signs.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:02 AM
Hingis is another one without huge weapons.
A consistent player with decent power, can do very well if they are mentally tough.


That is hurting her from going deep into slams these days.

She can get to a QF, but then she runs into someone who hits harder and is stronger.

That's exactly my point.

Nicolás89
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:03 AM
... succesful player vs. being a good player.

nicole is more succesful than tati thats clear, isnt?

nicole has a bigger serve (tati has a very good serve aswell)
has a more strong and heavy forehand (tatis forehand is more quick though)
can do volleys better than tati
she is more athletic (more muscles, more 3 setters victories)
has more power

tati is more quick
has more defense

both are one dimetional, nikkies game is basically hitting heavy (she can do volleys, top spins, a can show some defense, but just like 30% of the times), and tati is all about rallies she run from one side to the other

mmmm that is, in "every" other thing nicole is slightly better than tati

nicole is in two ways better than tati for me:wavey:

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:03 AM
Ooh come on, WHEN did Amerlie exactly start with the volleys?

This is what I am trying to keep saying: ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

Amelie changed her game, made it solid, but she has NO big weapons. When he backhand has an off day she is a little lost. Mentally she has problems. Her serve is not amazing. Amelie screams SOLID. Amelie screams IMPROVEMENT.

Golovin can develop... she has definitely shown enough signs.


Amelie lacking a weapon is exactly why people like Nicole, Dinara, and Ana have been able to beat her.

She's still vulnerable.

And who says Nicole and Ana won't improve?

Who says they won't become more consistent and faster?

Then what will Tati do better?

It's pretty evident Nicole and Ana are better and that's why they are 8-1 combined vs. Tati.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:04 AM
Even someone like Hantuchova on a good day can beat Golovin like she did in Luxembourg.

Hantuchova is not a bad player.

Anyway, smacking yourself off court is weakness. A weakness I don't see Golovin having. Solid. Solid. Solid. She just needs polishing.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:05 AM
I'm not saying Anna or Tati couldn't get the to the top, because they definitely can, but if I had to put money on these girls, I'd put it on Nicole and Ana to get to the top.

Nicole I understand... Ana, I don't see it. Explain to me why, if you want to?

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:05 AM
Hantuchova is not a bad player.

Anyway, smacking yourself off court is weakness. A weakness I don't see Golovin having. Solid. Solid. Solid. She just needs polishing.


Golovin can't smack herself off the court because her game isn't big enough to do so. :lol:

She doesn't go for big shots like Nicole does because she doesn't have that power.

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:06 AM
Myskina won a major. Amelie won 2.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:07 AM
Nicole I understand... Ana, I don't see it. Explain to me why, if you want to?

Because she has more weapons.

I mean she has more potential to beat the better players.

Ivanovic playing well would beat Golovin playing well.

That's why she's 5-0 in H2H.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:07 AM
Myskina won a major. Amelie won 2.

You just now realized this?

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:08 AM
nicole is more succesful than tati thats clear, isnt?

Oh absolutely, I'd be a fool to deny that.

Then again, a lot of players are more succesful than Kournikova (sorry I keep bringing her up, but she's such a perfect example) but are not better players than her.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:10 AM
Amelie lacking a weapon is exactly why people like Nicole, Dinara, and Ana have been able to beat her.

She's still vulnerable.

BUT she won Slams, big titles, and beaten those players as well.

*random* :lol: everytime I quote you I am suprised because you keep editing your posts and adding stuff to them. :p

Nicolás89
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:10 AM
and why are you talking about martina let her alone:(

yes she is not as confident as years ago but she has more skills than every other yougster on the list, if top players could choose between martina and one of the yougster on the list they would choose martina instantaneously, she does more damage to the top players, or she does more damage more often:wavey:

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:10 AM
Oh absolutely, I'd be a fool to deny that.

Then again, a lot of players are more succesful than Kournikova (sorry I keep bringing her up, but she's such a perfect example) but are not better players than her.


To me that would make them better.

What you are saying is Kournikova had more potential than them to be the better player, but she didn't use it, therefore she wasn't the better player.

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:10 AM
Ana - Tati h2h doesn't matter to me, because I've seen both, and Golovin has shown me more game.
Maybe I've missed Ana's best matches.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:11 AM
BUT she won Slams, big titles, and beaten those players as well.

*random* :lol: everytime I quote you I am suprised because you keep editing your posts and adding stuff to them. :p


Because I reread it and think about more points. :)

Yes I know.

It's because her game is different.

Not many people like having someone attack the net at you every point.

But sooner or later a power player like Sharapova will figure her out (USO SF).

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:12 AM
Ana - Tati h2h doesn't matter to me, because I've seen both, and Golovin has shown me more game.
Maybe I've missed Ana's best matches.

What exactly does Tati do that shows signs of true greatness?

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:13 AM
Because she has more weapons.

I mean she has more potential to beat the better players.

Ivanovic playing well would beat Golovin playing well.

That's why she's 5-0 in H2H.

This really doesn't cut it for me... really, I've seen Ivanovic win great matches, but losing bad matches as well. She was lost against Krajicek in Hasselt, not because she played bad, but Krajicek had taken a lesson or two with her from Linz and went on to beat her at her own game.

Break down Ivanovic game for me, tell me what is strong and why that makes her so good.

PLP
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:14 AM
I like this discussion because all the arguments have some merit.
Nicole matured early, and has 2 years of good results.
Tati played very well in Miami and NYC.
Ana won a Tier I.
Anna C won a Tier I

They all have a chance to be long term top 10 players.
Maybe challenge for #1 if they keep improving.

:worship:

Great point! I think one of the reasons this thread is sooo long is because they are all so talented, it's hard not to have REAlly high hopes for them all. I think Anna C especially could be in the top 5 sooner than we think ;) , but that's just my opinion . :kiss:

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:15 AM
The level of play is what I like to talk about. When Sharapova was close to a win, Tati came back and almost won it, when she was injured. That was impressive. Coming after a blowout of Lena.
I saw Ivanovic lose to Amelie at Wimbledon, I didn't see anything to really be special.
Montreal was not a typical Tier I.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:16 AM
To me that would make them better.

What you are saying is Kournikova had more potential than them to be the better player, but she didn't use it, therefore she wasn't the better player.

If she used it or not doesn't matter when it comes to who's the BETTER/BEST player, it breaks down who is more succesful.

You're telling me every player that has 1 title or more on the tour is the better player over Kournikova?

Nicolás89
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:16 AM
What exactly does Tati do that shows signs of true greatness?

one great match against sharapova doesnt make her great
just because of that one match where she shown great skills, you think that she is a better player than the others yougsters GL:rolleyes:

that doesnt make her more tallented, isnt?

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:18 AM
Because I reread it and think about more points. :)

Yes I know.

It's because her game is different.

Not many people like having someone attack the net at you every point.

But sooner or later a power player like Sharapova will figure her out (USO SF).

I'm going to make a little sidecut here...

Krajicek is the only one of the youngsters that sooner or later will add more and more net play to her game. They are working on it very hard and it could help her a lot. :)

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:18 AM
If she used it or not doesn't matter when it comes to who's the BETTER/BEST player, it breaks down who is more succesful.

You're telling me every player that has 1 title or more on the tour is the better player over Kournikova?


Well if they have equaled or gone past her doubles achievements and reached #8+ in the world in singles, then yes.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:20 AM
This really doesn't cut it for me... really, I've seen Ivanovic win great matches, but losing bad matches as well. She was lost against Krajicek in Hasselt, not because she played bad, but Krajicek had taken a lesson or two with her from Linz and went on to beat her at her own game.

Break down Ivanovic game for me, tell me what is strong and why that makes her so good.


She has good serve and a wicked forehand.

Her backhand is pretty solid now too.

When she comes in at the right time she usually converts.

I'm really not the biggest fan of Ana, so please ask someone like Dexter.

They can tell you more. :p

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:21 AM
one great match against sharapova doesnt make her great
just because of that one match where she shown great skills, you think that she is a better player than the others yougsters GL:rolleyes:

that doesnt make her more tallented, isnt?It shows she has the game. She can handle power, she can hold her serve.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:22 AM
It shows she has the game. She can handle power, she can hold her serve.


She was also benifited by the fact Sharapova had a mental letdown.

You think if she had not gotten injured she would have won?

I mean she was already down a break in the third set.

Maria is not one to lose a lead and then fade away.

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:23 AM
Maria is a good closer. That's one reason Tati was doing great to keep the match going.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:24 AM
I can't believe I'm defending Ivanovic and Sharapova. :lol: :help: :tape:

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:24 AM
Well if they have equaled or gone past her doubles achievements and reached #8+ in the world in singles, then yes.

See... this is the only thing that bugs me about this thread in general.

SUCCES people, we're talking about SUCCES... is it really about that? What you achieve. Some of the greatest players don't go into history as well, some of the greatest players.

It reminds me of the entire Graff vs. Seles discussion in GM. Succes/Achievements vs. Ability/Talent

Maybe I'm pushing too much on the 'having a complete game' stuff... but that's because others are pushing too much on the results and achievements.

It's a matter of opinion as well, as this thread clearly shows.

It's a fun discussion though (and a nice one, who knew that was possible on here huh?)! ;)

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:25 AM
See... this is the only thing that bugs me about this thread in general.

SUCCES people, we're talking about SUCCES... is it really about that? What you achieve. Some of the greatest players don't go into history as well, some of the greatest players.

It reminds me of the entire Graff vs. Seles discussion in GM. Succes/Achievements vs. Ability/Talent

Maybe I'm pushing too much on the 'having a complete game' stuff... but that's because others are pushing too much on the results and achievements.

It's a matter of opinion as well, as this thread clearly shows.

It's a fun discussion though (and a nice one, who knew that was possible on here huh?)! ;)


Seles had a major injury that really messed up her career.

I mean you really can't compare this to that. :eek:

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:26 AM
I can't believe I'm defending Ivanovic and Sharapova. :lol: :help: :tape:

:rolls: this has to be the most friendly discussion thread of the year. :o

PLP
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:27 AM
I'm going to make a little sidecut here...

Krajicek is the only one of the youngsters that sooner or later will add more and more net play to her game. They are working on it very hard and it could help her a lot. :)

That is really smart!
Good for Misa :clap2:

I think that the ability to win BIG tournaments shouldn't be overlooked, my main reason for putting Anna/Ana slightly above Nikki in terms of CURRENT impressiveness...& I don't at all believe their Tier 1's were handed to them, Peace:

Anna C.'s Moscow Run:

R32 H2H (7) SAFINA, DINARA RUS 10 W 6-1 6-2
R16 H2H SCHIAVONE, FRANCESCA ITA 12 W 7-6(3) 6-4
Q H2H (2) SHARAPOVA, MARIA RUS 3 W W/O
S H2H (4) DEMENTIEVA, ELENA RUS 7 W 7-5 3-6 6-0
F H2H (5) PETROVA, NADIA RUS 5 W 6-4 6-4

WTA Championship Pts: 300 WTA Ranking Pts.: 300

Ana's Montreal Ride ;) :

R64 H2H GOLOVIN, TATIANA FRA 26 W 6-4 6-2
R32 H2H ZHENG, JIE CHN 27 W 6-4 6-7(5) 6-2
R16 H2H JANKOVIC, JELENA SCG 21 W W/O
Q H2H (14) SREBOTNIK, KATARINA SLO 24 W 6-4 6-4
S H2H (9) SAFINA, DINARA RUS 14 W 6-1 6-4
F H2H (7) HINGIS, MARTINA SUI 12 W 6-2 6-3

WTA Championship Pts: 300 WTA Ranking Pts.: 300

Nicolás89
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:27 AM
:rolls: this has to be the most friendly discussion thread of the year. :o

yes it is:lol: , you stupid bastard;):lol:

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:29 AM
Seles had a major injury that really messed up her career.

I mean you really can't compare this to that. :eek:

I'm not trying to compare it in that way... I only used it to show that it's succes/achievements vs. talent/ability and a whole lot of personal preference and opinion. You'll never get a clear answer on Graff vs. Seles.

We'll never get a clear answer on the question asked in this thread. Well, not now at least. Not at this point in their carreers. Let's do this again in like 7 years. When they're 25/26... let's compare then. :D

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:29 AM
That is really smart!
Good for Misa :clap2:

I think that the ability to win BIG tournaments shouldn't be overlooked, my main reason for putting Anna/Ana slightly above Nikki is terms of impressiveness...& I don't at all believe their Tier 1's were handed to them, Peace:

Anna C.'s Moscow Run:

R32 H2H (7) SAFINA, DINARA RUS 10 W 6-1 6-2
R16 H2H SCHIAVONE, FRANCESCA ITA 12 W 7-6(3) 6-4
Q H2H (2) SHARAPOVA, MARIA RUS 3 W W/O
S H2H (4) DEMENTIEVA, ELENA RUS 7 W 7-5 3-6 6-0
F H2H (5) PETROVA, NADIA RUS 5 W 6-4 6-4

WTA Championship Pts: 300 WTA Ranking Pts.: 300

Ana's Montreal Ride ;) :

R64 H2H GOLOVIN, TATIANA FRA 26 W 6-4 6-2
R32 H2H ZHENG, JIE CHN 27 W 6-4 6-7(5) 6-2
R16 H2H JANKOVIC, JELENA SCG 21 W W/O
Q H2H (14) SREBOTNIK, KATARINA SLO 24 W 6-4 6-4
S H2H (9) SAFINA, DINARA RUS 14 W 6-1 6-4
F H2H (7) HINGIS, MARTINA SUI 12 W 6-2 6-3

WTA Championship Pts: 300 WTA Ranking Pts.: 300


I'm not sure if either would have won it if those two players had withdrawn.

You can't really blame Nicole because she hasn't really had that kind of luck like those two got.

They had tough opponents, but both were helped by a walkover each.

Nicole was close to beating Nadia in Moscow herself.

She could have won that too.

Nicole withdrew from Montreal in order to be fit for the USO.

She could have won that too.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:31 AM
Anna C's Moscow run was more impressive than Ana I's Montreal run. Even if Ana had one match more. :scratch:

But the title stands. Period.

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:33 AM
Anna C's Moscow run was more impressive than Ana I's Montreal run. Even if Ana had one match more. :scratch:

But the title stands. Period.


I agree.

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:33 AM
As I've said before, in Moscow, bring on Sharapova. Until she proves otherwise.

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:34 AM
I'm not sure if either would have won it if those two players had withdrawn.

You can't really blame Nicole because she hasn't really had that kind of luck like those two got.

They had tough opponents, but both were helped by a walkover each.

Nicole was close to beating Nadia in Moscow herself.

She could have won that too.

Nicole withdrew from Montreal in order to be fit for the USO.

She could have won that too.

I might be really wrong for thinking this...
But let's see how Anna C and Ana I defend their tier 1 titles this year. I'm not result driven at all, but I'd like to see how they do.

Montreal was supposed to be packed with top players who could've won it. The withdrew one by one.

PLP
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:35 AM
I'm not sure if either would have won it if those two players had withdrawn.

You can't really blame Nicole because she hasn't really had that kind of luck like those two got.

They had tough opponents, but both were helped by a walkover each.

Nicole was close to beating Nadia in Moscow herself.

She could have won that too.

Nicole withdrew from Montreal in order to be fit for the USO.

She could have won that too.

Completely agree with both...

In today's game it is all too common to reciev at least one W on the path to the Title! :help:

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:35 AM
yes it is:lol: , you stupid bastard;):lol:


It's not my fault, dumbass! :devil:/:angel:

Derek.
Dec 31st, 2006, 01:39 AM
Completely agree with both...

In today's game it is all too common to reciev at least one W on the path to the Title! :help:


Very true.

Had Hantuchova gone on to win her second title (imagine that :eek:) by beating Sharapova in the Zurich final, she could be in this category as well.

Mauresmo withdrew from their match in the quarterfinals.

partbrit
Dec 31st, 2006, 03:00 AM
I would say Vaidisova...at this time. But she could be eclipsed if she does not continue to improve. I still think Golovin is awfully talented, but she has been so plagued by injuries. I'm hoping 2007 will finally be her year.

The other player I think is just beginning to show her potential is Chakvetadze. She's starting to grow up and get some control, and if that continues, I think she could be a real threat.

Neptune
Dec 31st, 2006, 09:57 AM
Nicole has cleary the Best potential ahead Tati and Ana.

One fact:People are constantly saying Tati and Ana will have better future(compared to Nicole) because they have a more varied game with tatics thorough.
How can posters miss the other fact?Nicole is only 17years old.And she already say it:her aim is to be an all-court game player.
True,Nicole is not the type of player trying to varied her game,do dropshots (at this moment)....But,the lack of tactic is totally understandale.
That's unbelievable how Nicole improved the last two years.She can do topspin when she wants now (I wouldn't say that in 2004)......
Her game is not established yet.Let her the time to be ready,but when she will have a toughtful game,she will be ahead Tati and Ana again.She's already ahead them.

After Nicole,I put Tati,Ana and Anna.

Viktymise
Dec 31st, 2006, 10:51 AM
Nicole has cleary the Best potential ahead Tati and Ana.

One fact:People are constantly saying Tati and Ana will have better future(compared to Nicole) because they have a more varied game with tatics thorough.
How can posters miss the other fact?Nicole is only 17years old.And she already say it:her aim is to be an all-court game player.
True,Nicole is not the type of player trying to varied her game,do dropshots (at this moment)....But,the lack of tactic is totally understandale.
That's unbelievable how Nicole improved the last two years.She can do topspin when she wants now (I wouldn't say that in 2004)......
Her game is not established yet.Let her the time to be ready,but when she will have a toughtful game,she will be ahead Tati and Ana again.She's already ahead them.

After Nicole,I put Tati,Ana and Anna.

Exactly, Sharapova can win 2 slams with baseline bashing, Venus and Serena can win 12 slams between them with baseline bashing with the occasional mix up. Nicole has i think the best chance of the youngsters mentioned to win a slam next yr. Mentally she's the strongest. Has had big wins in slams, has huge weapons big FH and big serve 2 of the biggest in the game. Her BH has improved alot over the past yr and she's been conrolling her temper more. If someone said that next yr either Vaidisova or Golovin or Chakvetadze won a slam in 07, the rational pick would be Nicole the other 2 do not have slam winning games esp Chakvetadze

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Dec 31st, 2006, 11:37 AM
Thank you for making this easier for me. To take your example... (to an extreme) if Golovin won two Grand Slams this year vs. maybe a Tier 1 or 2 title for Ana, does that make Ana a better player than Golovin because she has a big lead in H2H's? I will make the answer easy for you, it's NO.

'what' being the keyword to your OWN example... the H2H says nothing about 'what' they won.

In the end, to me that still does not matter. I'm watching at tennis ABILITY. Maybe my way of looking at it is hard to understand for a lot of people who focus on H2H's and tournaments won. An example: I found Anna Kournikova ONE OF THE BEST players of her generation ('96/'00), but she never won a tournament and negative H2H against most of the top players from that era. But she had great potential, talent and ability. She just lacked that little extra that players that had less potential, talent & ability did have.

Only time will tell if Golovin has that little extra, if she can step it up and live up to her full potential. To me Ana has LESS potential, talent and ability than Golovin, but Ana might have that little something extra that Golovin might turn out not to have.... as you said, time will tell.

If you only look at ability then it can be really frustrating. Eventually the results count. So if Ana shows someone awesome tennis in the next year, but she miss some luck and won't win any tournament that does increase her ability? And at the other hand, Golovin's game isn't that impressive in your eyes as last year but her results are better. Your thought will be different then?

SilK
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:14 PM
If you only look at ability then it can be really frustrating. Eventually the results count. So if Ana shows someone awesome tennis in the next year, but she miss some luck and won't win any tournament that does increase her ability? And at the other hand, Golovin's game isn't that impressive in your eyes as last year but her results are better. Your thought will be different then?

That is not what I was implying, or trying to say... so I have no idea what point it is you're trying to make. :shrug:

goldenlox
Dec 31st, 2006, 12:32 PM
Results matter when you win a major.
Slam SF and Tier I title are not far apart.
10 vs 13 in rankings is not far apart.

None of these young players have separated based on results.

h2h's are based on who's healthy when they play. Anna C beat Nadia 3 times, but I don't think she's much better than Nadia.

Sveta was 3-0 against Amelie this year. Forget h2h's.