PDA

View Full Version : WTA v ATP little quiz. Who has more Top-10 wins: Myskina or Roddick?


AnnaK_4ever
Mar 7th, 2007, 11:52 PM
And what the difference is?

Little help to you - Myskina has 22 wins.

Havok
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:02 AM
I'm sure Myskina has, but tell anyone whos career they'd rather have and everyone with a functioning brain would pick Roddick without even thinking twice.

John.
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:04 AM
I would say Myskina :shrug:

The Daviator
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:06 AM
It's definitely Myskina, I know that Roddick has only ever beaten one top 10 player in a Slam :help:

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Note: Andy scored his first win in 2001, Nastya in 2002.

John.
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:08 AM
It's definitely Myskina, I know that Roddick has only ever beaten one top 10 player in a Slam :help:

:eek:

Corswandt
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:11 AM
It's definitely Myskina, I know that Roddick has only ever beaten one top 10 player in a Slam :help:

The win over Ancic (then ranked #10) at this year's AO makes it two.

The Daviator
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:13 AM
The win over Ancic (then ranked #10) at this year's AO makes it two.

About time he got another :help:

Nicolás89
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:16 AM
emm let me guess :scratch:

roddick has 17 top ten victories :D

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:19 AM
Ok.

Before I checked his atptour.com profile I've been sure Andy has twice as many Top-10 wins as Myskina. I mean he is former No.1, has won 20+ tournaments comparing to Myskina's 10, has reached 8 Slam semis comparing to Myskina's 1...

It was a shock for me when I found out Andy has scored 17 top-10 wins so far. 5 less than Myskina has...

The Daviator
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:20 AM
Nastya :worship: :lol:

John.
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:21 AM
:lol: Go Nastya

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:21 AM
emm let me guess :scratch:

roddick has 17 top ten victories :D

good maths :wink

Corswandt
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Another interesting ATP stat:

Davydenko finished 2006 ranked #3. Total number of wins over top ten players during the whole 2006 season: 2 [both over Robredo]

LindsayRulz
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:25 AM
:eek:

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Oh, and it's not like it's common habit on ATP Tour. For example, Hewitt, another former No.1 who has similar number of tournaments wins and Slam semis, beat more than 50 top-10 players during his career.

miffedmax
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:44 AM
Good ol' Nastya. Always full of surprises, even when she's not playing.

Natash.
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:46 AM
It's definitely Myskina, I know that Roddick has only ever beaten one top 10 player in a Slam :help:


:lol:

Roddick. :help:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 8th, 2007, 03:03 AM
Roddick sucks . It doesn´t surprise me

Volcana
Mar 8th, 2007, 03:32 AM
I'm sure Myskina has, but tell anyone whos career they'd rather have and everyone with a functioning brain would pick Roddick without even thinking twice.
I have to concur.

NOTE: Myskina is a year older than Roddick.

CanIGetAWhat
Mar 8th, 2007, 03:35 AM
Another interesting ATP stat:

Davydenko finished 2006 ranked #3. Total number of wins over top ten players during the whole 2006 season: 2 [both over Robredo]:tape: :spit: :lol: :rolls:

Lucyxx
Mar 8th, 2007, 03:59 AM
Federer beats top 10 players before Roddick gets a chance to play them and Andy pretty much skips clay season so you have a dominant force on clay in Nadal doing the same there.

If you're having a crack at Roddick it didn't work. If anything, it exposes the lack of depth on the women's side.

Stamp Paid
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:01 AM
Federer beats top 10 players before Roddick gets a chance to play them and Andy pretty much skips clay season so you have a dominant force on clay in Nadal doing the same there.

If you're having a crack at Roddick it didn't work. If anything, it exposes the lack of depth on the women's side.

But also how comparatively weak the men's Top 10 is compared to the women's Top 10.
And whats depth worth, when Federer won 6 of the last 7 grand slams?

MyskinaManiac
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:09 AM
I have to concur.

NOTE: Myskina is a year older than Roddick.

Ok... are we gunna play the "who reached the peak first and when" game and plus, Myskina has had her fair share of injuries. Roddick has been at the top of the mens game longer also, Myskina is a floater between 16 and 8 in the rankings.

MyskinaManiac
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:12 AM
Federer beats top 10 players before Roddick gets a chance to play them and Andy pretty much skips clay season so you have a dominant force on clay in Nadal doing the same there.

If you're having a crack at Roddick it didn't work. If anything, it exposes the lack of depth on the women's side.

In what way? If anything it proves that the womens tour has more depth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but which ONE person has been cleaning everything up in the ATP? In contrast, the womens tour provide continual surprises... on the wta it's anyones tournament or it's anyones slam... unlike the men "it's Federer's or Nadal's slam"

bellascarlett
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:15 AM
Myskina

Hasn't it been repeatedly pointed out last year that Roddick has so few wins over the top ten? At I remember it being stated several times.

Havok
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:16 AM
But also how comparatively weak the men's Top 10 is compared to the women's Top 10.
And whats depth worth, when Federer won 6 of the last 7 grand slams?
:haha::haha:. Even with clown top 10 players in the ATP Tour (Ljubicic, Robredo and co) they are in no way, shape or form weaker than the WTA. The WTA has Dementieva, at one point had Schnyder, the ever so consistent Kuznetsova (who's top 5 for heaven's sake!) and Serena Williams is just a couple of more tournaments away from getting herself back inside the top 10 with less than 5 events played. That, my friend, speaks volume of how the WTA lacks depth.

It's getting better as the years go by, mind you, but it'll still take years for it to become as deep as the ATP tour.

Havok
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:20 AM
Myskina

Hasn't it been repeatedly pointed out last year that Roddick has so few wins over the top ten? At I remember it being stated several times.
Off the top of my head Roddick faced Federer twice (atomatic losses to anyone not named Nadal; had 3 mp's in the TMC though :tape: ), Blake twice (lost that Indy nail bitter 3rd set TB) Ljubicic and Nalbandian last year. Hard to beat the top 10 players when you only face them a handful of times. That's the thing about the ATP and the WTA. Top seeds on the men's side get knocked out early far more often than the women do because the lower ranked mens players can hang with and often beat the higher seeds. The women simply destroy the garbage players and seeds almost always move through like 80% of the time. That being said, for Roddick to only be off Myskina by 5 top 10 wins is pretty good in my book.

Stamp Paid
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:24 AM
:haha::haha:. Even with clown top 10 players in the ATP Tour (Ljubicic, Robredo and co) they are in no way, shape or form weaker than the WTA. The WTA has Dementieva, at one point had Schnyder, the ever so consistent Kuznetsova (who's top 5 for heaven's sake!) and Serena Williams is just a couple of more tournaments away from getting herself back inside the top 10 with less than 5 events played. That, my friend, speaks volume of how the WTA lacks depth.

It's getting better as the years go by, mind you, but it'll still take years for it to become as deep as the ATP tour.

In the Top 10 on the womens side, you have 6 slam winners. All 6 of these women can threaten for every slam.
In the ATP Top 10, there are 3. No one outside of Federer and Nadal are really contending for slams.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant in my intial post. I wasnt trying to say the women's side was deeper than the men's side, but I was saying that the WTA Top 10 consisted of more quality players who have posted better results than their male counterparts. Being World #5 on the mens side is like, 'So what?', especially when Federer is winning every non-clay slam. OTOH, being the WTA's #5 means a little more.

And Roddick has so few Top 10 wins because he's garbage and not making it to the round to face a top player, not because Federer is beating all of them before Roddick can get a chance. (Lately, of course.)

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 8th, 2007, 05:00 AM
:haha::haha:. Even with clown top 10 players in the ATP Tour , Ljubicic, Robredo and co ....


Blake , Gonzalez ...

RND
Mar 8th, 2007, 05:37 AM
Ok.

Before I checked his atptour.com profile I've been sure Andy has twice as many Top-10 wins as Myskina. I mean he is former No.1, has won 20+ tournaments comparing to Myskina's 10, has reached 8 Slam semis comparing to Myskina's 1...

It was a shock for me when I found out Andy has scored 17 top-10 wins so far. 5 less than Myskina has...
:eek:
How did Andy manage to win so many big titles with so few top-10 wins?
I think this somewhat shows how competitive it is in ATP.

Hardiansf
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:18 AM
Interesting.
But, who has more TOP-5 wins? Myskina or Roddick?
I think Myskina get a million times win from her compatriot who gets lucky to be on the TOP-10 that time.

faboozadoo15
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Difference bwteen Andy and Myskina-- Andy shows up with an A game more often, and Andy is mor capable of beating the players ranked below him to win titles. Myskina can lose to anyone and also beat anyone. she's WY more unpredicatable than rooddick.

if we gauged myskina's upset lossed vs roddick's we'd see she's alsao far ahead. it doesn't really say mush about either player, just how each deals with their surroundings.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:55 AM
Interesting.
But, who has more TOP-5 wins? Myskina or Roddick?
I think Myskina get a million times win from her compatriot who gets lucky to be on the TOP-10 that time.

Yeah... Slam winners Sharapova and Kuznetsova are just lucky to be ranked in Top-10. And Dementieva has been afwul lucky to make two Slam finals and be top-tenner for 4 years. So Myskina herself was lucky to beat them a total of 6 times.
Other than these three players Myskina never played another Russian who was Top-10.

And once again:
Roddick - 17 top-10 wins
Hewitt - 55+ top-10 wins.

Go figure.

Hardiansf
Mar 8th, 2007, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardiansf http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=10235760#post10235760)
Interesting.
But, who has more TOP-5 wins? Myskina or Roddick?
I think Myskina get a million times win from her compatriot who gets lucky to be on the TOP-10 that time.

Yeah... Slam winners Sharapova and Kuznetsova are just lucky to be ranked in Top-10. And Dementieva has been afwul lucky to make two Slam finals and be top-tenner for 4 years. So Myskina herself was lucky to beat them a total of 6 times.
Other than these three players Myskina never played another Russian who was Top-10.

And once again:
Roddick - 17 top-10 wins
Hewitt - 55+ top-10 wins.

Go figure.

And... you do not answer my question then. Compare their TOP-5 WINS, then we can see it clearly

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 10:38 AM
And... you do not answer my question then. Compare their TOP-5 WINS, then we can see it clearly

They are even in it, though I'm not sure. 8 or 9 Top-5 wins for each of them, I believe.
So what does it change?

tobi
Mar 8th, 2007, 11:38 AM
You shouldnt consider Roddick as a that good player :lol:

Winston's Human
Mar 8th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Roddick has made the QFs twelve times in the slams: one title, three finals, four semifinals and four quarterfinals.

One reason why Roddick has so few top 10 wins in the slams is that he has not played many other top 10ers -- often because those other top 10-ers have lost early.

Myskina has six QF appearances in the slams -- and has only advanced once from the QFs.

TomTennis
Mar 8th, 2007, 12:03 PM
seems like a desperate Myskina trying to rake through archives and meaningless results :rolleyes:

What relevance does this have to anything at all?

Martian KC
Mar 8th, 2007, 01:46 PM
That's because rodduck sux.

Winston's Human
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Versus the Top 10:

Myskina - 22 wins/51 losses (30.1% success rate)

Roddick - 17 wins/33 losses (34.0% success rate)

Corswandt
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Versus the Top 10:

Myskina - 22 wins/51 losses (30.1% success rate)

Roddick - 17 wins/33 losses (34.0% success rate)

Figures.

Myskina's H2H record against Slam winners/contenders isn't that different from Schnyder's.

Davenport: 10-2 vs Schnyder, 6-2 vs Myskina
Serena Williams: 6-1 vs Schnyder, 5-0 vs Myskina
Venus Williams: 8-0 vs Schnyder, 3-2 vs Myskina
Clijsters: 5-2 vs Schnyder, 7-3 vs Myskina
Henin: 7-1 vs Schnyder, 8-2 vs Myskina
Mauresmo: 12-5 vs Schnyder, 8-1 vs Myskina

And Schnyder even leads their H2H by 3-2.

And of course this:

Myskina has six QF appearances in the slams -- and has only advanced once from the QFs.

Myskina is the single greatest overachiever on the women's tour in recent years.

sweetpeas
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Roddick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No Name Face
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:40 PM
Another interesting ATP stat:

Davydenko finished 2006 ranked #3. Total number of wins over top ten players during the whole 2006 season: 2 [both over Robredo]

wow.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:40 PM
It was just a quiz. Nothing more.

But if you think that beating two Top-10 players to progress to four Slam finals is normal record for former No.1 but beating two Top-10 players to progress to her only Slam final is abysmal record for 'one Slam wonder' then you're... :silly:

No Name Face
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:47 PM
:haha::haha:. Even with clown top 10 players in the ATP Tour (Ljubicic, Robredo and co) they are in no way, shape or form weaker than the WTA. The WTA has Dementieva, at one point had Schnyder, the ever so consistent Kuznetsova (who's top 5 for heaven's sake!) and Serena Williams is just a couple of more tournaments away from getting herself back inside the top 10 with less than 5 events played. That, my friend, speaks volume of how the WTA lacks depth.

It's getting better as the years go by, mind you, but it'll still take years for it to become as deep as the ATP tour.

i'm not trying to be a delusional fan, but you singling out dementieva like she doesn't deserve to be in the top 10 is absurd.

dementieva has defeated all of the current top 10. how is that not legitimate? she's made two grand slam finals, defeating top 10 players the whole time. she's defeated top 10 players every year since she's become top 10. she's no schnyder. she is better than myskina. she is better than kuznetsova (at least, when she plays the top 10). dementieva has defeated henin, clijsters, venus, hingis, davenport, mauresmo, AND sharapova more than once. so she's not a fluke and is definitely a top 10 player.

yeah yeah, she can't serve. no one else in the top 10 would have her career if they couldn't serve.

coria can't serve. neither can nalbandian. i don't see you saying that they shouldn't have been in the top 10. a serve is one attribute. roddick has no backhand, does that mean he shouldn't be top 10?

In The Zone
Mar 8th, 2007, 02:52 PM
Roddick, especially at the US Open, gets great draws. And on the men's side, Top 10 wins really means nothing [ especially with Federer dominating the way he has ]. His 17 wins doesn't say much -- bad or good.

Myskina's 22 says a lot. When Myskina was at her best, she was amazing. The number of times she pushed Henin-Hardenne, Serena, Mauresmo was great. She took Sharapova out many times before her slump knocked in.

Regardless of her return, at least she won her slam before Sharapova. :]

No Name Face
Mar 8th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Roddick, especially at the US Open, gets great draws. And on the men's side, Top 10 wins really means nothing [ especially with Federer dominating the way he has ]. His 17 wins doesn't say much -- bad or good.

Myskina's 22 says a lot. When Myskina was at her best, she was amazing. The number of times she pushed Henin-Hardenne, Serena, Mauresmo was great. She took Sharapova out many times before her slump knocked in.

Regardless of her return, at least she won her slam before Sharapova. :]

agreed on all accounts. :)

i'm a huge dementieva fan but the way myskina consistently dismantled elena's game was amazing. when you see their games, you'd think myskina would be dominated by elena's thunderstrokes, but anastasia knew elena's game better than she did. it was really phenomenal.

myskina had a great 2004. i wish she had hit #1, actually. it would have been more deserved than davenport (re: Myskina won a slam and made the semifinals of the YEC)

Monica_Rules
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Wow that is interesting

Winston's Human
Mar 8th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Roddick, especially at the US Open, gets great draws. And on the men's side, Top 10 wins really means nothing [ especially with Federer dominating the way he has ]. His 17 wins doesn't say much -- bad or good.



It is not that Roddick gets "great draws" at the US Open. It is that he has taken advantage of draws where there have been upsets. For example, last year, Roddick should have faced Baghdatis, Ljubicic and Nadal to reach the final; instead, he faced Becker, Hewitt and Youzhny because his potential top-tier opponents failed to live up to their seedings.

Andrew Laeddis
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:23 PM
its not a shock. roddick was top three player for second half 2003, all of 2004 and part of 2005. when your ranked that high you dont usuallly play a lot of top ten players until late in a tournament.

Andrew Laeddis
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:26 PM
i'm not trying to be a delusional fan, but you singling out dementieva like she doesn't deserve to be in the top 10 is absurd.

dementieva has defeated all of the current top 10. how is that not legitimate? she's made two grand slam finals, defeating top 10 players the whole time. she's defeated top 10 players every year since she's become top 10. she's no schnyder. she is better than myskina. she is better than kuznetsova (at least, when she plays the top 10). dementieva has defeated henin, clijsters, venus, hingis, davenport, mauresmo, AND sharapova more than once. so she's not a fluke and is definitely a top 10 player.

yeah yeah, she can't serve. no one else in the top 10 would have her career if they couldn't serve.

coria can't serve. neither can nalbandian. i don't see you saying that they shouldn't have been in the top 10. a serve is one attribute. roddick has no backhand, does that mean he shouldn't be top 10?


roddick does have a backhand. in fact since hiring connors its become a weapon. in fact in his most recent matches its been more effective than his forehand. nalbandian might not have the best serve but he surely isnt as bad as dementieva. and dementieva at her best would lose to henin, clijsters, venus, maria, serena at their best.

The Daviator
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:27 PM
agreed on all accounts. :)

i'm a huge dementieva fan but the way myskina consistently dismantled elena's game was amazing. when you see their games, you'd think myskina would be dominated by elena's thunderstrokes, but anastasia knew elena's game better than she did. it was really phenomenal.

myskina had a great 2004. i wish she had hit #1, actually. it would have been more deserved than davenport (re: Myskina won a slam and made the semifinals of the YEC)

Well according the rankings, Lindsay was more deserved :p

MisterQ
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Roddick, especially at the US Open, gets great draws. And on the men's side, Top 10 wins really means nothing [ especially with Federer dominating the way he has ]. His 17 wins doesn't say much -- bad or good.

Myskina's 22 says a lot. When Myskina was at her best, she was amazing. The number of times she pushed Henin-Hardenne, Serena, Mauresmo was great. She took Sharapova out many times before her slump knocked in.

Regardless of her return, at least she won her slam before Sharapova. :]

Roddick's consistently high ranking helps him to get great draws, though. ;) He avoids the Top Ten players until late in the tournament.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:44 PM
Roddick plays many tournaments in the United States where the best players of the world do not go (San José , Memphis, Washington , Indianpolis , Houston , etc. )

In Europe he plays Lyon instead Basel , Viena (Federer and Nadal don´t play) .
Basically Roddick tries to avoid the best europeans and south americans players

Havok
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:48 PM
No he doesn't. It's not his fault that the top 10 is dominated by Europeans and they obviously would rather play in europe than in the USA (apart from Haas). Makes sense to want to play in as many tournaments in your home country, or at least continent doesn't it?:tape:

Also nicely pointed out that Roddick can only face top 10 players from QF onwards really in every event he plays since he's been ranked inside the top 10 ever since late 2002 (just his second year on tour). Myskina hasn't been a top 10 player for such a long stretch so she has WAY more chances to play them, as noted by her win/loss record vs top 10 players.

iWill
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:50 PM
This doesnt really reflect how good of a career either player has had (not that you were trying to prove that in the post) it just shows that on the men's tour you don't always have to beat the top 10 men to win a tournament because many of them are upset in earlier rounds whereas on the women's tour you dont usually see any of hte top 10 women upset early and seeds always make it to the point of playing each other

Havok
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:54 PM
In the Top 10 on the womens side, you have 6 slam winners. All 6 of these women can threaten for every slam.
In the ATP Top 10, there are 3. No one outside of Federer and Nadal are really contending for slams.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant in my intial post. I wasnt trying to say the women's side was deeper than the men's side, but I was saying that the WTA Top 10 consisted of more quality players who have posted better results than their male counterparts. Being World #5 on the mens side is like, 'So what?', especially when Federer is winning every non-clay slam. OTOH, being the WTA's #5 means a little more.

And Roddick has so few Top 10 wins because he's garbage and not making it to the round to face a top player, not because Federer is beating all of them before Roddick can get a chance. (Lately, of course.)
This part makes absoultely NO fucking sense whatsoever. It's not Federer who's beating the top 10 players before Roddick gets a chance to, it's the "small fries" who are knocking out the other top 10 players not named Federer.

And not for anything but step back a bit and really think about that comment you wrote down. Say Federer does wipe out 2-3 top 10 players and then meets Roddick in the semis of an event. Both players weren't in the same quarter of the draw anyways :weirdo: so how on earth does Federer taking out the top 10 players in HIS quarter affect the amount of top 10 players taken away from Roddick that he could have faced? Either way if it were Fed that came out of his quarter, or another top 10 player (beating other top players along the way), you can only face ONE top 10 player from the QF onwards (4r in bigger events, ie Slams TMS events).

Havok
Mar 8th, 2007, 07:57 PM
i'm not trying to be a delusional fan, but you singling out dementieva like she doesn't deserve to be in the top 10 is absurd.

dementieva has defeated all of the current top 10. how is that not legitimate? she's made two grand slam finals, defeating top 10 players the whole time. she's defeated top 10 players every year since she's become top 10. she's no schnyder. she is better than myskina. she is better than kuznetsova (at least, when she plays the top 10). dementieva has defeated henin, clijsters, venus, hingis, davenport, mauresmo, AND sharapova more than once. so she's not a fluke and is definitely a top 10 player.

yeah yeah, she can't serve. no one else in the top 10 would have her career if they couldn't serve.

coria can't serve. neither can nalbandian. i don't see you saying that they shouldn't have been in the top 10. a serve is one attribute. roddick has no backhand, does that mean he shouldn't be top 10?

Please point out to me WHERe i specifically singled out Dementieva? I not only wrote down her name, but Schnyder and Kuznetsova as well. Dementieva is a damn good player, but let's get serious here. When there were a whole slew of players that were healthy and playing tennis (2000-2002) Dementieva cracked the top 10 briefly, if memory serves me here, late 2000 and got knocked out only to re-enter in 2003. At that time Seles was out of the game, as was Hingis. Dokic's career was caput, Capriati was on her way out and Venus and Serena couldn't even string together 3-5 tournaments in a "season" for a few years. She's no fluke, but was helped into the top 10.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 8th, 2007, 08:03 PM
In 2000-2002 Elena was 19-21 years old .

Elena entered in da top when her tennis matured and non thanks to other players

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 8th, 2007, 08:08 PM
Also nicely pointed out that Roddick can only face top 10 players from QF onwards really in every event he plays since he's been ranked inside the top 10 ever since late 2002 (just his second year on tour). Myskina hasn't been a top 10 player for such a long stretch so she has WAY more chances to play them, as noted by her win/loss record vs top 10 players.

Oh, please... Hewitt has been as consistent top-tenner as Roddick. Still, Lleyton has 56 Top-10 wins. 56 to 17 :help: Even Nadal has already scored 19 wins and he is No.2 for two years.
As for Myskina she beat 15 top-tenners only while being in Top-10 herself. In the span of two years.

Andy is 2-8 vs Top-10 at Grand Slams. And he is 1-time champion, 3-time runner-up, 4-time semifinalist, 4-time quarterfinalist.
Nastya is 5-9 vs Top-10 at Slams. And she is only 1-time champion and 5-time quarterfinalist.

While Myskina could be called (though deservedly) one slam wonder, Roddick without a doubt is the luckiest active player, male or female.

Tenis Srbija
Mar 8th, 2007, 08:09 PM
OMG Andy :speakles:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 8th, 2007, 08:14 PM
Oh, please... Hewitt has been as consistent top-tenner as Roddick. Still, Lleyton has 56 Top-10 wins. 56 to 17 :help: Even Nadal has already scored 19 wins and he is No.2 for two years.
As for Myskina she beat 15 top-tenners only while being in Top-10 herself. In the span of two years.

Nadal > Robo Rod

Lleyton > Robo Rod

Corswandt
Mar 8th, 2007, 09:24 PM
roddick does have a backhand. in fact since hiring connors its become a weapon. in fact in his most recent matches its been more effective than his forehand.

:haha:

No Name Face
Mar 9th, 2007, 01:16 AM
roddick does have a backhand. in fact since hiring connors its become a weapon. in fact in his most recent matches its been more effective than his forehand.

you have jokes! :lol: :lol: :lol:


nalbandian might not have the best serve but he surely isnt as bad as dementieva. and dementieva at her best would lose to henin, clijsters, venus, maria, serena at their best.

dementieva at her best destroyed hingis 6-2 6-0. granted hingis wasn't at her best, but even if she was, she would have lost that match in two tight sets or three sets. hingis could have never handled that power. near peak dementieva defeated near peak clijsters 6-3, 3-6, 6-2. and don't say that clijsters wasn't good on that day because i saw that match. peak dementieva bageled capriati. this isn't to suggest that dementieva is the best when she's at her peak, but she's more than capable of beating those players near their peaks (minus serena on all surfaces, venus/maria on grass, and henin on clay). with that said, dementieva is a great player who is deserving of her top 10 positioning. the problem with dementieva is that she can't maintain her peak consistently, but when she is good, she is a top 5 talent. her peak groundstrokes are absolutely incredible. she's as deadly as venus on the run. she can strike winners from both wings. i don't know what else makes a top 10 player. :shrug: she's also not terrible at the net...in 2004, when she went to the net, she usually won most of her points there. she's just not a graceful volleyer.

No Name Face
Mar 9th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Please point out to me WHERe i specifically singled out Dementieva? I not only wrote down her name, but Schnyder and Kuznetsova as well. Dementieva is a damn good player, but let's get serious here. When there were a whole slew of players that were healthy and playing tennis (2000-2002) Dementieva cracked the top 10 briefly, if memory serves me here, late 2000 and got knocked out only to re-enter in 2003. At that time Seles was out of the game, as was Hingis. Dokic's career was caput, Capriati was on her way out and Venus and Serena couldn't even string together 3-5 tournaments in a "season" for a few years. She's no fluke, but was helped into the top 10.

Schnyder is not on Dementieva's level. Dementieva is established in the top 10. In 2000-2002 Dementieva wasn't at her best level. She had flashes of brilliance, but that's about it. Some players develop fast like Sharapova/Hingis and some don't. If Dementieva was lucky, she would have dropped out of the top 10 after 2004, when Henin and Clijsters returned. Maybe even after 2005 she would have dropped out. But she didn't. In fact, she was top 5 for spells. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say she was helped into the top 10.

If she was a product of luck then she would have dropped out when Kuznetsova and Myskina did, perhaps???? She's only dropping out now because of injury (though she could have fell out with an early loss in IW, I'm aware of that)

Havok
Mar 9th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Oh, please... Hewitt has been as consistent top-tenner as Roddick. Still, Lleyton has 56 Top-10 wins. 56 to 17 :help: Even Nadal has already scored 19 wins and he is No.2 for two years.
As for Myskina she beat 15 top-tenners only while being in Top-10 herself. In the span of two years.

Andy is 2-8 vs Top-10 at Grand Slams. And he is 1-time champion, 3-time runner-up, 4-time semifinalist, 4-time quarterfinalist.
Nastya is 5-9 vs Top-10 at Slams. And she is only 1-time champion and 5-time quarterfinalist.

While Myskina could be called (though deservedly) one slam wonder, Roddick without a doubt is the luckiest active player, male or female.
Erm Hewitt has been on the tour way longer than Roddick has. Also you can't face top 10 players if they lose before you're drawn to face them period. Fact of the matter is that even with Federer destroying Roddick every single time, he still has a better winning % over top 10 players than Myskina does. Enough said.

Calling Roddick the luckiest active player, male or female, is a joke. Please, for the sake of all the posters here, lay off the crack. You don't win a slam, get to 3 other finals, win 20+ titles, year end #1, and the list goes on, simply by being lucky.

Mightymirza
Mar 9th, 2007, 01:58 AM
In what way? If anything it proves that the womens tour has more depth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but which ONE person has been cleaning everything up in the ATP? In contrast, the womens tour provide continual surprises... on the wta it's anyones tournament or it's anyones slam... unlike the men "it's Federer's or Nadal's slam"

soon it will be just federers..:devil:

Stamp Paid
Mar 9th, 2007, 02:02 AM
This part makes absoultely NO fucking sense whatsoever. It's not Federer who's beating the top 10 players before Roddick gets a chance to, it's the "small fries" who are knocking out the other top 10 players not named Federer.

And not for anything but step back a bit and really think about that comment you wrote down. Say Federer does wipe out 2-3 top 10 players and then meets Roddick in the semis of an event. Both players weren't in the same quarter of the draw anyways :weirdo: so how on earth does Federer taking out the top 10 players in HIS quarter affect the amount of top 10 players taken away from Roddick that he could have faced? Either way if it were Fed that came out of his quarter, or another top 10 player (beating other top players along the way), you can only face ONE top 10 player from the QF onwards (4r in bigger events, ie Slams TMS events).

um ok...it was never that serious to begin with dude. I was trying to keep it light and friendly...
but you win. :unsure:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 9th, 2007, 02:04 AM
soon it will be just federers..:devil:

Nope .

Vamos is the King in France

bellascarlett
Mar 9th, 2007, 02:37 AM
Myskina's 22 says a lot. When Myskina was at her best, she was amazing. The number of times she pushed Henin-Hardenne, Serena, Mauresmo was great. She took Sharapova out many times before her slump knocked in.



Before her slump kicked in? Oh Cmon, let's be realistic here (a little too much to ask maybe). All Myskina's wins over Maria were in 2004 when Maria was 17 (*Edit - Maria was actually 16 for 2 out of 3 of Myskina's wins against her, the last when she was 17 in San Diego) and was still growing in her game as she frankly still is now. Myskina on the other hand was already a settled-in top 10 player who was in her prime. At times I think Nastya overachieved. It wasn't a slump. It's not a slump. That's quite an excuse. She's just not that great of a player.

And don't get me wrong, I like Myskina. Anyway, I wish she and Maria met more times in 2005 and 2006. That H2H needs to be put into its right place.

Regardless of her return, at least she won her slam before Sharapova. :]

:tape:

Love these comments. :lol:

Maybe...She should thank Sharapova for being years younger than she is. :bolt: ;)

bellascarlett
Mar 9th, 2007, 02:42 AM
Myskina is the single greatest overachiever on the women's tour in recent years.

There you go! I obviously am not the only one to think this. Good to know you agree. ;)

MyskinaManiac
Mar 9th, 2007, 02:45 AM
You can't even call Maria Russian... so comparing Nastya and Maria is just rediculous. They were brought up differently... Maria had the best training facilities and Anastasia didn't. So in theory Nastya is probably the more talented player given the circumstances. And lets not play the whole "she was 17" card because if Maria's good enough to win a slam at that age then she's good enough to be classed as a worthy opponent.

And Nastya has a winning edge over almost all Russians... she's the leader.

bellascarlett
Mar 9th, 2007, 03:14 AM
You can't even call Maria Russian... so comparing Nastya and Maria is just rediculous. They were brought up differently... Maria had the best training facilities and Anastasia didn't. So in theory Nastya is probably the more talented player given the circumstances. And lets not play the whole "she was 17" card because if Maria's good enough to win a slam at that age then she's good enough to be classed as a worthy opponent.

And Nastya has a winning edge over almost all Russians... she's the leader.

Get over it...Maria is Russian. :lol:

And I will play the 'she was 17' and still raw card because I think it is a valid point in this case. Actually, sorry I was wrong about that because the 2 times out of the 3 that Myskina beat Maria - Maria was 16. So I guess I'm pulling out the "she was 16" card instead.

And did you expect Sharapova to win Wimbledon at 17? How many realistically did? You talk as if that Wimbledon win didn't create that atmosphere of surprise. Maria didn't even have a single tier II or higher title before Wimbledon. I never said Maria wasn't a worthy opponent at that time. She was always going to be very good. But she just hadn't hit solid consistent top player stage at that time. Nobody can deny they were at different stages in their growth as players the first few times they met - simple as that.

Andrew Laeddis
Mar 9th, 2007, 01:53 PM
Roddick plays many tournaments in the United States where the best players of the world do not go (San José , Memphis, Washington , Indianpolis , Houston , etc. )

In Europe he plays Lyon instead Basel , Viena (Federer and Nadal don´t play) .
Basically Roddick tries to avoid the best europeans and south americans players

no he doesnt. the only person he really afraid to face is federer. nadal is no threat to roddick except on clay. nadal can be overpowered by players like roddick, blake, berdych, youzhny and roddick has beaten every player that is in the top ten right now

Andrew Laeddis
Mar 9th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Oh, please... Hewitt has been as consistent top-tenner as Roddick. Still, Lleyton has 56 Top-10 wins. 56 to 17 :help: Even Nadal has already scored 19 wins and he is No.2 for two years.
As for Myskina she beat 15 top-tenners only while being in Top-10 herself. In the span of two years.

Andy is 2-8 vs Top-10 at Grand Slams. And he is 1-time champion, 3-time runner-up, 4-time semifinalist, 4-time quarterfinalist.
Nastya is 5-9 vs Top-10 at Slams. And she is only 1-time champion and 5-time quarterfinalist.

While Myskina could be called (though deservedly) one slam wonder, Roddick without a doubt is the luckiest active player, male or female.

roddick may only have one slam but hes been to many slam qfs and sfs and every year since his slam victory hes been to at least one slam final. its not his fault he had to face federer. in 2004, 2005 roddick would have surely beat any other player for the wimbledon title. roddick may not face alot of top ten players but he has the ability to beat them. hes beaten players like nalbandian, safin, hewitt, nadal, blake, hass, ljubicic and other talented players.

if you want to see a real comparison of the two players lets look at the rankings. roddick is 3rd in the world whereas myskina isnt even in the top ten.

the atp tour does have more depth because there are players outside the top ten like baghdatis, murray, gasquet, safin, hewitt who are just as good as players in the top ten. roddick beating blake shouldnt mean more jhan roddick beating safin who i smor etalented than blake.

MyskinaManiac
Mar 9th, 2007, 04:02 PM
Get over it...Maria is Russian. :lol:

And I will play the 'she was 17' and still raw card because I think it is a valid point in this case. Actually, sorry I was wrong about that because the 2 times out of the 3 that Myskina beat Maria - Maria was 16. So I guess I'm pulling out the "she was 16" card instead.

And did you expect Sharapova to win Wimbledon at 17? How many realistically did? You talk as if that Wimbledon win didn't create that atmosphere of surprise. Maria didn't even have a single tier II or higher title before Wimbledon. I never said Maria wasn't a worthy opponent at that time. She was always going to be very good. But she just hadn't hit solid consistent top player stage at that time. Nobody can deny they were at different stages in their growth as players the first few times they met - simple as that.

No, I wasn't under it. Her Russian is spoken poorly and the only claim to Russia she has is the 6 or 7 years she lived there and the fact she was born there. Nastya on the otherhand is 100% Russian... born and bred.

Ok, so you're telling me how good Maria was at 16 or 17 right? Well, look at how easily Nastya beat her. You just can't compare Maria and Nastya... Nastya is such an individually sculptured player and Maria is just another carbon-copy power hitter.

The Daviator
Mar 9th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Erm Hewitt has been on the tour way longer than Roddick has. Also you can't face top 10 players if they lose before you're drawn to face them period. Fact of the matter is that even with Federer destroying Roddick every single time, he still has a better winning % over top 10 players than Myskina does. Enough said.

Calling Roddick the luckiest active player, male or female, is a joke. Please, for the sake of all the posters here, lay off the crack. You don't win a slam, get to 3 other finals, win 20+ titles, year end #1, and the list goes on, simply by being lucky.

Yeah, but Roddick has been on the tour way longer than Nadal, and even he has more :tape:

The Daviator
Mar 9th, 2007, 04:10 PM
Before her slump kicked in? Oh Cmon, let's be realistic here (a little too much to ask maybe). All Myskina's wins over Maria were in 2004 when Maria was 17 (*Edit - Maria was actually 16 for 2 out of 3 of Myskina's wins against her, the last when she was 17 in San Diego)

And that was just after Sharpie had won Wimbledon ;)

Honestly, I think Myskina, when playing well, is a bad match-up for Maria, and still woud be today if she was in any decent form at all :tape:

Matt01
Mar 9th, 2007, 04:15 PM
Honestly, I think Myskina, when playing well, is a bad match-up for Maria, and still woud be today if she was in any decent form at all :tape:

I agree.


the atp tour does have more depth because there are players outside the top ten like baghdatis, murray, gasquet, safin, hewitt who are just as good as players in the top ten.

The last part of this is true, but only because the top ten of the atp tour is so weak :p :lol:

pancake
Mar 9th, 2007, 04:22 PM
That may be offensive to some people but IMO Roddick has only a great serve, that's why when he faces Federer, who handles his serve with ease, always find a way to beat him.
Of course Roddick is improving right now but I personlly think he's limited by his talent, he's not a gifted-skill player after all. But his effort should be admired though.
And for me Myskina's match is always delightful to watch...

Anyway why does the number of Roddick's top-ten wins have to do with the depth of ATP?:confused:...

Winston's Human
Mar 9th, 2007, 06:03 PM
Anyway why does the number of Roddick's top-ten wins have to to with the depth of ATP?:confused:...

The ATP's depth means that the top players played each other less often since there are more early round upsets involving the men.

Roddick's numbers even bear that out. He has advanced to the quarters or better of a slam twelve times; yet, he has only played ten top-10 players in slams. By contrast, Myskina has advanced to the quarters or better six times and has played fourteen top-10 players in slams.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2007, 06:29 PM
Anyway, Roddick's numbers are exceptional even by ATP 'standards'.
Ferrero is 31-37 vs Top-10, Nadal is 19-10, Hewitt is 56-39, Safin is 44-40. Andy is 17-35. It's very big difference from other players.

bellascarlett
Mar 9th, 2007, 07:44 PM
And that was just after Sharpie had won Wimbledon ;)

Honestly, I think Myskina, when playing well, is a bad match-up for Maria, and still woud be today if she was in any decent form at all :tape:

Yes, but if you bothered to check Maria's history at that time, she completely went into a 'mini-slump' right after Wimbledon and it wasn't until her Tier IV win in Seoul that everything clicked again for her. It took a few tournaments before she got used to the pressure and attention right after her unexpected Wim win. By 2005 she became the solid top 5 player she now is. From AO 2005 - Present, Maria has been ranked inside the top 5.

Anyway, I disagree about the bad match-up. If you saw their Miami 06 match, I thought Myskina played okay but there was nothing she could hurt Maria with. And that's how most of their matches would have gone imo had they met more times in the last two years.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2007, 07:48 PM
Anyway, I disagree about the bad match-up. If you saw their Miami 06 match, I thought Myskina played okay but there was nothing she could hurt Maria with. And that's how most of their matches would have gone imo had they met more times in the last two years.

In the last two years Myskina played like shit. Of course Sharapova would destroy her easily.

bellascarlett
Mar 9th, 2007, 07:57 PM
In the last two years Myskina played like shit. Of course Sharapova would destroy her easily.

Check her records, didn't she play a good grass court season last year? Anyway, you say she played like shit - well playing like shit or not, two years is a loooong time that you begin to question "was she really playing like shit?" or....

This brings us back to the sentiment that has been expressed before which was Myskina as an overachiever.

There comes a point where you just say that a certain player is better. (And that's without disrespecting the other)

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Check her records, didn't she play a good grass court season last year? Anyway, you say she played like shit - well playing like shit or not, two years is a loooong time that you begin to question "was she really playing like shit?" or....

This brings us back to the sentiment that has been expressed before which was Myskina as an overachiever.

There comes a point where you just say that a certain player is better. (And that's without disrespecting the other)

Sharapova is the better player, no doubt.
But believe me, in 2002 Myskina played much better than in 2005-06. In 2003 she played better than in 2002. In 2004 she played her best ever tennis. Overachiever? In terms of career titles - hardly. In terms of Slam titles - maybe. But statistically between USO-2003 and YEC-2004 Myskina was one of four best players on Tour along with Henin, Davenport and Mauresmo. So she had real chances to win a major and did convert them. She was on the rise and then again we could only guess what she could have achieved had she beat Henin at Athens. She still could go in slump afterwards but she would be Slam champion AND former No.1 in slump...

Corswandt
Mar 11th, 2007, 01:44 AM
But statistically between USO-2003 and YEC-2004 Myskina was one of four best players on Tour along with Henin, Davenport and Mauresmo. So she had real chances to win a major and did convert them.

Interesting how during much of that period (from May 2004 onwards at least) Clijsters was out injured and Henin was playing infrequently due to sickness. :p

frenchie
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:47 AM
It's such a pity to see so many people are talking shit about Nastya now she's down!

She's a great player, she has achieved more than 99.9% of your faves (including Dementieva, Petrova...)

Everything went wrong with her mother illness. From that point she had problems with her confidence
leave her alone now!!

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:57 AM
Interesting how during much of that period (from May 2004 onwards at least) Clijsters was out injured and Henin was playing infrequently due to sickness. :p

What does Myskina have to do with Clijsters' injury or Henin' sickness? And what does your reply have to do with the post you're replying to?

But then you're just dumb hater... Don't worry you won't see Myskina on court anymore.
Or should you worry? Cos maybe you'll need to find another player to hate?

hwanmig
Mar 11th, 2007, 12:36 PM
Roddick is a bag of shit. His cheap serve actually won him a slam.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 11th, 2007, 01:57 PM
Despite not facing many top-tenners Andy's US Open title was absolutely deserved by him. He won both Masters leading up to USO in 2003. Nobody could repeat that feat.

Simplicity.
Mar 11th, 2007, 02:38 PM
It's definitely Myskina, I know that Roddick has only ever beaten one top 10 player in a Slam :help:

Not true, he beat Ancic in this years Australian Open.

All 5 players hes lost to in teh Australain Open have at one point in their careers been in the top 5 so its not like hes losing to nobodys there.

Roland Garros, hes brutal, but several highly ranked players.

In four of his 5 US Open losses, he lost a former Grand Slam winner, the other in 3 tiebreaks.

And all his losses at Wimbledon were to Federer or former number 2's in the world other than Murrey who will one day be #2 in the world.

Basically, its not like he's losing to terrible players. It is just he gets pretty good draws, up to where he losses. Maybe these good draws leave him unprepared for the top players.

butch
Mar 11th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Another interesting ATP stat:

Davydenko finished 2006 ranked #3. Total number of wins over top ten players during the whole 2006 season: 2 [both over Robredo]

:tape: :lol: :lol: :lol: :help:

butch
Mar 11th, 2007, 04:28 PM
When there were a whole slew of players that were healthy and playing tennis (2000-2002) Dementieva cracked the top 10 briefly, if memory serves me here, late 2000 and got knocked out only to re-enter in 2003. At that time Seles was out of the game, as was Hingis. Dokic's career was caput, Capriati was on her way out and Venus and Serena couldn't even string together 3-5 tournaments in a "season" for a few years. She's no fluke, but was helped into the top 10.

Kinda reminds me of when Hingis became world No 1 :lol: :lol: but I digress ;)

Aphex
Mar 11th, 2007, 05:23 PM
Despite not facing many top-tenners Andy's US Open title was absolutely deserved by him. He won both Masters leading up to USO in 2003. Nobody could repeat that feat.

Rafter did it in 98. And Nalbandian was ROBBED. And the scheduling was totally in favour of Agassi and Roddick. US Open 03 was a black hole of unsportsmanlike crap on behalf of the arrangers.:fiery: And isn't this WTAWorld?:confused: :lol:

MyskinaManiac
Mar 11th, 2007, 06:34 PM
The fact is, Myskina 03-04 was a force. In 04, we saw a player that was feared... she lost very few times, and when she did, the very next tournament she was sure to put in a solid performace that relfected her ranking. Her performaces included countless wins over top 10 players. Even during her slump Myskina was still beating players in the top 10 at the slams. One thing is for sure, the mens tour is a totally different set-up, where by a a top male could potentially avoid the rest of the top ten until he had to play the slams and a couple of masters events. The womens tour is slightly smaller, therefore, the freedom to play where ever just isn't there for the top ten. Hence, Myskina probably facing more top ten players, which provides one with more opportunities to beat them.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 11th, 2007, 06:49 PM
Matches vs Top-10 players in percentage to total (career) matches played (ATP and WTA Slam champions records):

........... Total matches .. vs Top-10 .... Perc.

S.Williams ..... 384 .......... 113 ....... 29.4
V.Williams ..... 511 .......... 141 ....... 27.6
Hingis ......... 652 .......... 175 ....... 26.8
Mauresmo ....... 560 .......... 142 ....... 25.4
Henin .......... 444 .......... 111 ....... 25.0
Clijsters ...... 483 .......... 120 ....... 24.8
Pierce ......... 708 .......... 144 ....... 20.3
Sharapova ...... 252 ........... 51 ....... 20.2
Federer ........ 620 .......... 116 ....... 18.7
Myskina ........ 395 ........... 73 ....... 18.5
Kuznetsova ..... 296 ........... 52 ....... 17.6
Hewitt ......... 579 ........... 94 ....... 16.2
Safin .......... 569 ........... 84 ....... 14.8
Kuerten ........ 547 ........... 75 ....... 13.7
Ferrero ........ 512 ........... 68 ....... 13.3
Johansson ...... 577 ........... 76 ....... 13.2
Moya ........... 783 ........... 94 ....... 12.0
Nadal .......... 247 ........... 29 ....... 11.7
Roddick ........ 487 ........... 52 ....... 10.7
Gaudio ......... 445 ........... 42 ........ 9.4


Wins vs Top-10 players in percentage to total (career) matches won

............ Total wins .... vs Top-10 .... Perc.

S.Williams ..... 320 ........... 74 ....... 23.1
V.Williams ..... 412 ........... 86 ....... 20.9
Hingis ......... 528 .......... 103 ....... 19.5
Henin .......... 356 ........... 61 ....... 17.1
Clijsters ...... 387 ........... 65 ....... 16.8
Federer ........ 495 ........... 83 ....... 16.8
Mauresmo ....... 414 ........... 69 ....... 16.7
Sharapova ...... 200 ........... 30 ....... 15.0
Hewitt ......... 441 ........... 56 ....... 12.7
Safin .......... 364 ........... 44 ....... 12.1
Pierce ......... 480 ........... 53 ....... 11.0
Kuerten ........ 358 ........... 37 ....... 10.3
Nadal .......... 192 ........... 19 ........ 9.9
Ferrero ........ 340 ........... 31 ........ 9.1
Myskina ........ 252 ........... 22 ........ 8.7
Moya ........... 513 ........... 41 ........ 8.0
Kuznetsova ..... 204 ........... 14 ........ 6.9
Johansson ...... 321 ........... 22 ........ 6.8
Roddick ........ 370 ........... 17 ........ 4.6
Gaudio ......... 265 ........... 12 ........ 4.5

Aphex
Mar 11th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Thx for those stats. :lol: So you could make a case for ToJo not being the worst slam winner in recent years.

Corswandt
Mar 11th, 2007, 10:46 PM
In 04, we saw a player that was feared... she lost very few times

55-18. Compare to Henin's 35-4 for the same season.

Even during her slump Myskina was still beating players in the top 10 at the slams.

Assuming that by "slump" you mean the 2005-2006 seasons, the only top 10 player Myskina beat at a Slam during that time frame was Dementieva, in her horrible choke at Wimbledon 2005.

Matt01
Mar 11th, 2007, 10:57 PM
ToJo :rocker2:

Corswandt
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:09 PM
What does Myskina have to do with Clijsters' injury or Henin' sickness? And what does your reply have to do with the post you're replying to?

But then you're just dumb hater... Don't worry you won't see Myskina on court anymore.
Or should you worry? Cos maybe you'll need to find another player to hate?

Hater? Who, me? :angel:

But seriously, I don't hate Myskina. If you think that what I've been posting (mostly stats) on this thread is hateful, then you must be completely unaware of the vile shit that finds its way to this board about say Sharapova or Henin (some of it written by pro journalists).

I'm just making an assessment of Myskina's career, and in such an assessment the kind of opposition she met, and the overall competitiveness of the Tour, must be taken into consideration.

bellascarlett
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:17 PM
Hater? Who, me? :angel:

But seriously, I don't hate Myskina. If you think that what I've been posting (mostly stats) on this thread is hateful, then you must be completely unaware of the vile shit that finds its way to this board about say Sharapova or Henin (some of it written by pro journalists).

I'm just making an assessment of Myskina's career, and in such an assessment the kind of opposition she met, and the overall competitiveness of the Tour, must be taken into consideration.

I gotta vouch for Corwandt. He isn't a hater (far from it) and nothing in his posts remotely implied that he is one to be honest.

The Daviator
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:19 PM
Yes, but if you bothered to check Maria's history at that time, she completely went into a 'mini-slump' right after Wimbledon and it wasn't until her Tier IV win in Seoul that everything clicked again for her. It took a few tournaments before she got used to the pressure and attention right after her unexpected Wim win. By 2005 she became the solid top 5 player she now is. From AO 2005 - Present, Maria has been ranked inside the top 5.

Anyway, I disagree about the bad match-up. If you saw their Miami 06 match, I thought Myskina played okay but there was nothing she could hurt Maria with. And that's how most of their matches would have gone imo had they met more times in the last two years.

But Myskina was in a slump then :nerner:

Two can play that game :p

The Daviator
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Not true, he beat Ancic in this years Australian Open.

All 5 players hes lost to in teh Australain Open have at one point in their careers been in the top 5 so its not like hes losing to nobodys there.

Roland Garros, hes brutal, but several highly ranked players.

In four of his 5 US Open losses, he lost a former Grand Slam winner, the other in 3 tiebreaks.

And all his losses at Wimbledon were to Federer or former number 2's in the world other than Murrey who will one day be #2 in the world.

Basically, its not like he's losing to terrible players. It is just he gets pretty good draws, up to where he losses. Maybe these good draws leave him unprepared for the top players.

Has Baghdatis been top 5? :scratch:

bellascarlett
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:33 PM
But Myskina was in a slump then :nerner:

Two can play that game :p

And AnnaK says it's one she never got out of. Give me more than that 'two can play that game'. When did that slump begin? when did it end? Is she still in one now? You can give me more than that.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Hater? Who, me? :angel:

But seriously, I don't hate Myskina. If you think that what I've been posting (mostly stats) on this thread is hateful, then you must be completely unaware of the vile shit that finds its way to this board about say Sharapova or Henin (some of it written by pro journalists).

I'm just making an assessment of Myskina's career, and in such an assessment the kind of opposition she met, and the overall competitiveness of the Tour, must be taken into consideration.

How does lack of competition in the period between USO-2003 and YEC-2004 cancel the fact that Myskina statistically was the 4th best of competing players on the Tour during that span?
I never said Myskina was better than the sisters and the Belgians career-wise. And I don't think she would have won RG had she played Mauresmo, Serena, Clijsters and Henin in the last four rounds (though it was impossible even if all of them were healthy).
But Myskina beat Henin to win Leipzig-2003, beat Mauresmo to win Moscow-2003, beat Capriati to win Doha-2004, beat Venus and Capriati to win RG-2004, beat Davenport to win Moscow-2004.

Nobody proclaimed Myskina was next big thing in tennis. But she did peak just in time when her chances to win a Slam were maximum.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:48 PM
And AnnaK says it's one she never got out of. Give me more than that 'two can play that game'. When did that slump begin? when did it end? Is she still in one now? You can give me more than that.

After loss to Henin at Olympics. Before that loss she won RG, lost in 3rd round at Wimbledon, reacheв final at San Diego, semis in Canada and Sopot (w/d) and had won 24 of her 27 last matches. She had been 41-10 in 2004 before her loss to Henin and posted just 14-7 win-loss record since that match.

It's perfect example of how one particular loss can destroy player's career.

Willam
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:50 PM
im not sure

The Daviator
Mar 11th, 2007, 11:52 PM
And AnnaK says it's one she never got out of. Give me more than that 'two can play that game'. When did that slump begin? when did it end? Is she still in one now? You can give me more than that.

But she was slumping :shrug: She wasn't the player she was in 2004, anyone could see that, she lacked interest, intensity, she perked up during the grass, but Nastya has been a ghost of her former self over the past two seasons :wavey: