PDA

View Full Version : What's Wrong with Nicole? Is there anything wrong with Nicole?


Steffica Greles
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:01 AM
This year one could argue that Vaidisova has consolidated her position in the top ten, reaching the semi-finals in Australia (stretching Serena more than anybody else, in my opinion) and Sydney.

Yet I am disappointed because, with the exception of a superb win over Mauresmo in Paris last summer, when, on her own worst surface, Vaidisova comprehensively outplayed her opponent, she still has yet to defeat any of the top women, whom I would classify as Henin, Serena, Clijsters, Sharapova (who she's still yet to play). Moreoever, in the last year she has lost matches to top ten players who I would already rate Nicole above; namely Kuznetsova, Petrova, Hingis, Jankovic, and just recently has lost to a host of lower-ranked players.

Perhaps it would be ironic to criticise Nicole's slow progression when she has today lost to an 18 year-old, Krajicek, who was vaunted to be roughly of Vaidisova's calibre, but who is still languishing outside the top 50.

So, first of all, is Nicole really that good? I say yes. I have been hugely impressed by what I would rate as the cleanest and most deadly forehand in women's tennis, particularly from the way in which she can maintain a superb length in response to powerful drives. Nicole's backhand is more mechanical, but has developed into a considerable weapon with what are deceptively soft hands. In additoin, she possesses a service which is that of a champion, and, most impressively, she always appears in absolutely exemplary physical condition. Those broad shoulders combined with a svelte waistline and long legs form the embodiment of physical perfection in women's tennis. There is much scope for her movement, which is not a major weakness, to improve substantially.

It must be remembered that, at just turned 18, Vaidisova is still very young and has achieved much relative to peers in her age-group. Controversially, I would rate her already as a more formidable player than Maria at the same age, except that Maria had the mentality of a champion, had broken through in a barren year, and her reputation thereafer had preceded her in seeing her come through some tough matches. Nicole is yet to earn herself that reputation. And Venus Williams did not win a first slam until she was 20; it is worth remembering that, also.

But there is a decidedly growing feeling that Nicole has hit a plateau, along with a slew of other young starlets in women's tennis. She is not pushing forward, and, occasionally, appears to be slipping up against inferior opposition. I must confess that by now I would have expected her to be challenging the very pinnacle of the sport, with at least one tier 2 or above title and a number of scalps of top players under her belt.

Is there anything for admirers of Nicole to be concerned about?

Derek.
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:04 AM
This year one could argue that Vaidisova has consolidated her position in the top ten, reaching the semi-finals in Australia (stretching Serena more than anybody else, in my opinion) and Miami.


First of all she didn't reach the semifinals in Miami. ;)

She reaches the semis in Sydney and Melbourne (with wins over Hantuchova, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Safarova, etc.).

darrinbaker00
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:08 AM
What's wrong with Nicole Vaidisova? She's a 17-year-old girl, that's what. Next topic, please.

Steffica Greles
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:08 AM
First of all she didn't reach the semifinals in Miami. ;)

She reaches the semis in Sydney and Melbourne (with wins over Hantuchova, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Safarova, etc.).

Oops ;)

Derek.
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:08 AM
Yet I am disappointed because, with the exception of a superb win over Mauresmo in Paris last summer, when, on her own worst surface, Vaidisova comprehensively outplayed her opponent, she still has yet to defeat any of the top women, whom I would classify as Henin, Serena, Clijsters, Sharapova (who she's still yet to play). Moreoever, in the last year she has lost matches to top ten players who I would already rate Nicole above; namely Kuznetsova, Petrova, Hingis, Jankovic, and just recently has lost to a strong of lower-ranked players.

Nicole also beat Mauresmo in Moscow, coming back from 1-6 2-5 down saving3 match points.

Nicole's loss to Hingis was in Rome last year and Nicole wasn't really confident going into Rome after a poor green clay season and injuries.

Nicole beat Jankovic in Linz as well. They're pretty even and Nicole still leads the H2H 4-2. Jankovic has slowed down a bit herself as well.


It must be remembered that, at just turned 18, Vaidisova is still very young and has achieved much relative to peers in her age-group.

She's still 17.

Steffica Greles
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:11 AM
Nicole also beat Mauresmo in Moscow, coming back from 1-6 2-5 down saving3 match points.

Nicole's loss to Hingis was in Rome last year and Nicole wasn't really confident going into Rome after a poor green clay season and injuries.

Nicole beat Jankovic in Linz as well. They're pretty even and Nicole still leads the H2H 4-2. Jankovic has slowed down a bit herself as well.




She's still 17.

She'll be 18 in a matter of weeks...or days. I know her birthdate is in April...I do not know the exact date.

Christ!:rolleyes:

Derek.
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:12 AM
But there is a decidedly growing feeling that Nicole has hit a plateau, along with a slew of other young starlets in women's tennis. She is not pushing forward, and, occasionally, appears to be slipping up against inferior opposition. I must confess that by now I would have expected her to be challenging the very pinnacle of the sport, with at least one tier 2 or above title and a number of scalps of top players under her belt.


To be honest, Nicole has made a lot of semifinals in the past year or so in big tournaments.

And she hasn't gotten the easiest of opponents in the semifinals that she lost: Petrova x2, Jankovic (on a hotstreak in Sydney '07), Clijsters x2, Serena, Schiavone (was in wicked form in Sydney '06).

To me, Nicole is kind of the opposite of Sharapova. Sharapova won a slam early, but was not ready to win a 2nd one for awhile. I believe that it will take Nicole awhile to win a slam/big title, but when she does, I think she will be ready to win more right after that.

I'm not making any excuses because I believe Nicole should have at least one big title by now, but I believe it will come soon and hopefully many after the first. :)

jamatthews
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Nicole's problem is she's too nice. :hug:

Corswandt
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:14 AM
Nicole's problem is she's too nice. :hug:

:lol:

Post of the day.

Derek.
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:16 AM
And to answer the question of the thread: No, I don't think there are any problems with Nicole besides the fact she makes poor shot selection at times.

Nicolás89
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:18 AM
so she loses against krajicek and everyone now is deceptioned? :sobbing:

im happy with nicole and her results, i know she does her best every time

she is young, she has to have fun on court not be stressed cause sharapova had one slam earlier than her, but when she turn 21 and then she dont have a slam or at least a big tournament then we can be worried

Neptune
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:22 AM
Like I always thought, Nicole needs time.I never thought she could be as strong as Maria was when she was 17 years old.I'm not complain, actually.

Corswandt
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:32 AM
Blah blah blah

So, first of all, is Nicole really that good?

Then some more blah blah blah.

She isn't. Certainly not now. As I said on that other thread, her current ranking is inflated by 5-6 spots. She's #8 having beaten only 3 top ten players over the past twelve months, and in that same period has won a single TIII title and reached no other finals. This record is much worse than say Schnyder's when she re-entered the top 10 in late 2005, and heaven knows I shook my head at it at the time.

As for the future, who knows. It depends not only on how Nicole's game will evolve but also on what kind of opposition she'll be up against.

But I do add one thing - I don't believe in champions by default (yes, I know there were at least a couple in 2004). There's this idea that once Henin and S. Williams begin to lose steam a window of opportunity will open for the current hopefuls. But I suspect that those same hopefuls either rise to the call *now* or when the time does come others will overtake them and do so while they will remain settled into the same comfy #5-20 ranking range in which they currently lie.

And will people please stop with the comparisons with Sharapova. It's already abundantly clear that none of the other (chronically overrated) teenagers on the Tour is fit to tie Maria's shoelaces.

Derek.
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:36 AM
She isn't. Certainly not now. As I said on that other thread, her current ranking is inflated by 5-6 spots. She's #8 having beaten only 3 top ten players over the past twelve months, and in that same period has won a single TIII title and reached no other finals. This record is much worse than say Schnyder's when she re-entered the top 10 in late 2005, and heaven knows I shook my head at it at the time.

As for the future, who knows. It depends not only on how Nicole's game will evolve but also on what kind of opposition she'll be up against.

But I do add one thing - I don't believe in champions by default (yes, I know there were at least a couple in 2004). There's this idea that once Henin and S. Williams begin to lose steam a window of opportunity will open for the current hopefuls. But I suspect that those same hopefuls either rise to the call *now* or when the time does come others will overtake them and do so while they will remain settled into the same comfy #5-20 ranking range in which they currently lie.

And will people please stop with the comparisons with Sharapova. It's already abundantly clear that none of the other (chronically overrated) teenagers on the Tour is fit to tie Maria's shoelaces.


You are so negative as a fan of Nicole. :o

I know you probably see it as "telling it like it is", but on all of your posts you basically say she sucks. :tape:

Steffica Greles
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:52 AM
But I do add one thing - I don't believe in champions by default (yes, I know there were at least a couple in 2004). There's this idea that once Henin and S. Williams begin to lose steam a window of opportunity will open for the current hopefuls. But I suspect that those same hopefuls either rise to the call *now* or when the time does come others will overtake them and do so while they will remain settled into the same comfy #5-20 ranking range in which they currently lie.



While I disagree with you over Nicole's ability and her status as a top ten player, I think that the above quote is a very good point, which, if you hadn't been so dismissive, you would have seen was the essence of my post: is Nicole waiting in the wings, or is it that she's simply not good enough? I also alluded to the Ivanovices, the Golovins (although in light of the weekend it's not the best time to use her as an example) and even the Krajiceks in asking that question.

Although, I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your point. There is a theory that players have a shelf life, and when that shelf life is over -- whether the problem be motivational, induced by wear and tear, or an interrelationship between the two, as in the case of Clijsters and arguably Mauresmo -- the other younger, fresher, more eager players ascend to that mantle for the next three or four years. Their tenure used to be longer, but now it seems as if three to four years at the top is the duration before injuries set in.

Of course, as you so rightly argued, that does not mean those players are of the same calibre as those they replaced; and that has been the problem in women's tennis over the last three years.

Nicolás89
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:52 AM
She isn't. Certainly not now. As I said on that other thread, her current ranking is inflated by 5-6 spots. She's #8 having beaten only 3 top ten players over the past twelve months, and in that same period has won a single TIII title and reached no other finals. This record is much worse than say Schnyder's when she re-entered the top 10 in late 2005, and heaven knows I shook my head at it at the time.

As for the future, who knows. It depends not only on how Nicole's game will evolve but also on what kind of opposition she'll be up against.

But I do add one thing - I don't believe in champions by default (yes, I know there were at least a couple in 2004). There's this idea that once Henin and S. Williams begin to lose steam a window of opportunity will open for the current hopefuls. But I suspect that those same hopefuls either rise to the call *now* or when the time does come others will overtake them and do so while they will remain settled into the same comfy #5-20 ranking range in which they currently lie.

And will people please stop with the comparisons with Sharapova. It's already abundantly clear that none of the other (chronically overrated) teenagers on the Tour is fit to tie Maria's shoelaces.

first of all are you a fan:scratch:
second of all would you prefer jankovic over nicole knowing that nicole has been more consistent and with better achievements than her

EDITED

Dementieva Guts
Apr 11th, 2007, 12:54 AM
Nothing is wrong with her. She still collect fat paychecks without even trying to play competitive. She depends on opponent bad days to "get wins". The only reason that she still on the czech fed cup team is that her father is in complete control of this federation. If this team wanna be successful, they have to drop vaidi by Hana Sromova.

Corswandt
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:06 AM
You are so negative as a fan of Nicole. :o

I know you probably see it as "telling it like it is", but on all of your posts you basically say she sucks. :tape:

Compared to what I used to say of Lena D., this is nothing. Most of the other Lena D. fans hated my guts. Still do.

Good point about the "telling it like it is", but even though it might not look that way I'm really not that type, i.e. someone who revels in being the resident pessimist/Velho do Restelo.

That was just my assessment of what Nicole is capable of right now, minus wishful thinking, useless predictions about what a great champion she'll be in the future (Who knows? Certainly not me. Maybe she will, maybe she won't.) if only she does this or that, and the usual fanboy-ish stuff, which is said about all hopefuls, like "She has the game to beat anyone - all she needs is to get her head sorted out". I mean, if I earned a € for each time I read that in here, I'd have bought Chelsea off Abramovic by now.

Corswandt
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Nothing is wrong with her. She still collect fat paychecks without even trying to play competitive. She depends on opponent bad days to "get wins". The only reason that she still on the czech fed cup team is that her father is in complete control of this federation. If this team wanna be successful, they have to drop vaidi by Hana Sromova.

:lol:

You're improving on your trolling. Keep it up.

Uranus
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:09 AM
Nothing wrong, she just hates green clay :shrug:

Corswandt
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:10 AM
first of all are you a fan:scratch:

I know that the concept of a fan who doesn't overrate his own favourite players is a bit alien to WTAW, but that's the way it is with me.

second of all would you prefer jankovic over nicole knowing that nicole has been more consistent and with achievements results than her

I like Jankovic, but she's competing with Lena D. for the Dumbest Career Management Award.

selyoink
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:22 AM
There is nothing wrong with Vaidisova. She has had a very successful year so far and just had a bad result this week.

Lunaris
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:22 AM
This year one could argue that Vaidisova has consolidated her position in the top ten, reaching the semi-finals in Australia (stretching Serena more than anybody else, in my opinion) and Sydney.

Yet I am disappointed because, with the exception of a superb win over Mauresmo in Paris last summer, when, on her own worst surface, Vaidisova comprehensively outplayed her opponent, she still has yet to defeat any of the top women, whom I would classify as Henin, Serena, Clijsters, Sharapova (who she's still yet to play). Moreoever, in the last year she has lost matches to top ten players who I would already rate Nicole above; namely Kuznetsova, Petrova, Hingis, Jankovic, and just recently has lost to a host of lower-ranked players.
I am not gonna get involved into this boring discussion. Just want to know why do you think clay is her worst surface.

Tennace
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:26 AM
Nothing is wrong with her. She still collect fat paychecks without even trying to play competitive. She depends on opponent bad days to "get wins". The only reason that she still on the czech fed cup team is that her father is in complete control of this federation. If this team wanna be successful, they have to drop vaidi by Hana Sromova.

:weirdo: :haha: :smash:

Corswandt
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:33 AM
the essence of my post: is Nicole waiting in the wings, or is it that she's simply not good enough?

And I answered the question: right now, she's not good enough. She may or may not become good enough in the future. About that, I have no certainties. It's the same with the young players she's usually lumped with like Golovin or Ivanovic. Right now, none of them look like Slam contenders, but nobody can say how things will turn out.

Of course, as you so rightly argued, that does not mean those players are of the same calibre as those they replaced; and that has been the problem in women's tennis over the last three years.

But that's not what I meant. Unlike you, I don't think 2000-2003 (?) was a golden era for tennis while 2004-2007 has been an era of total suckitude.

What I meant was this: I don't believe that, once the current dominant players (and right now, it does seem that Henin and S. Williams will win as many big tournaments as they want in the coming 1-2 years) are done, it will be as simple as the players ranked #3-4-5 becoming #1-2-3 and beginning to win those very same tournaments in which they always got whomped by Henin and S. Williams. Players used to be bridesmaids will remain bridesmaids, probably of newer, brighter stars who never went through the bridesmaid/"not quite there yet" stage. True champions show they are so by beating the current champions, not by having 1-14 H2H's against them. That's what Maria did, and that's why she'll probably remain the last teenage Slam champion for several if not many years.

Nicolás89
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:47 AM
Nothing is wrong with her. She still collect fat paychecks without even trying to play competitive. She depends on opponent bad days to "get wins". The only reason that she still on the czech fed cup team is that her father is in complete control of this federation. If this team wanna be successful, they have to drop vaidi by Hana Sromova.

:spit:

well if they play against russia in the future i would put nicole to play against dementieva :p

Dan23
Apr 11th, 2007, 01:52 AM
Not much is wrong with her really....you win some you lose some.
At her age its expected that consistancy isnt her strong point.


Nothing is wrong with her. She still collect fat paychecks without even trying to play competitive. She depends on opponent bad days to "get wins". The only reason that she still on the czech fed cup team is that her father is in complete control of this federation. If this team wanna be successful, they have to drop vaidi by Hana Sromova.You also know a lot about Nicole I see :o

UDACHi
Apr 11th, 2007, 02:06 AM
Compared to what I used to say of Lena D., this is nothing. Most of the other Lena D. fans hated my guts. Still do.

you were very critical of elena, but i think we all miss your insight in her thread! :awww:

Dementieva Guts
Apr 11th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Well, the divaz bandwagon triangle is still pretty much glued together (Nolop-Dan23-Derek). All of you three are such buyers who just wanna s...p with your faves. You need to get an engagement ring common for you all. ;)

Volcana
Apr 11th, 2007, 03:15 AM
.... she still has yet to defeat any of the top women, whom I would classify as Henin, Serena, Clijsters, Sharapova (who she's still yet to play). Moreoever, in the last year she has lost matches to top ten players who I would already rate Nicole above; namely Kuznetsova, Petrova, Hingis, Jankovic, and just recently has lost to a host of lower-ranked players.

Is there anything for admirers of Nicole to be concerned about?Well, a complete lack of objectivity. You wanna say she's better than Jankovic, there's actually a factual basis. Vaidisova leads their career H2H 4-2, and they're 2-2 in 2006-7.

But look at the other three you named.

H2H career (1-7)
Vaidisova 1-3 vs Petrova
Vaidisova 0-3 vs Kuznetsova
Vaidisova 0-1 vs Hingis

H2H 2006-7 (0-5)
Vaidisova 0-2 vs Petrova
Vaidisova 0-2 vs Kuznetsova
Vaidisova 0-1 vs Hingis

You actually believe Vaidisova is already better than two players she never beaten, and another who leads the H2H 3-1, and who won the last two outings. Infact, you believe she's better than the 2004 US Open champ, who was also a finalist at RG last year.

There absolutely nothing for you to be concerned about. Being completely divorced from reality isn't curable, so enjoy it.