PDA

View Full Version : Players with GREAT technique


Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:16 AM
Which players today have good technique? I mean good all round technique. THis doesn't mean you are a good all around player but at least you have the technical proficiency/know how to hit the shots that you hit. Afterall these are PROFESSIONAL tennis players.

Watching Serena hit a routine backhand volley outside of the doubles alley with that awful technique of hers... I was embarrassed for her.

Some players in my opinion.

Henin (I know she retired) This is one reason she will be sorely missed. From the footwork, weight transfer to actual stroke production it is sheer perfection. On ALL shots in her arsenal. :worship:

Ana Ivanovic: Good stroke production on all her shots. The toss on her serve sometimes gets a little too far to the right, but because of her good technique she still hits a good serve despite this.

Mauresmo: Great technique from her western forehand to her sublime volleys. I have always wondered how someone with such a western grip and topspin forehand is so adept with a continental grip and volleys. Her technique is fantastic.

Svetlana Kuznetsova: The first time I saw her play I was astounded by her technique which resembled more atp players than wta.

Daniela Hantuchova: Good effortless technique. She relies on technique and great timing to produce some really good stuff.

Lindsay Davenport: Not much to be said that we don't already know. Clean striker of the ball. Fantastic, classic technique. One can only imagine how she would have performed with a more athletic body.


Please no dumb replies about results. It doesn't have to be said that technique is not the be all end all, but when you combine great technique with a champion's spirit, you get players like Henin and Federer.

AcesHigh
May 31st, 2008, 01:20 AM
Nice list, but I really don't think Ivanovic belongs there yet. She definitely needs to work on some of her shots.

starin
May 31st, 2008, 01:23 AM
And yet w/ Serena's "horrible technique" she's manage to acheive more than all the players you have listed. And as for Henin, who combined a Champions spirit w/ great technique, she still managed to not achieve more than Serena even though Serena went awol for like 2 years and barely played and slipped outside the top 100.
:shrug: So I guess the tour during the last decade must be really craptastic if bad technique bad footwork rena can win 8 slams and become the most accomplished player of the last 8 years.

pshht... it's not a dumb reply to talk about achievement. I'm tired of people dismissing Serena as if she's a horrible tennis player who only wins cuz she's athletic (which is borderline racist anyways). She has good technique, she has great technique otherwise there is no way in hell she could have won 8 slams and 4 slams in a row on all surfaces.

And Serena doesn't know how to hit the shots she's supposed to hit?? complete and utter bull shit.

tennisbear7
May 31st, 2008, 01:28 AM
Serena has sublime technique on her backhand and serve.

Her volleys and her forehand need urgent work.

When she's on, her forehands and volleys are wonderful.

But when she's off, her footwork and technique on her forehand is :help:

Also, I don't think Momo's forehand is that good.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:28 AM
Nice list, but I really don't think Ivanovic belongs there yet. She definitely needs to work on some of her shots.

You know, I was a little reserved about putting her on the list.

However my reticence was because of the dumb errors she can make, which are not due to her technique but a result of her going for way too much at bad times or when she hasn't found her rhythm.''

She has worked tremendously on her volleys and the technique is good on them now (compared to early in her career when they were below average). She has also vastly improved the technique on her backhand. Of course the forehand and the serve have been good.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:31 AM
Szavay has brilliant technique on her backhand, top notch stuff.

Serena's technique on her backhand is good, her forehand is pathetic. Horrible footwork on that side and no clue what to do when the ball is hit down the center of the court.

Kuznetsova has good technique on her forehand, lots of weight transfer and racquet speed.

Those are just the ones that come to mind now.

A young player I noticed this week with great technique is Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. I haven't seen her play since late 2006 and it's stunning the improvements she's made. Both her forehand and her backhand are very nice shots, with great footwork and weight transfer. She always seemed in position to hit the crosscourt shot (in the first set, anyway).

Nice thread idea. :yeah:

Good technique can only take you so far. I mean look at Jankovic, who has HORRIBLE technique yet manages to stay in the Top5. Chakvetadze is a mess, so is Hantuchova (don't know what the OP was thinking) and Bartoli just looks awkward because of her two-handed forehand and backhand.

AcesHigh
May 31st, 2008, 01:32 AM
There's a difference between technique and success. It's not an attack on any players, at least that's not how i see it.

Nadal has some of the weirdest and ugliest technique on some shots IMO, but he's one of the greatest to play the game. Same with Venus. However, both have excellent technique on some of their shots. Just not all.

And about Ivanovic, she's getting there. But her footwork is still poor at times and her backhand and volleys could use some sharpening and consistency in terms of technique IMO. Her serve and forehand have been good. But she seems to have a good base from which to work from. When you have good technique, you always have a high ceiling.

vw.
May 31st, 2008, 01:33 AM
Yeah, Ivanovic's backhand technique is quite exquisite, but her forehand is questionable... I find that her forehand technique is a bit flawed in that her racquet is upright when she makes contact with the ball sometimes. When I say this, I mean the racquet face and wrist are pointing too much towards the sky. Sure this shot can produce beauties, but it's very inconsitent and not high percentage IMO.

Pics:

http://www.tennisrulz.com/players/ivanovic/gallery/012.jpg
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/24/captd5987a46168b466d8a4jp8.jpg

Obviously her forehand is among the best in the world, but I'm just being picky. ;)

drgray
May 31st, 2008, 01:33 AM
Serena's footwork is often worse than the, unusual, technique. I love every part of Hantuchova's game though. Flawless technique. On the men's side there are a ton as well. Federer, Djokovic, and Gasquet are my top picks.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:35 AM
And yet w/ Serena's "horrible technique" she's manage to acheive more than all the players you have listed. And as for Henin, who combined a Champions spirit w/ great technique, she still managed to not achieve more than Serena even though Serena went awol for like 2 years and barely played and slipped outside the top 100.
:shrug: So I guess the tour during the last decade must be really craptastic if bad technique bad footwork rena can win 8 slams and become the most accomplished player of the last 8 years.

pshht... it's not a dumb reply to talk about achievement. I'm tired of people dismissing Serena as if she's a horrible tennis player who only wins cuz she's athletic (which is borderline racist anyways). She has good technique, she has great technique otherwise there is no way in hell she could have won 8 slams and 4 slams in a row on all surfaces.

And Serena doesn't know how to hit the shots she's supposed to hit?? complete and utter bull shit.

This thread is not about Serena. It is about players with good all around technique. Serena's technique on her touch shots and forehand exclude her from this list.

Why are Serena fans so defensive? Am I lying in saying that backhand volley was pathetic for a player of Serena's caliber??

heart
May 31st, 2008, 01:35 AM
yeah same here..i dont see ivanovic having a good technique ..just average tennis with a bit of luck :p

maria should be included in that list ;)

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:37 AM
And yet w/ Serena's "horrible technique" she's manage to acheive more than all the players you have listed. And as for Henin, who combined a Champions spirit w/ great technique, she still managed to not achieve more than Serena even though Serena went awol for like 2 years and barely played and slipped outside the top 100.
:shrug: So I guess the tour during the last decade must be really craptastic if bad technique bad footwork rena can win 8 slams and become the most accomplished player of the last 8 years.

pshht... it's not a dumb reply to talk about achievement. I'm tired of people dismissing Serena as if she's a horrible tennis player who only wins cuz she's athletic (which is borderline racist anyways). She has good technique, she has great technique otherwise there is no way in hell she could have won 8 slams and 4 slams in a row on all surfaces.

And Serena doesn't know how to hit the shots she's supposed to hit?? complete and utter bull shit.

There you go, Serena fans always moan and complain about how Serena gets brought into EVERY thread in a bad way and here you are instigating the discussion by throwing her results in our face. Real nice.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:37 AM
Good technique can only take you so far. I mean look at Jankovic, who has HORRIBLE technique yet manages to stay in the Top5. Chakvetadze is a mess, so is Hantuchova (don't know what the OP was thinking) and Bartoli just looks awkward because of her two-handed forehand and backhand.

Hantuchova's technique is VERY good, you don't know what you are saying. It is not a matter of opinion.

starin
May 31st, 2008, 01:38 AM
This thread is not about Serena. It is about players with good all around technique. Serena's technique on her touch shots and forehand exclude her from this list.

Why are Serena fans so defensive? Am I lying in saying that backhand volley was pathetic for a player of Serena's caliber??

That's not what you said. This is what you said:


"THis doesn't mean you are a good all around player but at least you have the technical proficiency/know how to hit the shots that you hit. Afterall these are PROFESSIONAL tennis players."

is that not an insult. you say this and what do you expect.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:38 AM
yeah same here..i dont see ivanovic having a good technique ..just average tennis with a bit of luck :p

maria should be included in that list ;)

Hmmm, no I don't think so. I think he is listing players with great all-around technique. Maria has fantastic technique on her backhand (maybe the best on tour) and her serve technique is flawless, but her forehand, volleys, drop shots, running shots, pretty much every other shot is horrible technique-wise.

tennischick2817
May 31st, 2008, 01:39 AM
id have to say (along with a lot on the list) that katarina srebotnik has great technique. and i totally agree with henin all the way. who couldnt?

starin
May 31st, 2008, 01:39 AM
There you go, Serena fans always moan and complain about how Serena gets brought into EVERY thread in a bad way and here you are instigating the discussion by throwing her results in our face. Real nice.

what else do I say when someone says she doesn't even know how to hit the shots she's supposed to hit. that's complete crap to say about someone who is as accomplished as Serena is.

scoobsuk
May 31st, 2008, 01:40 AM
I really like Kuznetsova's forehand. She can flatten it out with huge power or load it up with topspin on the short angle - a really effective shot when she plays well.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:40 AM
Hantuchova's technique is VERY good, you don't know what you are saying. It is not a matter of opinion.

:lol: Clearly it is a matter of opinion.

Timing and technique are not the same. Daniela has very slow, very poor footwork that makes it impossible for her to have good technique. She takes the racquet back to high on her backhand and doesn't use her legs enough.

Her serve is the only part of her game that is good technique-wise. Her backhand is okay but she holds the racquet almost open-faced when she hits the ball. That's why I throw Ivanovic out of my list.

¤CharlDa¤
May 31st, 2008, 01:40 AM
I don't agree at all with the Mauresmo and Henin comments. I feel like both had a lot of trouble on their forehand. Henin's forehand did get better in the end, and we all agree her backhand is technically flawless, but the forehand was rushed quite often.

Mauresmo's forehand is bad mostly because of the way she hits it often on the back foot. Her entire higher body is going backwards, which also didn't help her back problems.

Players that weren't mentionned here are Maria and Dementieva. Maria's technique on the groundies are very good, which can of course be explained by Landsdorp, as well as the fact that her tennis is quite textbook for a power hitter. As for Dementieva, I'm not at all getting in the serve department ;) But her groundies are incredibly good, I love the use of her legs, she bents incredibly well, awesome body transfer.

Daniela does indeed have a very good technique, I've never seen a player with such a fluid and effortless motion. When she is on (just remember that set and a half to Ivanovic, final of IW against Hingis, etc), her timing is superb and she hits so hard. Her serve technique is also one of the best.

tennisbear7
May 31st, 2008, 01:41 AM
Omg :death: at people saying that Jelena's technique is crappy. :lol:

Technique and footwork are intertwined. Jelena has very good footwork, and her forehand is not as crap as everyone says it is. It was bullying Serena all over the place at AO. Her backhand is just majestic and powerfully accurate.

VeeJJ
May 31st, 2008, 01:41 AM
i think JJ has a great backhand technique and makes for a very effiecent shot.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:41 AM
That's not what you said. This is what you said:


"THis doesn't mean you are a good all around player but at least you have the technical proficiency/know how to hit the shots that you hit. Afterall these are PROFESSIONAL tennis players."

is that not an insult. you say this and what do you expect.

Exactly. I would expect a PROFESSIONAL tennis player to have the right grip when hitting a volley (which Serena doesn't. One reason why her volleys are not where they should be).

I am not insulting anyone. It is the truth. I don't know why you are getting offended.

tennisbear7
May 31st, 2008, 01:41 AM
Hmmm, no I don't think so. I think he is listing players with great all-around technique. Maria has fantastic technique on her backhand (maybe the best on tour) and her serve technique is flawless, but her forehand, volleys, drop shots, running shots, pretty much every other shot is horrible technique-wise.

you don't know what you're talking about.

Maria has worked very hard on getting her follow-through for her forehand correct. And her serve technique is NOT flawless - it's not smooth like Ana's - it's jerky, and coupled with her too-high ball toss, it results in a lot of double faults.

And her running shots are great. Weirdo.

Patty's backhand... :taped:

VeeJJ
May 31st, 2008, 01:41 AM
Omg :death: at people saying that Jelena's technique is crappy. :lol:

Technique and footwork are intertwined. Jelena has very good footwork, and her forehand is not as crap as everyone says it is. It was bullying Serena all over the place at AO. Her backhand is just majestic and powerfully accurate.

agreed!!!

Dave.
May 31st, 2008, 01:41 AM
Serena's serve technique is flawless. Her backhand technique is near perfect aswell. She should definetely be on the list.

Lindsay's technique is pretty much perfect in all areas of the court. Her serve, forehand, backhand and volleys don't really have any weak points in them. Plus they look very good aswell- she has a very classical style.

Ivanovic has a similar style to Lindsay. Lovely technique on the forehand (obviously) and the serve.



I don't think Kuznetsova should be there. Do you know the amount of mishits she does in a match? Her forehand is sometimes far too spinny and her ball toss on the serve is too low. She's a good player but she's not somebody I would say has a great technique.

Malva
May 31st, 2008, 01:42 AM
And yet w/ Serena's "horrible technique" she's manage to acheive more than all the players you have listed. And as for Henin, who combined a Champions spirit w/ great technique, she still managed to not achieve more than Serena even though Serena went awol for like 2 years and barely played and slipped outside the top 100.
:shrug: So I guess the tour during the last decade must be really craptastic if bad technique bad footwork rena can win 8 slams and become the most accomplished player of the last 8 years.

pshht... it's not a dumb reply to talk about achievement. I'm tired of people dismissing Serena as if she's a horrible tennis player who only wins cuz she's athletic (which is borderline racist anyways). She has good technique, she has great technique otherwise there is no way in hell she could have won 8 slams and 4 slams in a row on all surfaces.

A very good point, actually. But one can look at that also from a different angle: was Hingis, losing to the first generation of big hitters technically inferior to any of them? By no means. And yet she was losing when they were at the peak of their games.

The success of power over finesse persuaded a lot of younger women playing tennis that screaming athleticism is the way to go.

In my opinion, with a great detriment to the attractiveness of the game of female tennis.

After all if I am interested in wrestling, I don't go to watch wrestling women.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:43 AM
what else do I say when someone says she doesn't even know how to hit the shots she's supposed to hit. that's complete crap to say about someone who is as accomplished as Serena is.

There are plenty of players with bad technique on some of their shots who are extremely successful. Look at how many slams Venus has won, look at Nadal. I just don't see why you had to take it so offensively when he said that Serena didn't have amazing technique on her forehand and volleys when she clearly doesn't.

Before you say "oh her forehand was just off that day, blah blah", good technique means having a good, consistent shot that you can always rely on to make the shot you want to make. Serena has that in her backhand, can you say the same about her forehand?

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:43 AM
But she seems to have a good base from which to work from. When you have good technique, you always have a high ceiling.

Truer words have not been said.

scoobsuk
May 31st, 2008, 01:43 AM
Dementieva has great technique on the fairly flat groundstroke off both wings - where she falls down for me is that she seems to lack the ability to hit either with more topspin to make it a bit safer when she's not in great position, which leaves her forced to go for extravagant winners. She could do with more variety in her stroke production.

dybbuk
May 31st, 2008, 01:43 AM
yeah same here..i dont see ivanovic having a good technique ..just average tennis with a bit of luck :p

maria should be included in that list ;)

Not at all. Particularly Maria's forehand, I hate it. She doesn't follow through on it a lot of the time, she just rips the racquet straight up and the swing ends over her right shoulder.

scoobsuk
May 31st, 2008, 01:44 AM
i think JJ has a great backhand technique and makes for a very effiecent shot.
I agree - and she can vary the pace and spin on it very effectively.

hankqq
May 31st, 2008, 01:44 AM
OK Mauresmo's forehand is NOT good! It's a weakness for her! Have you seen how often it lands just over the service line! Not her best shot! If you want to compliment her backhand and volleys, fine, but the forehand is the WORST part of her game and does not have good technique when compared to the best forehands on the WTA tour.

¤CharlDa¤
May 31st, 2008, 01:45 AM
:lol: Clearly it is a matter of opinion.

Timing and technique are not the same. Daniela has very slow, very poor footwork that makes it impossible for her to have good technique. She takes the racquet back to high on her backhand and doesn't use her legs enough.

Her serve is the only part of her game that is good technique-wise. Her backhand is okay but she holds the racquet almost open-faced when she hits the ball. That's why I throw Ivanovic out of my list.

Do you think Lindsay has a great technique then? We all agree her slow and poor footwork didn't change the fact she had awesome technique and one of the best set of hands in the Open Era.

If speed is included in such debates, then i agree Danka's is clearly not up there. But racket wise, timing wise, fluidity wise, she always has impressed me so much. Her volleys and touch shots are also very very natural and technically flawless. Her serve motion has been a model for many other upcoming players. Her forehand isn't as perfect, but the fact that she can manage to have such a flat game (and mental lapses) with that foot speed means that she has incredibly fast hands. Just like Lindsay does.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:46 AM
you don't know what you're talking about.

Maria has worked very hard on getting her follow-through for her forehand correct. And her serve technique is NOT flawless - it's not smooth like Ana's - it's jerky, and coupled with her too-high ball toss, it results in a lot of double faults.

And her running shots are great. Weirdo.

Patty's backhand... :taped:

She has worked hard on it but her forehand breaks down too often to have good technique.

Of course Patty has a horrible backhand with some of the worst technique I have ever seen from a Top50 player, it's embarassing that she can have that forehand with THAT backhand. :lol: Was there a need to bring her into a thread for players with great technique? Nope. Apparently you took it personally that I find Jankovic's forehand technique horrible. She throws herself at the shot with no balance and her swing is very jerky.

Derek.
May 31st, 2008, 01:46 AM
:lol: Clearly it is a matter of opinion.

Timing and technique are not the same. Daniela has very slow, very poor footwork that makes it impossible for her to have good technique. She takes the racquet back to high on her backhand and doesn't use her legs enough.

Her serve is the only part of her game that is good technique-wise. Her backhand is okay but she holds the racquet almost open-faced when she hits the ball. That's why I throw Ivanovic out of my list.

:unsure:

Daniela has great technique.
And I'm not saying this because I'm biased. :p
Vaidisova is someone with poor technique, especially on her backhand.

Daniela has great technique on almost everything she does. :shrug:
That's why many are drawn to her flashy game.

Daniela creates her pace by her technique.
She doesn't have great down the line shots for no reason. :lol:

Everything in her game looks smooth and effortless.

scoobsuk
May 31st, 2008, 01:47 AM
Mauresmo, love her to death, has an awful forehand unless she's super confident - she just falls off the ball and loads it with too much spin and it just bounces around the service line with no pace on it, where any player with half a decent groundstroke can smack it for a winner.

When she's confident she hits through the stroke properly and it's not too bad, though still a bit wayward. When she's nervy it's a thing of ugliness.

starin
May 31st, 2008, 01:48 AM
There are plenty of players with bad technique on some of their shots who are extremely successful. Look at how many slams Venus has won, look at Nadal. I just don't see why you had to take it so offensively when he said that Serena didn't have amazing technique on her forehand and volleys when she clearly doesn't.

Before you say "oh her forehand was just off that day, blah blah", good technique means having a good, consistent shot that you can always rely on to make the shot you want to make. Serena has that in her backhand, can you say the same about her forehand?

if he jsut said that i would agree, but that's totally different than saying she doens't know how to hit the shots she's supposed to hit. To me that's like saying she doesn't know how to play. And that shite is so tired. whatever once an argument gets into semantics i'm over it.

Dave.
May 31st, 2008, 01:48 AM
Do you think Lindsay has a great technique then? We all agree her slow and poor footwork didn't change the fact she had awesome technique and one of the best set of hands in the Open Era.

If speed is included in such debates, then i agree Danka's is clearly not up there. But racket wise, timing wise, fluidity wise, she always has impressed me so much. Her volleys and touch shots are also very very natural and technically flawless. Her serve motion has been a model for many other upcoming players. Her forehand isn't as perfect, but the fact that she can manage to have such a flat game (and mental lapses) with that foot speed means that she has incredibly fast hands. Just like Lindsay does.

Slow and poor footwork? Lindsay has some of the best footwork of any player! Huge difference between movement and footwork. Her footwork is one of the main reasons for her success.

hankqq
May 31st, 2008, 01:48 AM
I will say that most of the women don't have good overheads.

Venus, Serena, Mauresmo, Davenport and Ivanovic have the best. Henin was inconsistent on it, and Sharapova almost never even tries the shot. Sharapova almost always waits for the ball to come down a bit so she can do a swinging volley.

Jankovic has a very weak overhead too.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:48 AM
Pics:

http://www.tennisrulz.com/players/ivanovic/gallery/012.jpg
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/24/captd5987a46168b466d8a4jp8.jpg

Obviously her forehand is among the best in the world, but I'm just being picky. ;)

If her racquet was in that position AT CONTACT she would always be hitting lobs.

That is a consequence of the kind of shot she is hitting (relatively flat) and how hard she is hitting. Her forehand technique is AMAZING!

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:49 AM
Do you think Lindsay has a great technique then? We all agree her slow and poor footwork didn't change the fact she had awesome technique and one of the best set of hands in the Open Era.

If speed is included in such debates, then i agree Danka's is clearly not up there. But racket wise, timing wise, fluidity wise, she always has impressed me so much. Her volleys and touch shots are also very very natural and technically flawless. Her serve motion has been a model for many other upcoming players. Her forehand isn't as perfect, but the fact that she can manage to have such a flat game (and mental lapses) with that foot speed means that she has incredibly fast hands. Just like Lindsay does.

Did you not read the part about her forehand? That has nothing to do with her footwork. Obviously players with quicker feet will have better technique (most of the time, anyway) but there is the occasional special player who can have poor footwork and impeccable technique (like Lindsay). I think she has that technique because she worked endless hours with Lansdorp, who specializes in stroke production. Apparently he forgot to teach Maria how to hit a forehand correctly. :o

:unsure:

Daniela has great technique.
And I'm not saying this because I'm biased. :p
Vaidisova is someone with poor technique, especially on her backhand.

Daniela has great technique on almost everything she does. :shrug:
That's why many are drawn to her flashy game.

If she had such great technique her game wouldn't break down as often as it does. If she had great technique, when her mental midget-itis kicked in she would still be able to keep the ball in the court.

¤CharlDa¤
May 31st, 2008, 01:50 AM
Slow and poor footwork? Lindsay has some of the best footwork of any player! Huge difference between movement and footwork. Her footwork is one of the main reasons for her success.

Point taken, I didn't use the right term here. Lindsay's footwork is good, though not the best.

Aaron.
May 31st, 2008, 01:51 AM
Why is Venus not on the list?

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:51 AM
I will say that most of the women don't have good overheads.

Venus, Serena, Mauresmo, Davenport and Ivanovic have the best. Henin was inconsistent on it, and Sharapova almost never even tries the shot. Sharapova almost always waits for the ball to come down a bit so she can do a swinging volley.

Jankovic has a very weak overhead too.

Henin has an amazing overhead, only second to Serena.
I remember her smacking them from winners from almost behind the baseline at the US Open last year.

¤CharlDa¤
May 31st, 2008, 01:52 AM
One point that Venus and Serena have that is technically flawless is preparation, which hasn't been mentionned so far. Both have the racket back so early, ready to hit the ball, which helped them a lot throughout the years, especially when their footwork isn't at its peak.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 01:53 AM
I don't hate Venus as much as I used to, so I almost feel bad for her now when she loses, especially today. I will agree with Charlda in that her preparation is great, just the stroke itself is a mess.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 01:54 AM
I don't agree at all with the Mauresmo and Henin comments. I feel like both had a lot of trouble on their forehand. Henin's forehand did get better in the end, and we all agree her backhand is technically flawless, but the forehand was rushed quite often.

Mauresmo's forehand is bad mostly because of the way she hits it often on the back foot. Her entire higher body is going backwards, which also didn't help her back problems.

Players that weren't mentionned here are Maria and Dementieva. Maria's technique on the groundies are very good, which can of course be explained by Landsdorp, as well as the fact that her tennis is quite textbook for a power hitter. As for Dementieva, I'm not at all getting in the serve department ;) But her groundies are incredibly good, I love the use of her legs, she bents incredibly well, awesome body transfer.

Daniela does indeed have a very good technique, I've never seen a player with such a fluid and effortless motion. When she is on (just remember that set and a half to Ivanovic, final of IW against Hingis, etc), her timing is superb and she hits so hard. Her serve technique is also one of the best.

OMG CHarlda pls. Maria's technique on her backhand is great. Everything else is shaky, including her serve, therefore she can't be on the list.
As for Dementieva, her serve is an affront to tennis, therefore not on the list.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT GOOD ALL AROUND TECHNIQUE

I MEAN HOW HARD IS IT TO HAVE GOOD TECHNIQUE ON ONE OR TWO SHOTS???? HOW DOES THAT DISTINGUISH YOU???

¤CharlDa¤
May 31st, 2008, 01:55 AM
Whoa, someone needs to calm down. To know if someone has an overall good technique, isn't it useful to compare it to the one player with the best in each department?

Dave.
May 31st, 2008, 01:56 AM
The difference between Lindsay and Maria's forehands is that Lindsay has the hands to deal with late balls and can still get away with following through almost over her head. Her footwork and timing are impeccable to get into those positions. Sharapova on the other hand is sometimes made to look clumsy on the forehand.

Derek.
May 31st, 2008, 01:56 AM
If she had such great technique her game wouldn't break down as often as it does. If she had great technique, when her mental midget-itis kicked in she would still be able to keep the ball in the court.

OMG, Greg, that's the most idiotic thing I think I've ever heard you say. :haha: :tape:

Her game breaks down due to something mental or poor footwork.
If her technique was bad, she wouldn't be a top 10 player because she doesn't have the movement or huge weapon to make up for it. :shrug:

She hits hard because of her technique.
It's effortless. :shrug:

And her game doesn't even break down that much.

So you are saying, as long as someone has great technique, it doesn't matter if they are a choker? :spit:

She wins because of her ball-striking abilities.
She's a great ball-striker due to her technique.

hankqq
May 31st, 2008, 01:59 AM
Henin has an amazing overhead, only second to Serena.
I remember her smacking them from winners from almost behind the baseline at the US Open last year.


When Henin hit it well, it was great, but in some matches she missed a lot. At the USO last year, Henin's overhead was on fire, but this wasn't always the case with her.

Only Venus and Mauresmo can do the jumping Sampras overhead which I love.

dybbuk
May 31st, 2008, 01:59 AM
Yeah, Ivanovic's backhand technique is quite exquisite, but her forehand is questionable... I find that her forehand technique is a bit flawed in that her racquet is upright when she makes contact with the ball sometimes. When I say this, I mean the racquet face and wrist are pointing too much towards the sky. Sure this shot can produce beauties, but it's very inconsitent and not high percentage IMO.

Pics:

http://www.tennisrulz.com/players/ivanovic/gallery/012.jpg
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/24/captd5987a46168b466d8a4jp8.jpg

Obviously her forehand is among the best in the world, but I'm just being picky. ;)

Ana's forehand is gorgeous, and is miles better than her backhand. There is a reason why her forehand never breaks down (Errors, yes, but in all my years of being a fan, I can't recall one moment when the technique just wasn't there), and her backhand does. Her backhand is much better this year, but she still has a tendency to cut the swing short. She doesn't follow through on her backhand when she gets nervous especially, the swing is cut off and ends in front of her body, hence her patented netted backhand.

iPatty
May 31st, 2008, 02:00 AM
OMG, Greg, that's the most idiotic thing I think I've ever heard you say. :haha: :tape:

Her game breaks down due to something mental or poor footwork.
If her technique was bad, she wouldn't be a top 10 player because she doesn't have the movement or huge weapon to make up for it. :shrug:

She hits hard because of her technique.
It's effortless. :shrug:

And her game doesn't even break down that much.

So you are saying, as long as someone has great technique, it doesn't matter if they are a choker? :spit:

She wins because of her ball-striking abilities.
She's a great ball-striker due to her technique.

Obviously her technique is good enough to be successful, but I don't think she should be in this thread. She wins because of her timing and angles, not because of her technique. When she starts going off is when her TIMING goes off, which has nothing to do with technique.

We will fight about this later. :armed:

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 02:01 AM
I am not even arguing with iPatty about Dani. If you can't see that she has good technique on all her shots then there is no need to argue.
As has been said she hits EFFORTLESS shots BECAUSE of her technique (and yes timing is part of technique, of course)

Dani is not even like top 50 of players I like, but I can recognize that she has good technique.

AcesHigh
May 31st, 2008, 02:01 AM
One point that Venus and Serena have that is technically flawless is preparation, which hasn't been mentionned so far. Both have the racket back so early, ready to hit the ball, which helped them a lot throughout the years, especially when their footwork isn't at its peak.

The racquet is back, yes.. which is great. However, their footwork and taking the small steps to get into position to make the stroke in the optimal position is often very poor.. (Serena used to be great at this though, although maybe issues with injuries or weight have made her very lazy).

If they were able to position themselves better, especially Venus, I'm sure their UE count would go down by at least 2-5 per match. Half the battle is getting your feet set and putting your body, your legs, feet, etc. in a position where the ball crosses your strike zone in the best possible spot.

AcesHigh
May 31st, 2008, 02:02 AM
Ana's forehand is gorgeous, and is miles better than her backhand. There is a reason why her forehand never breaks down (Errors, yes, but in all my years of being a fan, I can't recall one moment when the technique just wasn't there), and her backhand does. Her backhand is much better this year, but she still has a tendency to cut the swing short. She doesn't follow through on her backhand when she gets nervous especially, the swing is cut off and ends in front of her body, hence her patented netted backhand.

:worship: Couldnt say it better myslef.

Derek.
May 31st, 2008, 02:03 AM
When she starts going off is when her TIMING goes off, which has nothing to do with technique.

EXACTLY.

But earlier you said if she had better technique, her game wouldn't break down so much.

You are contradicting yourself. :tape:

Aaron.
May 31st, 2008, 02:07 AM
I think Petrova has good technique

Derek.
May 31st, 2008, 02:08 AM
I think Petrova has good technique

I hope that's sarcasm. :o

RenaSlam.
May 31st, 2008, 02:10 AM
Henin. Davenport. All around I'd say.

Serena's serve. Mauresmo's volleys.

Ryan
May 31st, 2008, 03:14 AM
I think technique would encompass footwork, body rotation, head positioning, racket head motion, speed, and follow-through. Anything I might be missing? Based on that I think Davenport has top notch technique with everything, even though her footwork could obviously be better. But even out of position she recovers well and can hit some cannons with perfect body movement and racket control.

Hingis is another obvious one to me, even though she's retired. She had the best footwork since Graf and textbook strokes in every department. Even though her serve wasn't effective, her technique on the shot is effortless, just like all her other ones. When it comes to volleys and touch shots her technique surpasses anyone I think.

Its tough to find players with GREAT technique on everything - Hingis and Davenport come to mind to me immediately, and Serena with everything except her forehand/touch shots - she can hit anything, but sometimes her footwork is shitty.

And I don't see why its insulting to say a player can't hit every shot in the book: I can guarantee Navratilova and Graf couldn't hit backhand passing shots like Chris Evert or Monica Seles, and it didn't really hamper them because they worked around it. Serena (who came up early on) can't hit EVERY shot in the book IMO anyway, but her game isn't based on that and like someone said she's the best of her generation - get over it.

spiritedenergy
May 31st, 2008, 03:17 AM
In the top 10 right now the best are Ana and Serena.

skanky~skanketta
May 31st, 2008, 03:30 AM
for gods sakes! some fans need to stop getting so defensive. steffi had an awful FH technique, but she has one of the best FHs in history.

All this thread is trying to do is tell us who has good technique.

heart
May 31st, 2008, 03:40 AM
Hmmm, no I don't think so. I think he is listing players with great all-around technique. Maria has fantastic technique on her backhand (maybe the best on tour) and her serve technique is flawless, but her forehand, volleys, drop shots, running shots, pretty much every other shot is horrible technique-wise.
have a point there ..yeah maria is really weak at the net :help: :tape:

:lol: Clearly it is a matter of opinion.

Timing and technique are not the same. Daniela has very slow, very poor footwork that makes it impossible for her to have good technique. She takes the racquet back to high on her backhand and doesn't use her legs enough.

Her serve is the only part of her game that is good technique-wise. Her backhand is okay but she holds the racquet almost open-faced when she hits the ball. That's why I throw Ivanovic out of my list.

also agree with this i dont see anything special in dani's game :shrug:
ame's game is falling apart..her forehand shots are mostly high these past matches..gives her ooponent more time to take advantage of the rally..also she doesnt run that much..especially if she's near the net! :(

justine is really the best of them..she mixes everything well...

Aryman3
May 31st, 2008, 03:45 AM
Funny, no one mentions Radwanska. It seems she uses raw power and huge serve to fight on equal terms with so many brillant technicians among top WTA players of today

alex14
May 31st, 2008, 03:51 AM
Too me, Hingis has the most flawless effortless technique, her motions were so fluid, always great to watch her. And didnt Nick Bolliteri say once that she had the greatest technique in the game??

tterb
May 31st, 2008, 04:46 AM
I always thought Hingis' crosscourt forehand was something of a weakness, but that could be my memory playing tricks on me.

Anyway, Davenport is my (biased but true) choice. And people, quickness and footwork are COMPLETELY different things. Lindsay has excellent footwork, just not speed - that's why if she's on the run and can actually reach the ball, more often than not she'll smack a down the line winner.

LeonHart
May 31st, 2008, 05:24 AM
Jankovic has good technique, very consistent and sound.

InsideOut.
May 31st, 2008, 05:27 AM
I will say that most of the women don't have good overheads.

Venus, Serena, Mauresmo, Davenport and Ivanovic have the best. Henin was inconsistent on it, and Sharapova almost never even tries the shot. Sharapova almost always waits for the ball to come down a bit so she can do a swinging volley.

Jankovic has a very weak overhead too.

You know, I don't like Sharapova, but sometimes she tries the shot and it's pretty effective :lol::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Qea_uBBAU )0:51 :haha:

OsloErik
May 31st, 2008, 06:08 AM
Well, the thing is, technique and results don't go hand in hand. Having great technique isn't a sure-fire way to be #1, win slams, etc. If I were to talk about the best players I've ever seen, and the way they play, great technique rarely describes them. Here's one thing: great technique is hard to play against, but once you get it, you get. Having "flawed" technique, or odd stroke production, may mean you are prone to weaknesses, but if you are really good, not many people can exploit them.

A good example would be Evert and Navratilova. Evert had the best stroke production, in terms of technique, of any player, ever (okay, so maybe somebody from before I was around). But, once Navratilova learned how to use her continental grip, her slightly unorthodox serve, and her unique ability to hit forward, even from the baseline, to her advantage, and to minimize the ways Evert could exploit some of the weaknesses in Navratilova's game (namely returning topspin from high backhands and forehands), Navratilova won 17 in a row.

The players with the most dynamic games I've ever seen are Graf, Serena, and Navratilova in that order. And none of them compete with "perfect technique" on the groundstrokes, a la Evert (and Austin, sort of) or Davenport (in the past decade).

Graf's biggest weapon was her forehand, but look at the shot and you will see how technically unsound it is. It could go off, and it did with a certain degree of regularity. Her backhand was rock solid, but she didn't really do a ton with it. She mostly used it to set up shots. She could do a lot with her backhand, but she knew that the forehand would get points done better, and she'd rather be through with the point than worry about an opponent getting a backhand back. Her serve was the premier serve of the early 90's, but it's not at all a technically pure shot. She hits when the ball is midway down the toss. That's just wrong! Yet she could do more off of that than her opponents could with their more conventional serves. But for all the deficiencies in Graf's game, I still think she has the absolute best game for singles I've ever seen. I'd rate her as the most impressive player to ever hit her peak with any degree of consistency.

Serena, too, has a lot of great things about her game. Her backhand is (generally) rock solid with the technique, although it's a question of if the feet are willing. Her serve is one for all time, technically and effectively. But she hits a downright wonky forehand. It's not Venus-wonky, but it's not the pure shot from Davenport (or Evert, even though her forehand wasn't her winning shot). It's the one that her body disagrees with. But Serena has a stunning record against players with great forehands. She can do things that make her weakness a strength, or augment her existing strengths. It takes a great player to knock Serena off her game, or else it takes Serena being off to make a player great. Any any rate, technical deficiency can work in your favor. A lot of players don't quite know what to do against a forehand like Serena's. Yes, it's more likely to draw the error, but it's also got a ton of angle, power, depth, and variety to it. When a player has a "weakness", it can still be a source of strength, and it can still be the tool they use to win the match.

Ballbasher
May 31st, 2008, 07:15 AM
I agree with | TY | on Ivanovic's forehand it's arguable.
But I think Henin was shaky on her backhand and didn't take enough time sometimes.

Dunlop1
May 31st, 2008, 07:21 AM
Well, the thing is, technique and results don't go hand in hand. Having great technique isn't a sure-fire way to be #1, win slams, etc.

Can people not read? This thread is about players with good all around technique. It is NOT ABOUT RESULTS.

Thank you for your thesis Oslo but why not start a thread of great players with flawed technique.

This thread is about appreciating tennis players whose stroke execution is close to perfect. :wavey:

OsloErik
May 31st, 2008, 07:33 AM
You're welcome! But that's just boring. Lists are boring, and it will inevitably turn to a discussion of "I don't think so and so has perfect technique" and then it will be an argument about how so and so can succeed without perfect technique.

Maybe the lack of quoting got you, but I was responding to the poster saying it's interesting that technique can only get you so far (or something like that).

Perfect technique? Evert, Davenport...Zvereva! Margaret Court had scary good technique. Bored yet? ;)

InsideOut.
May 31st, 2008, 07:37 AM
I agree with | TY | on Ivanovic's forehand it's arguable.
But I think Henin was shaky on her backhand and didn't take enough time sometimes.

As a fan, I don't acknowledge that Ana's forehand is 100% technically perfect. Sven Groeneveld actually said he thought Ana's backhand was better than her forehand, which can "still be improved, although not many people would agree with me". And I was like, wow, imagine her forehand after the improvements :eek:.

Meteor Shower
May 31st, 2008, 08:01 AM
Henin, Davenport, Kuznetsova, Srebotnik, Szavay, Radwanska.
Also after seeing one match of her Carla Suarez may enter that list too sometime soon.
I remember thinking ALG has a good technique when I last saw her (as a top20 player)

LDVTennis
May 31st, 2008, 08:11 AM
Graf's biggest weapon was her forehand, but look at the shot and you will see how technically unsound it is. It could go off, and it did with a certain degree of regularity. Her backhand was rock solid, but she didn't really do a ton with it. She mostly used it to set up shots. She could do a lot with her backhand, but she knew that the forehand would get points done better, and she'd rather be through with the point than worry about an opponent getting a backhand back. Her serve was the premier serve of the early 90's, but it's not at all a technically pure shot. She hits when the ball is midway down the toss. That's just wrong! Yet she could do more off of that than her opponents could with their more conventional serves. But for all the deficiencies in Graf's game, I still think she has the absolute best game for singles I've ever seen. I'd rate her as the most impressive player to ever hit her peak with any degree of consistency.

Graf's forehand is NOT technically unsound. This is a misconception stemming from the fact that she sometimes had a late point of contact. Not always. In fact, if you study the Graf forehand, you'll see that her point of contact varies to such a degree that on average she hits the ball out in front of her as much as she does at hip level.

Despite that dynamic point of contact, from anywhere in front to anywhere at hip level, on almost all her swings, Steffi had the same form from take-back to follow-through. When you are judging technique, that's what you should be looking at first. Has the player developed a form on the shot that is reproducible time and again, regardless of the flight or position of the ball? Obviously, some forms will be more conducive to great shots that produce winners time and again and some forms will be more conducive to good shots that produce winners only once in a while.

As to Steffi's service toss, Steffi has one of the best service motions of all time, if not the best. Too much is made of her high service toss. There is nothing wrong with tossing the ball that high if you can time the ball correctly. In fact, there are advantages to tossing the ball that high. It encourages you to reach up and to hit up on the serve.

To be sure, that is not what is considered standard when it comes to a service ball toss. This is not the case because high ball tosses are wrong. It is not standard because it is easier for the service motion as a whole to place the ball on the toss at the point where contact is going to be made. As with everything, things that are easier to accomplish are not necessarily better. Indeed, things that often present less risk often come with less reward.

tennisbear7
May 31st, 2008, 08:18 AM
Graf's forehand is technically deficient, in terms of conventional forehand play. But because it was so explosive, so consistent (for the most part) and so damaging to the other player, we can say that it wasn't technically unsound. It got the job done with amazing regularity. A large part of "is this technically correct?" is the consistency of the shot.

So Disrespectful
May 31st, 2008, 08:22 AM
I remember thinking ALG has a good technique when I last saw her (as a top20 player)

I like Anna-Lena, but realistically she doesn't have the best technique. She plays a more brutal game than the others, can rush her forehand at times, balls don't always come cleanly off her racket and her footwork is often sluggish. Anna's technique is by no means poor, but it's not great either. Her backhand and first serve are well produced.

Jankovic is sound off the ground, and while her backhand cannot be flawed, her forehand follows a very jerky and rigid movement. She thrusts herself into the shot to compensate for her lack of technical perfection or penetration. So with these two girls I guess the point I'm making is that perfect technique implies hitting with perceived ease and it that case, they fail.

How is good technique defined anyway? Going by the textbooks? If one person's shot is more effective than the other's, does it really matter if the stroke looks ugly? The conventionality of tennis is slowly degrading as power has became a major factor. All that matters is that the ball is placed well and with lots of pace, by whatever means. Perfect is boring, it's the individual techniques that keep tennis interesting.

Lunaris
May 31st, 2008, 12:05 PM
:lol: Clearly it is a matter of opinion.

Timing and technique are not the same. Daniela has very slow, very poor footwork that makes it impossible for her to have good technique. She takes the racquet back to high on her backhand and doesn't use her legs enough.

Her serve is the only part of her game that is good technique-wise. Her backhand is okay but she holds the racquet almost open-faced when she hits the ball. That's why I throw Ivanovic out of my list.
If she had such great technique her game wouldn't break down as often as it does. If she had great technique, when her mental midget-itis kicked in she would still be able to keep the ball in the court.
Do you really think she has such a poor footwork? Sure, she is one of the slowest movers in top 100 (even though it's not nearly as bad as it used to be) especially when moving forward, but when she isn't in a total defense and stretched she usually manages to get into a good position and hits very similar shots from both wings regularly all over again exactly by the sweet spot of her racket regardless of the spin, height, or speed of the ball. She produces very simple effortless strokes without any complicated, needless or hard movements and makes contact with the ball in the same place with regard to position of her body, feet and shoulders. Of course on some surfaces she does it better and on others worse, but in general she does it excellently. I like the sound when she makes contact with the ball. In Sanchez-Casal academy she has worked a lot on her footwork. Besides, given the fact that since return from Bali last year she has had issues with right heel, which can affect footwork quite badly despite taking painkillers, I think she deserves praise for what she accomplished, even though it was pretty stupid to play with injury.
The thing about her game breaking down in key moments is actually not about her game breaking down but rather about the fact that in tight situations she chooses shots she wouldn't choose in normal situations. Wrong shot selection is her problem, not bad technique. How can her technique influence that she for example decides to hit a dropshot on setpoint when she isn't inside the court while her opponent is?
Many tennis experts or even players compare her technique to Davenport's or at least appreciate it. That can't be a coincidence. The last one was Michaella Krajicek two months ago. When asked which player she likes to watch the most, she named Hantuchova. I wonder if she likes to watch players with crappy technique.

moby
May 31st, 2008, 12:37 PM
Steffi's forehand is technically sound; it's just that her technique is unorthodox and inimitable.

Sund7101
May 31st, 2008, 02:07 PM
:lol: Mauresmo has horrible technique on her forehand and serve, its amazing she's gotten away with hit. It shows you how good the rest of her game had to be.

The williamses have great racket preperation and racket head speed, they get in trouble with their poor footwork, esp. Serena.

Hingis had really good technique on most of her shots and she was always in position to hit the ball, her and Justine have some of the best footwork ever.

Ivanovic seems like her forehand has bad technique sometimes because she hits the ball as hard as she posibbly can, as flat as she can, off her back foot.

Seles groundies???

Matt01
May 31st, 2008, 03:35 PM
Seles groundies???


Backhand: excellent (serve as well) IMHO
Forehand: unconventional ;)

kinglear
May 31st, 2008, 03:45 PM
Dunlop, I'm surprised you didn't put Dementieva on your list. I think she is one of the cleanest and consistent hitters on tour. She's one of those players who can keep a rally going for a long time because her stroke production is very consistent and uniform. I think it's because of her training as a child at the Spartak club in Russia. Plus, for Dementieva to take the ball as early as she does take impeccable hand-eye coordination. :):worship:

Dominic
May 31st, 2008, 03:56 PM
You're welcome! But that's just boring. Lists are boring, and it will inevitably turn to a discussion of "I don't think so and so has perfect technique" and then it will be an argument about how so and so can succeed without perfect technique.

Maybe the lack of quoting got you, but I was responding to the poster saying it's interesting that technique can only get you so far (or something like that).

Perfect technique? Evert, Davenport...Zvereva! Margaret Court had scary good technique. Bored yet? ;)

If this topic bores you, why the hell do you post here? Get a life please. Anyways, Hingis , Hantucova, Davenport, Dokic too has great technique and to those whining that serena has grandslams, this has absolutly nothing to do with this thread serena has pretty bad technique on her forehand, her volleys, her dropshots etc. and to the person saying hantucova doesnt have good technique, you don't know tennis enough to comment.

Melly Flew Us
May 31st, 2008, 04:59 PM
why mention serena at all if this thread is not about her?

it is quite obivous what your intentiopn was; you just couldn't restrain yourself and that is why you had a little clause at the end.


Watching Serena hit a routine backhand volley outside of the doubles alley with that awful technique of hers... I was embarrassed for her.


Ana Ivanovic: Good stroke production on all her shots except her backhand

Mauresmo: Great technique from her western forehand - not


henin maybe, davenport - never saw her hit a proper volley so can't say whether or not she had all round good technique; don't know how you can either.

Beny
May 31st, 2008, 04:59 PM
Good list really.

For me Daniela has the best one because she makes it look the smoothest of all, so effortless, she also hits angles and dropshots so that it looks so good and smooth. The best technique imo

fufuqifuqishahah
May 31st, 2008, 05:38 PM
when i read the thread title, the first person i thought of was Hantuchova. :P.... minus her footwork sometimes. she gets so much power for being so skinny.

despite winning the most grand slams, serena doesn't have the best technique... except for her serve which is brilliant technique. like many people have been saying, great technique doesn't necessarily mean great success. she wins because she has decent (not great) technique on everything else, is smart, is very athletic and powerful, and fights really well (except recently....).

$uricate
Jun 4th, 2008, 10:31 PM
I think the main consensus of this thread is that the people with the best technique are not necessarily the best players.

Serena, Venus, Graf - all have "flaws" with they're technique but they make it work because it's they're way of doing it and they have perfected them over time, they developed with those flaws intact. If they didn't have these quirks in they're game they would be like tennis-playing robots without that extra something to make them different, the "flaws" are essentially what make them the great players that they are.

For the best technique look at some of the Moscow girls - Zvonareva, Dementieva and even Safina have great techniques all moulded from a young age and drilled into them. They aren't the best players ever but everything looks like it should, and they get great power and control without being she-hulks.

For me the player with the best technique was Kournikova, she wasn't the best tennis player but everything worked and looked beautiful, it was a game you wanted to watch and everything looked perfect. Hantuchova too, as others have said, everything looks effortless looking, minus the serve which is just weird - it works for her because she has always used that motion but I dont see anyone else being taught to serve that way.

PamShriver
Jun 4th, 2008, 11:43 PM
Evert's groundstroke technique was seamless, but her serve was not, no knees and very stiff. Chrissie's volleys were textbook but again she was pretty stiff on the shot.

Nicolás89
Jun 4th, 2008, 11:47 PM
I love Radwaska's technique.

The Daviator
Jun 4th, 2008, 11:54 PM
Lindsay's is just perfection, like someone else said, it's a shame her body is so unathletic, as her tennis can't be improved.

iPatty
Jun 4th, 2008, 11:57 PM
Monica Niculescu and Petra Cetkovska, after seeing this year's Roland Garros. :worship: