PDA

View Full Version : Do You Hate Caroline Wozniacki's Game Style?


Noctis
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:01 AM
Basically Getting alot of people go "Pusher!"Really when are some of you realise Making winners isnt everything。

Koon
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:03 AM
just don't like :p

Привет
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:06 AM
Yes.

Shafanovic.
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:08 AM
I love it :)

Craig.
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:08 AM
Yes.

kman
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:14 AM
No.

LightWarrior
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:15 AM
Efficient but not the greatest style of play - to say the least. She's actually a bit boring to watch.

Mashabator
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:17 AM
i hate it aswell!!

ArturoAce.
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:18 AM
Efficient but not the greatest style of play - to say the least. She's actually a bit boring to watch.

exactly. :worship:

Andy.
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:19 AM
I really dont feel anything for her style. It works for her but as other have said its a little boring for me. She would either have to hit harder and flatter or add more variety to make it more interesting.

~{X}~
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:20 AM
As long as she wins, its great to see. I don't mind her style at all.

Uranium
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:21 AM
I like her backhand and that's about it.:p

SV_Fan
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:21 AM
Its okay It's sorta like Jankovic's IMHO.

kman
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:22 AM
i hate it aswell!!´




Caro Def. Dokic 6-3 5-7 6-2 :sad:

Yes.


sharapova.
vwilliams.
dementieva.
azarenka.



No wonder :tape:

Craig.
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:27 AM
No wonder :tape:

Yeah, I'm bitter. So what? :rolleyes:

bobbynorwich
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:28 AM
Well, she seems to hit hard, but doesn't exactly paint the lines or takes lots of chances on her placement. But she does seem to dictate play, usually has few unforced errors, and makes her opponents run a lot. Her style of play is working for her. Would love to see more net play ... something that applies to almost all the players.

SV_Fan
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Well, she seems to hit hard, but doesn't exactly paint the lines or takes lots of chances on her placement. But she does seem to dictate play, usually has few unforced errors, and makes her opponents run a lot. Her style of play is working for her. Would love to see more net play ... something that applies to almost all the players.

Sorta like Nadal when he first came on the seen? well circa 2005? in 2003/2004 he was hitting the living shiznit out of the ball.

LightWarrior
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:41 AM
Its okay It's sorta like Jankovic's IMHO.

No, they have very different styles. Jankovic -although I'm not a big fan- is more interesting to watch. Plus Wozniacky has no charisma at all when she's playing. I don't feel anything.

Kworb
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:47 AM
Yes it reminds me of Sanchez but then without going to the net.

tiffanykatya.
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:18 AM
I don't like it.

DimaDinosaur
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Love me hate me, say what you want about me, but all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy
Love me hate me, but can't you see what I see? All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy

Caillou
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:33 AM
i dont particularly like counter-punching, but thats just a preference..i cant really judge her too much, I haven't seen her play enough. obviously it is working for her, so good on her!

bobbynorwich
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:46 AM
She's only 18 and so likely to improve. But getting better does not mean being more interesting to watch, just more effective for her. She's a smart player who doesn't take unnecessary risks, but is cagey nonetheless.

Less net play is .... :yawn:.

Get ready for long, hard hitting rallies --- which actually can be good tennis. Depends on the ratio of winners to unforced errors.

By some reports, she's the female equivalent of Nadal --- never satisfied or complacent, always wanting to get better, modest, a very hard worker, and self-effacing.

Good news for the WTA.

hdfb
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:47 AM
Yeah I find it boring.

Mashabator
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:50 AM
No wonder :tape:

I dont despise her for beating jelly, i just dont like the way she plays, anyways jelly beat her in the AO, when it mattered most.

simonsaystennis
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:01 AM
No. I really enjoyed her match today with Dementieva. She didn't go for winners much, but she hit solid shots, and let her opponent make the mistake. She got to so much and was great on defense. I think that as she gets older and spends more time on the tour, she will start to go for more winners, though she will never be an extremely offensive player.

bobbynorwich
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:15 AM
No. I really enjoyed her match today with Dementieva. She didn't go for winners much, but she hit solid shots, and let her opponent make the mistake. She got to so much and was great on defense. I think that as she gets older and spends more time on the tour, she will start to go for more winners, though she will never be an extremely offensive player.

She plays smart, dictates play, and makes few errors. I think dictating play is quite offensive. Caroline doesn't go for low percentage shots --- some will say that is not being offensive. Kind of like Jankovic in that regard, but counter-punchers win a lot of tourneys.

Wiggly
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:18 AM
Kind of. It's very efficient and it works very well for her.
Howver, I prefer an agressive style of play, something taht make you win the match by yourself and not relying on somebody's else erros to win.

That style will win you a lot of matches but if you faces an opponent who's in the "zone", you'll lose in straights.

MyskinaManiac
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:25 AM
Ok, if this thread said "do you hate Venus WIlliams/Serena Williams' game style" then this thread would have been deleted already.

The sheer fact that it hasn't been removed proves my point that there's double standards in this board. One rule for Williams fan, another for everyone else.

Pops Maellard
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:51 AM
I don't know how Wozniacki herself doesn't get bored with her style sometimes. I mean, all she ever seems to do is hit either straight back at the opponent or to the middle of the court. I'd be bored as hell standing on a court for 2 or more hours never going for anything, even if I was winning the match.

barboza
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:53 AM
Why would anyone hate her game? She's got lovely groundstrokes and she can maneuver the balls very well.

AnomyBC
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:57 AM
I love EVERYTHING about Caroline Wozniacki :inlove:

Alicia Rocks
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:59 AM
Love it :D

kman
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:08 AM
I dont despise her for beating jelly, i just dont like the way she plays, anyways jelly beat her in the AO, when it mattered most.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. Jelena did beat her with home advantage, but Caro won twice since then. We'll see what the future brings...

bobbynorwich
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:46 AM
Ok, if this thread said "do you hate Venus WIlliams/Serena Williams' game style" then this thread would have been deleted already.

The sheer fact that it hasn't been removed proves my point that there's double standards in this board. One rule for Williams fan, another for everyone else.

Probably true.

Nikkiri
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:50 AM
Nope. :)

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:51 AM
I don´t like Cañas , Simon , Spadea , Benneteau , Peer , Radwanska

The Woz practices the same style of tennis

Josh.
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:11 AM
It's just boring, thats all.

ArturoAce.
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:24 AM
I don´t like Cañas , Simon , Spadea , Benneteau , Peer , Radwanska

The Woz practices the same style of tennis

If your talking about agi. I would have to disagree. I love to watch her play. She plays with so much variety and an all-court style game. I especially love when she does her magnificent drop shots. you don't see that often too much, and its great when she brings that style.

Mashabator
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:40 AM
We'll see what the future brings...

We sure will! GO JELLY :inlove:

fandy
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:52 AM
I like Lisicki's Game Style!!!!
We need winner!!!!

Myggen
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:58 AM
I just hate her wining. Seems like she is always making excuses she can use in case she plays shit and loses the match.

azza
Apr 19th, 2009, 07:00 AM
i cant remember how she plays whats her playing style liek

Louis Cyphre
Apr 19th, 2009, 07:00 AM
It's just boring, thats all.

Caroline plays exactly the same style as the player in your avatar :devil:

To the topic - nope , I like it. Its not brainless ballbashing :devil:

Ceri
Apr 19th, 2009, 07:10 AM
Hate's a strong word. I certainly don't find it particularly mesmerising or noteworthy...

Inktrailer
Apr 19th, 2009, 07:55 AM
Not at all, I like watching her play, and yesterday's match was good. But god forbid a youngster breaking through and having a bit of success - time to stick the boot in, right?

Keadz
Apr 19th, 2009, 07:57 AM
I love watching her play when she is going good, but when she plays bad with no confidence she is probably one of the players I least like to watch.

bad_angel_109
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:03 AM
i dont. she's got an alright game style. i mean some ppl say dina's a "pusher/ballbasher" as well. dinara is to a certain extent. we still love u dina! :p

Sexysova
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:11 AM
no

Dexter
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:15 AM
I don´t like Cañas , Simon , Spadea , Benneteau , Peer , Radwanska

The Woz practices the same style of tennisYou shouldn't like Nadal's either then.

babuska6
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:27 AM
I like it and admire the way she moves and her intelligence on the court. She is suprisingly the young player,who is not as powerful as her compatriotes,on the other hand,she is the new Martina Hingis. Making winners is not the most important,she wins the points in different way and I like it a lot.

cherboy
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:34 AM
i don't like her game and i don't like to watch her play...
it's boring. i'm sorry, but it's my opinion.

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:39 AM
Caroline plays exactly the same style as the player in your avatar :devil:

To the topic - nope , I like it. Its not brainless ballbashing :devil:
Its brainless pushing. ;)

And no, JJ is much more offensive, uses her brain more and has a much more attractive game.

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:41 AM
I like it and admire the way she moves and her intelligence on the court. She is suprisingly the young player,who is not as powerful as her compatriotes,on the other hand,she is the new Martina Hingis. Making winners is not the most important,she wins the points in different way and I like it a lot.
??? I dont get how anyone who doesnt attack their shots is compared to hingis. Just because you are not aggresive, it doesnt mean you are automatically a smart player. I've seen Caroline play loads of time and her shot selection among other things leads me to believe that she is as brainless as the rest of them.

Inktrailer
Apr 19th, 2009, 08:51 AM
I'd have to disagree that Caro has a brainless game, I think anticipation and positioning are particularly strong parts of her game at the moment.

Louis Cyphre
Apr 19th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Its brainless pushing. ;)

And no, JJ is much more offensive, uses her brain more and has a much more attractive game.

I strongly disagree :lol:

Golovinjured.
Apr 19th, 2009, 10:00 AM
I don't hate it, but I don't like it. She's a pusher. How the hell do you win a 3 set match, 34 games played, and have just 10 winners? She actually reminds me a bit of Schnyder in that she gets passive with her shots, with the game to win big if she goes for her shots and gets more offensive. Patty never did it, hopefully Caroline does.

M-K
Apr 19th, 2009, 10:11 AM
Yes.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 10:18 AM
Okay first of all I am not going to argue with people that say Caroline's game is rather boring. Obviously that is a matter of opinion. To be honest it is an opinion I tend to share too.

However, I will strongly disagree with those who suggest she isn't a very good player, doesn't deserve her place in the top 10 or isn't very smart. She is. That is clear. She is not winning because is lucky and she is not winning because she is an amazing shotmaker and hitting a lot of winners. She is not winning because she has the most variety or skill out there either. But she is winning. And there is a reason she is winning. She has a good understanding of the game and knows what she is doing out there. Yes, she is smart.

People in this forum talk a lot about "weapons". If you hit with power it means you have weapons. If you don't, it means you "lack weapons". Okay. Let's go with this.

Let's go back to the great Roman Empire. Imagine we are in an old Roman stadium. We are lucky. There is a great show going on. A battle to the death between two mighty combatants. One of them is loaded with weapons. He has a bow and arrow. He has a longsword, he's got a big club, hell he's even got a war hammer. Scary. His opponent on the other hand has not been given a single weapon at all. Who's going to win? I know I would be inclided to think the guy with the weapons was in with a very good chance to be honest.

But just supposing the other guy found a way to avoid all these nasty weapons and somehow sneak to on this heavily armed guy and, well, kill him. I would have to give him credit, and say he must have something going for him. He must, at the very least, have his wits about him and know what he is doing. It is the same in tennis. When a player who has less power, somehow finds a way to beat a player who on the surface is more skilled or powerful that player must be doing something right. When a player like this starts winning on a consistant basis it means they are doing a lot right. Caroline Wozniacki has now won more matches than anyone on the tour this year. She is knows what she is doing out there, she is smart.

I can certainly understand folks not liking the way Wozniacki plays but give the girl some respect. I have my own tastes of what I find aesthetically pleasing on the tennis court like anyone else. I don't generally speaking, and yes there are the ocassional exceptions, like big powerful girls who don't move well and hit a lot of winners but also generally an unsightly amount of errors too. Players like Kleybanova, Kvitova, and Kanepi aren't favourites of mine. But I respect them. I know they are dangerous and have skills that mean they can beat good players. And, like my favourites, and indeed all other players, I can appreciate that they are better some days than others. When a player like Kleybanova is keeping her error total down and running things down to the best of her ability she is one of toughest players out there and on those occasions I have no problem saying she is playing great tennis, even if it ain't my cup of tea.

As long as a player is trying their best and getting some wins they deserve respect. When a player, say Vaidisova, goes out there without trying, okay a little comtempt might be deserved, but generally anyone in the top 50, hey even the top 200 deserves a level of respect, and when a player is able to get into the edges of the top 10 with what appears at least to be a one-dimentional limited game then they deserve a heck of a lot of respect because they are certainly doing something very right.

terjw
Apr 19th, 2009, 10:35 AM
No - I certainly don't hate Caro' game style. But I'd like to see her go to the net a bit more when she has her opponent in trouble and pinned down. And she often surrenders the initiative when on top - particularly when the return is to her forehand.

She's got a great defence and a backhand. Without fundamentally changing her game - the areas in which there's room for improvement would increase her winners.

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 10:53 AM
Her game is too one-dimensional and technically unpolished. I don't mind when a player doesn't produce winners galore, but they must do something else to make their game interesting aka show some variety. In fact I prefer variety over high number of winners. Wozniacki does neither and that's why she is so uninspiring player. However, if we look at her yesterdays encounter with Dementieva we should note that the Russian proved to be just as one-dimensional and dull and certainly contributed to the lifelessness of that match.

terjw
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:03 AM
I don't hate it, but I don't like it. She's a pusher. How the hell do you win a 3 set match, 34 games played, and have just 10 winners? She actually reminds me a bit of Schnyder in that she gets passive with her shots, with the game to win big if she goes for her shots and gets more offensive. Patty never did it, hopefully Caroline does.

Oh for God's sake - she didn't just have 10 winners.:rolleyes:

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:12 AM
Oh for God's sake - she didn't just have 10 winners.:rolleyes:

14 (excluding aces). In a match that lasted for 3 hours. Including a total of 2 winners in the 2nd set. 1 winner per 10 minutes. Yes, it changes everything :rolleyes:

fish_wilson
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:15 AM
yeah reminds me too a bit of jankovic, so its a bit boring, BUT shes winning so the other more "exciting" players just have to find a way to beat her style, simple as that - and I love watching her. Its just like watching Serena and Venus who are relying so much on serve and power, so so so boring but efficient, and giving the more "technical" players a good challenge to work around it. Justine could do it and so can you. But I think its kind of sad that many of the wta players try to just beat power with power, hitting harder and harder and losing some of the "tactical" game using more variations and messing with other players head. There are just so many opportunities in tennis and I wish more players would try them out and be successfull at it. Just look at the size of the arms of even the younger players, all of them striving to be the next serena, dementieva or safina, thats all bit sad. Bring back some more finesse, pretty pretty please.

vesanto
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:19 AM
18. In a match that lasted for 3 hours. Including a total of 2 winners in the 2nd set. 1 winner per 10 minutes. Yes, it changes everything :rolleyes:


So what, just because she has 18 winners it doesn't mean she only had 18 points she really deserved to win. Take Venus, for example. She rarely gets a huge number of aces because most of the times it allowed her opponents to touch it and barely return to the other side where Venus would easily finish the point. For me that's basically an ace but if you look to the final statistics it won't appear like that. Statistics are misleading.

I appreciate point construction. That's what I like about Jankovic and yesterday CAroline did this very well, I saw many points where she was actually dictating play, making Elena run and eventually make an error. For me this is also offensive play. Obviously we all like those excellent winners that leave you blown away but that's great that no one is like that, we need different styles.

About Caroline, as someone said when she's off it is painful to watch but when she is striking well she's not that bad.

Mashafaaaaan
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:25 AM
I hate but I don't really care, this kind of game is useless, she will never win a Slam with this tennis, just see Jankovic:rolleyes:she better be more offensive. Pushers CANT win Slams.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:25 AM
Her game is too one-dimensional and technically unpolished. I don't mind when a player doesn't produce winners galore, but they must do something else to make their game interesting aka show some variety. In fact I prefer variety over high number of winners. Wozniacki does neither and that's why she is so uninspiring player. However, if we look at her yesterdays encounter with Dementieva we should note that the Russian proved to be just as one-dimensional and dull and certainly contributed to the lifelessness of that match.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that actually. One thing that bothers me is when Wozniacki and Radwanska get lumped together as similar players. They are not. Wozniacki wins by getting to a lot of balls and hitting very consistently the same kind of ground strokes over and over all to a sufficient length that makes it very hard to hit winners against her. It is effective, it takes great mental focus and concentration, good fitness and great court coverage. But it isn't really inspiring.

Radwanska on the other hand is constantly changing the pace, spin, and depth of her shots. She mixes up her play as much as anymore on the tour, plays well at the net and has as good touch as just about anyone in the game. You never know what Agnieszka is going to hit next. Caroline, well there is usually an excellent chance her next groundie will be very similar to her last groundie. They are very different players. The only things they have in common is that neither has a big serve and neither has killer groundstrokes.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:28 AM
I hate but I don't really care, this kind of game is useless, she will never win a Slam with this tennis, just see Jankovic:rolleyes:she better be more offensive. Pushers CANT win Slams.

I would disagree here. Both Jankovic and Wozniacki have a very legimate shot to win slams in the future regardless of what anyone might think about how they play.

Mackep83
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:31 AM
Great game, great for the tennis as well.

Mashafaaaaan
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:32 AM
I would disagree here. Both Jankovic and Wozniacki have a very legimate shot to win slams in the future regardless of what anyone might think about how they play.

So, why in the future and not now?

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:34 AM
So what, just because she has 18 winners it doesn't mean she only had 18 points she really deserved to win. Take Venus, for example. She rarely gets a huge number of aces because most of the times it allowed her opponents to touch it and barely return to the other side where Venus would easily finish the point. For me that's basically an ace but if you look to the final statistics it won't appear like that. Statistics are misleading.

It would be counted as a service winner. At least at slams they do so.

Stats could be misleading but tennis could not. I watched enough of Wozniacki's matches and in her case stats don't lie.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:38 AM
So, why in the future and not now?

Now? Is there a Grand Slam going on at the moment.

Anyway to be less flippant, Wozniacki is still just 18. That is rather young to be winning Slams. She has many years ahead of her. Did you know in the last 10 years only 4 Grand Slams were won by teenagers? Yes, Sharapova won two as a teenager and in the late 90s Hingis won a bundle. Before that Graf, Seles and several other won quite a few too. But these days players are developing later. Saying an 18 year old who is on the verge of the top 10 will never win a Slam doesn't strike me as the brightest thing to do.

ms. double fault
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:44 AM
no i actually like it. its quite powerful and she has good length and depth

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:47 AM
14 (excluding aces). In a match that lasted for 3 hours. Including a total of 2 winners in the 2nd set. 1 winner per 10 minutes. Yes, it changes everything :rolleyes:

No, 18. I am fairly sure aces are NOT included in the winners column. Service winners, where the opponent made contact with the ball are, but aces are aces and not officially counted as winners anymore than double faults are counted as errors. They are a different kettle of fish.

Still if it makes you happy I would concede that 18 winners over a three hour match isn't very much. I am sure Wozniacki is very sad and deeply ashamed about this.

Dodoboy.
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Okay first of all I am not going to argue with people that say Caroline's game is rather boring. Obviously that is a matter of opinion. To be honest it is an opinion I tend to share too.

However, I will strongly disagree with those who suggest she isn't a very good player, doesn't deserve her place in the top 10 or isn't very smart. She is. That is clear. She is not winning because is lucky and she is not winning because she is an amazing shotmaker and hitting a lot of winners. She is not winning because she has the most variety or skill out there either. But she is winning. And there is a reason she is winning. She has a good understanding of the game and knows what she is doing out there. Yes, she is smart.

People in this forum talk a lot about "weapons". If you hit with power it means you have weapons. If you don't, it means you "lack weapons". Okay. Let's go with this.

Let's go back to the great Roman Empire. Imagine we are in an old Roman stadium. We are lucky. There is a great show going on. A battle to the death between two mighty combatants. One of them is loaded with weapons. He has a bow and arrow. He has a longsword, he's got a big club, hell he's even got a war hammer. Scary. His opponent on the other hand has not been given a single weapon at all. Who's going to win? I know I would be inclided to think the guy with the weapons was in with a very good chance to be honest.

But just supposing the other guy found a way to avoid all these nasty weapons and somehow sneak to on this heavily armed guy and, well, kill him. I would have to give him credit, and say he must have something going for him. He must, at the very least, have his wits about him and know what he is doing. It is the same in tennis. When a player who has less power, somehow finds a way to beat a player who on the surface is more skilled or powerful that player must be doing something right. When a player like this starts winning on a consistant basis it means they are doing a lot right. Caroline Wozniacki has now won more matches than anyone on the tour this year. She is knows what she is doing out there, she is smart.

I can certainly understand folks not liking the way Wozniacki plays but give the girl some respect. I have my own tastes of what I find aesthetically pleasing on the tennis court like anyone else. I don't generally speaking, and yes there are the ocassional exceptions, like big powerful girls who don't move well and hit a lot of winners but also generally an unsightly amount of errors too. Players like Kleybanova, Kvitova, and Kanepi aren't favourites of mine. But I respect them. I know they are dangerous and have skills that mean they can beat good players. And, like my favourites, and indeed all other players, I can appreciate that they are better some days than others. When a player like Kleybanova is keeping her error total down and running things down to the best of her ability she is one of toughest players out there and on those occasions I have no problem saying she is playing great tennis, even if it ain't my cup of tea.

As long as a player is trying their best and getting some wins they deserve respect. When a player, say Vaidisova, goes out there without trying, okay a little comtempt might be deserved, but generally anyone in the top 50, hey even the top 200 deserves a level of respect, and when a player is able to get into the edges of the top 10 with what appears at least to be a one-dimentional limited game then they deserve a heck of a lot of respect because they are certainly doing something very right.


Great post :yeah:

Dodoboy.
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:55 AM
With all the defiencies explored in this thread in Caro's game, if anything you have to admire how great a competitor she is. She is winning matches!

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:56 AM
No, 18. I am fairly sure aces are NOT included in the winners column. Service winners, where the opponent made contact with the ball are, but aces are aces and not officially counted as winners anymore than double faults are counted as errors. They are a different kettle of fish.

I'm pretty sure they are :shrug:
But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't make any difference.

markdelaney
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:59 AM
I really dont feel anything for her style. It works for her but as other have said its a little boring for me. She would either have to hit harder and flatter or add more variety to make it more interesting.

You idolise a totally one dimensional player who can only hit the ball hard and scream at the same time (admittedly with great success). How is that "interesting" ?

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:59 AM
With all the defiencies explored in this thread in Caro's game, if anything you have to admire how great a competitor she is. She is winning matches!

Yup. This is absolutely the case.

CloudAtlas
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:02 PM
With all the defiencies explored in this thread in Caro's game, if anything you have to admire how great a competitor she is. She is winning matches!



Exactly , if she's in the top 10 with those deficiences then it doesn't say a lot about the rest of the top women.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:03 PM
With all the defiencies explored in this thread in Caro's game, if anything you have to admire how great a competitor she is. She is winning matches!

Not on a grand stage :wavey:

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Okay first of all I am not going to argue with people that say Caroline's game is rather boring. Obviously that is a matter of opinion. To be honest it is an opinion I tend to share too.

However, I will strongly disagree with those who suggest she isn't a very good player, doesn't deserve her place in the top 10 or isn't very smart. She is. That is clear. She is not winning because is lucky and she is not winning because she is an amazing shotmaker and hitting a lot of winners. She is not winning because she has the most variety or skill out there either. But she is winning. And there is a reason she is winning. She has a good understanding of the game and knows what she is doing out there. Yes, she is smart.

People in this forum talk a lot about "weapons". If you hit with power it means you have weapons. If you don't, it means you "lack weapons". Okay. Let's go with this.

Let's go back to the great Roman Empire. Imagine we are in an old Roman stadium. We are lucky. There is a great show going on. A battle to the death between two mighty combatants. One of them is loaded with weapons. He has a bow and arrow. He has a longsword, he's got a big club, hell he's even got a war hammer. Scary. His opponent on the other hand has not been given a single weapon at all. Who's going to win? I know I would be inclided to think the guy with the weapons was in with a very good chance to be honest.

But just supposing the other guy found a way to avoid all these nasty weapons and somehow sneak to on this heavily armed guy and, well, kill him. I would have to give him credit, and say he must have something going for him. He must, at the very least, have his wits about him and know what he is doing. It is the same in tennis. When a player who has less power, somehow finds a way to beat a player who on the surface is more skilled or powerful that player must be doing something right. When a player like this starts winning on a consistant basis it means they are doing a lot right. Caroline Wozniacki has now won more matches than anyone on the tour this year. She is knows what she is doing out there, she is smart.

I can certainly understand folks not liking the way Wozniacki plays but give the girl some respect. I have my own tastes of what I find aesthetically pleasing on the tennis court like anyone else. I don't generally speaking, and yes there are the ocassional exceptions, like big powerful girls who don't move well and hit a lot of winners but also generally an unsightly amount of errors too. Players like Kleybanova, Kvitova, and Kanepi aren't favourites of mine. But I respect them. I know they are dangerous and have skills that mean they can beat good players. And, like my favourites, and indeed all other players, I can appreciate that they are better some days than others. When a player like Kleybanova is keeping her error total down and running things down to the best of her ability she is one of toughest players out there and on those occasions I have no problem saying she is playing great tennis, even if it ain't my cup of tea.

As long as a player is trying their best and getting some wins they deserve respect. When a player, say Vaidisova, goes out there without trying, okay a little comtempt might be deserved, but generally anyone in the top 50, hey even the top 200 deserves a level of respect, and when a player is able to get into the edges of the top 10 with what appears at least to be a one-dimentional limited game then they deserve a heck of a lot of respect because they are certainly doing something very right.
But this is the point im trying to argue. What does she have to her game that is smart? Nothing, the only thing she does is hit the ball deep and sometimes left then right. Thats where she differs from Jankovic, Jankovic is a similar player - not too strong, quick (quicker than caroline) and she relies on her consistency. But JJ knows when to be aggresive, knows when to be passive, can mix it up - slices, dropshots, volleys - the lot. The only time i've ever seen Caro use variety is when she hits that retarded two-handed slice.

But you may say she must be doing something right because she just keeps on winning, lets see... The Juniors, since the dawn of tennis is so different to the seniors. Why? Because 90% of the Juniors are so interested in just bashing the ball and not thinking about what they're doing out on court. Its not their fault, they're teenagers and some just aren't able to control their talent or w.e. Naturally, a painfully consistent player like Wozniacki should obviously do well there. Usually as those talented players hit the WTA tour, things will just start to click - just look at Masha. And it will usually be the more talented players who make it to the very top. But thats not what seems to be happening. Every promising player seems to burst out onto the tour spectacularly then not be able to handle the pressure and fall into a deep slump; Chakky, Agnes, Nicole etc. It seems like everywhere you look, there is somebody not reaching their full potential and slumping. Then of course all the top players seem to be getting injured or something and retiring left right and center; Justine, Kim, Lindsay, Jen etc... And there's Caroline playing her steady game. I mean hell, even shes a choker... Just look at her match yesterday. But right now thats enough.. Wind it back 6 years, she probably wouldn't even be in the top 20. It seems shes winning due to the lack of brains and guts from her opponents rather than her own brains and guts. Of course I dont hate her and blame her, shes making the best of her talent and why should she change it when its working? But it just pains me to see the tour at such a low level.

And why has she won the most matches on tour? Lets see how many tour events shes played this year.
2 PMs
2 Premiers
4 Internationals.

Her game is too one-dimensional and technically unpolished. I don't mind when a player doesn't produce winners galore, but they must do something else to make their game interesting aka show some variety. In fact I prefer variety over high number of winners. Wozniacki does neither and that's why she is so uninspiring player. However, if we look at her yesterdays encounter with Dementieva we should note that the Russian proved to be just as one-dimensional and dull and certainly contributed to the lifelessness of that match.
Exactly, its just as one dimensional as the rest.

Andy.
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:06 PM
You idolise a totally one dimensional player who can only hit the ball hard and scream at the same time (admittedly with great success). How is that "interesting" ?
At least something is happening. I personally love seeing powerful winners thats what I love watching.

Dodoboy.
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:07 PM
Not on a grand stage :wavey:

Well not yet ;)

Who's going to bet against her getting past the FOURTH ROUND at a slam this year. She is brimming with confidence on her WEAKEST SURFACE, on a 9 match winning streak. She's in a premier final today, so we'll see :D

Mashafaaaaan
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:08 PM
Now? Is there a Grand Slam going on at the moment.

Anyway to be less flippant, Wozniacki is still just 18. That is rather young to be winning Slams. She has many years ahead of her. Did you know in the last 10 years only 4 Grand Slams were won by teenagers? Yes, Sharapova won two as a teenager and in the late 90s Hingis won a bundle. Before that Graf, Seles and several other won quite a few too. But these days players are developing later. Saying an 18 year old who is on the verge of the top 10 will never win a Slam doesn't strike me as the brightest thing to do.

I know that but the problem right now is more her tennis than her physical, beside she gained weight. She need to improve her tennis because she won't win Slam with this boring tennis.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:08 PM
Not on a grand stage :wavey:

Give her time. It is very easy to look at a players stats and assess how good they are right now. It takes insight to assess how good they will be in the future. You apparently are convinced that because a player hasn't done something they won't do it in the future, I prefer to keep a more open mind.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:11 PM
I know that but the problem right now is more her tennis than her physical. She need to improve her tennis because she won't win Slam with this boring tennis.

Well obviously. The same can be said about any young player. But the thing is, young player do tend to improve. And I expect Wozniacki to improve too. And frankly, she is already very good already in terms of her ability to win matches.

terjw
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:13 PM
So what, just because she has 18 winners it doesn't mean she only had 18 points she really deserved to win. Take Venus, for example. She rarely gets a huge number of aces because most of the times it allowed her opponents to touch it and barely return to the other side where Venus would easily finish the point. For me that's basically an ace but if you look to the final statistics it won't appear like that. Statistics are misleading.

I appreciate point construction. That's what I like about Jankovic and yesterday CAroline did this very well, I saw many points where she was actually dictating play, making Elena run and eventually make an error. For me this is also offensive play. Obviously we all like those excellent winners that leave you blown away but that's great that no one is like that, we need different styles.

About Caroline, as someone said when she's off it is painful to watch but when she is striking well she's not that bad.

Exactly. No-one's saying that Caro doesn't rely heavily on her defense and getting everything back and not on a killer shot that is a winner. But Caro isn't just a player who only ever pushes the ball back with no purpose and doesn't try to construct a point. And it's interesting that posters who are trying to give that impression first have the need to lie about her winners, and then exclude anything else they can - desperately trying to give the impression that there were only 10, 14, 18 times (it's creeping up :lol:) that Caro hit a ball back with any constructive purpose.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:26 PM
Give her time. It is very easy to look at a players stats and assess how good they are right now. It takes insight to assess how good they will be in the future. You apparently are convinced that because a player hasn't done something they won't do it in the future, I prefer to keep a more open mind.

I haven't seen anything from Wozniacki to suggest she's gonna have success on the biggest stage. Literally nothing.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:28 PM
I haven't seen anything from Wozniacki to suggest she's gonna have success on the biggest stage. Literally nothing.

Fair enough. I would say, you are not looking hard enough then. I see it.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:38 PM
But I saw her being absolutely gutless when she held triple MP. You've got TRIPLE match-point, you are still a break up. Come on! Take some risk, just try to win it on your own! At least on one of those MPs! Why not?
You ain't winning big things with such cowardish tactics.

Marionated
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:44 PM
It bores me tbh, but she gets the job done.

I just feel though that the best players on their day will blow her off the court. Her forehand is way too loopy, and the serve is weak.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:46 PM
But I saw her being absolutely gutless when she held triple MP. You've got TRIPLE match-point, you are still a break up. Come on! Take some risk, just try to win it on your own! At least on one of those MPs! Why not?
You ain't winning big things with such cowardish tactics.

That is probably true. I would say it all goes down as life experience. She was too timid during those points. Will she learn from it? Judging from how she finished the match I would say she will.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:52 PM
That is probably true. I would say it all goes down as life experience. She was too timid during those points. Will she learn from it? Judging from how she finished the match I would say she will.

Dementieva hit something like 10 errors in two three games and was in attack during the very last rally but Wozniacki managed to moonball her forehand into the court :shrug:

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:53 PM
I'm pretty sure they are :shrug:
It probably depends on who counts it.
But this is the point im trying to argue. What does she have to her game that is smart? Nothing, the only thing she does is hit the ball deep and sometimes left then right. Thats where she differs from Jankovic, Jankovic is a similar player - not too strong, quick (quicker than caroline) and she relies on her consistency. But JJ knows when to be aggresive, knows when to be passive, can mix it up - slices, dropshots, volleys - the lot. The only time i've ever seen Caro use variety is when she hits that retarded two-handed slice.

But you may say she must be doing something right because she just keeps on winning, lets see... The Juniors, since the dawn of tennis is so different to the seniors. Why? Because 90% of the Juniors are so interested in just bashing the ball and not thinking about what they're doing out on court. Its not their fault, they're teenagers and some just aren't able to control their talent or w.e. Naturally, a painfully consistent player like Wozniacki should obviously do well there. Usually as those talented players hit the WTA tour, things will just start to click - just look at Masha. And it will usually be the more talented players who make it to the very top. But thats not what seems to be happening. Every promising player seems to burst out onto the tour spectacularly then not be able to handle the pressure and fall into a deep slump; Chakky, Agnes, Nicole etc. It seems like everywhere you look, there is somebody not reaching their full potential and slumping. Then of course all the top players seem to be getting injured or something and retiring left right and center; Justine, Kim, Lindsay, Jen etc... And there's Caroline playing her steady game. I mean hell, even shes a choker... Just look at her match yesterday. But right now thats enough.. Wind it back 6 years, she probably wouldn't even be in the top 20. It seems shes winning due to the lack of brains and guts from her opponents rather than her own brains and guts. Of course I dont hate her and blame her, shes making the best of her talent and why should she change it when its working? But it just pains me to see the tour at such a low level.
I generally agree with what you say about Wozniacki's game but then there you have 2003 rankings, Wozniacki would make top 20 without any problems and top 10 too I think. Competition at the very top of the game used to be bigger, but the overall field is much much tighter nowadays.

1 Justine Henin-Hardenne
2 Kim Clijsters
3 Serena Williams
4 Amelie Mauresmo
5 Lindsay Davenport
6 Jennifer Capriati
7 Anastasia Myskina
8 Elena Dementieva
9 Chanda Rubin
10 Ai Sugiyama
11 Venus Williams
12 Nadia Petrova
13 Vera Zvonareva
14 Paola Suarez
15 Jelena Dokic
16 Anna Smashnova-Pistolesi
17 Meghann Shaughnessy
18 Conchita Martinez
19 Daniela Hantuchova
20 Francesca Schiavone

Fair enough. I would say, you are not looking hard enough then. I see it.
I think he is right, retrievers never win anything significant, not in this era.

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:55 PM
I don't hate her style half as much as I hate Dementieva's refusal to hire a real coach and do anything to adjust her game to the fact she is now 27 and can't plan on grinding it out against girls who are just as fit and a lot younger than she is.

That's what I hate.

But I still love Lena. I like Caro, too. There's nothing wrong with playing a game that suits your strengths--fitness, a good backhand, great movement. Yeah, she needs to add some weapons to her arsenal to be a dominant player. I'd say that's true of every promising 19-year-old, from BJK to Rena. That's what separates dominant players from underachievers, near-greats, also-rans, could-have-beens, burn-outs, flashes-in-the-pans and one-slam-wonders.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 12:58 PM
It probably depends on who counts it.

I generally agree with what you say about Wozniacki's game but then there you have 2003 rankings, Wozniacki would make top 20 without any problems and top 10 too I think. Competition at the very top of the game used to be bigger, but the overall field is much much tighter nowadays.

And who would she replace in 2003 Top-10?

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:01 PM
I think he is right, retrievers never win anything significant, not in this era.

We will see. I look at where I think the game will be in 5 years and who will likely be amongst the leading group of players from Wozniacki's generation and I don't see anybody she can't beat. I don't suggest she is going to win multiple Slams but to suggest she isn't going to win one or two seems a bit short sighted to me. But time will tell. She isn't a fave of mine so I won't be bothered either way. But I do think she has the game to win a Slam, to be honest, retriever or not.

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:02 PM
Dementieva hit something like 10 errors in two three games and was in attack during the very last rally but Wozniacki managed to moonball her forehand into the court :shrug:

Lena hit a tournament's worth of errors. Some of those were because of Caro's strategy. Some of them were just inexplicable, almost as though Lena had decided that this would be a good day to run off every single fan she ever had--in fact, as though she were trying to kill off the sport of tennis itself.

On the other hand, this is two straight shitastic performances against Syrup girl. So I will give Caro some props, though Lena could was far from her best. Too many easy matches early on. She needs a good fight in the early rounds to find her groove, that's a fact. And it's not like a semi is a bad result.

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:06 PM
I think he is right, retrievers never win anything significant, not in this era.

Not to open up another can of worms, but haters of the Countess of Darkness accused her of being a retriever, and it seems to me she did win something of significance, as well as providing young Caro with a template for beating a particular blonde.

terjw
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:09 PM
But I saw her being absolutely gutless when she held triple MP. You've got TRIPLE match-point, you are still a break up. Come on! Take some risk, just try to win it on your own! At least on one of those MPs! Why not?
You ain't winning big things with such cowardish tactics.

That is probably true. I would say it all goes down as life experience. She was too timid during those points. Will she learn from it? Judging from how she finished the match I would say she will.

Actually I totally disagree with this and so does Sam Smith. Those points after 0-40 weren't the problem. The first one was a pretty good rally where she was by no means timid and it really brought the best out of Lena at the end intercepting at the net. The other points - Caro never had a chance to be aggresive from the 1st serve. Sam Smith racked her brains to figure what Caro should have done but said she couldn't have done any better. And Sam is normally pretty critical. There was nothing gutless or cowardly about Caro's play then. Lena just played those points on her serve very agressively which she's better at doing when it comes off.

It was actually Caro's next service game which was the problem for me. All those dfs - she really showed frailty. But even that - I don't pretend that other top players don't ever show that sort of frailty.

Viktymise
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:09 PM
I don't hate her style half as much as I hate Dementieva's refusal to hire a real coach and do anything to adjust her game to the fact she is now 27 and can't plan on grinding it out against girls who are just as fit and a lot younger than she is.

That's what I hate.

Lena's doing what she can now. She doesn't have a natural court sense and never will. Coach or no coach. Then again, you can't have everything.

Wind it back 6 years, she [La Borz] probably wouldn't even be in the top 20.

I'd say she'd probably be fighting it out in the 15-25 range, fighting for whatever scraps she could get. The big, big difference would be that the chances of her making big, even semi big finals would be next to none. Every week there was at least a handful of top players playing these kind of events. Considering La Borz is utterly hopeless against the current elite of today, one shudders to think of her record against them would've been if she had broken through back then.

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:14 PM
And who would she replace in 2003 Top-10?
Rubin or Sugiyama easily.

Danni John
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:18 PM
I think she plays quite good, and has great potentiality

nicidle
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:19 PM
some people hate pusher, some people hate ball basher..
just happen that the former is the majority.

Viktymise
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Rubin or Sugiyama easily.

Rubin? Certainly not. Between '02 and '03, Rubin had wins over Serena, Davenport, Dokicx2, Henin and Capriati. You really think La Borz would even have half of those wins?

Sugiyama played much the same sort of game La Borz does, only much more efficiently. Her top 10 spot was only guaranteed because Venus was out for six months straight.

RenaSlam.
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:23 PM
She's here to stay, so like her or not people on here will have to just deal.

:)

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:23 PM
Not to open up another can of worms, but haters of the Countess of Darkness accused her of being a retriever, and it seems to me she did win something of significance, as well as providing young Caro with a template for beating a particular blonde.

That retriever hit more winners (19) in her 62 62 win over Capriati at RG SF than Wozniacki did yesterday in her 64 57 75 win over Dementieva. And being two points away from victory that retriever actually hit two straight ROS winners to finish the match.
And that retriever killed Hantuchova 61 62 by painting all possible lines to reach her first big final at 2002 Eastbourne.

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Lena's doing what she can now. She doesn't have a natural court sense and never will. Coach or no coach. Then again, you can't have everything.


It's never going to be great. But a good coach--a coach who'd come down on court and be more than a shopping buddy--could make a huge difference. In a match like yesterday's, a 5% bump would have been the difference between playing today and catching a flight to her next tournament.

Two titles, a slam semi, and a final in 2009. Then Mommy Vera came back . . .

The Daviator
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:34 PM
No. I like players who are able to hit more than 5 shots in a row without making an error.

(And yes, I'm aware Ana does this, so don't mention it :angel:)

Dave.
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:37 PM
I don't particularly like Wozniacki's gamestyle. Although I fully agree with ChrisCHorse that it should be respected. There's a reason why she is on the verge of the top 10 and other so called "more talented" players are nowhere near that level. And it's nothing to do with the current standard (as Lunaris pointed out, the mid top-20 level is alot higher now). It's because Caro has put together a steady game that works for her (at least for now), she has a steady mind and she's smart. Part of being a "promising" or "talented" player is fulfilling your potential to the max, is preventing injury and setbacks, is lasting on the tour. If Caro continues at her pace, in a couple of years she will be ten times the player, say, Golovin ever was, brains & guts and all.

It's too easy to put Caro's successes down to the state of women's tennis now. Even if that might be partly true (which I don't think it is at all), at least respect that it is Caro who is taking advantage.



??? I dont get how anyone who doesnt attack their shots is compared to hingis. Just because you are not aggresive, it doesnt mean you are automatically a smart player. I've seen Caroline play loads of time and her shot selection among other things leads me to believe that she is as brainless as the rest of them.

Yeah that annoys me. Hingis had to go toe-to-toe with some of the biggest hitters in tennis. I don't think she is given enough credit for how aggressive she was when she had to be. You can still be aggressive without hitting the ball 100 mph. Hingis was not a hard hitter by any means, but more often than not she found herself inside the court or finishing points at the net.

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:37 PM
It's never going to be great. But a good coach--a coach who'd come down on court and be more than a shopping buddy--could make a huge difference. In a match like yesterday's, a 5% bump would have been the difference between playing today and catching a flight to her next tournament.

Two titles, a slam semi, and a final in 2009. Then Mommy Vera came back . . .
Its true. Maybe Tati can lend Elena a coach or two. :D

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:39 PM
It probably depends on who counts it.

I generally agree with what you say about Wozniacki's game but then there you have 2003 rankings, Wozniacki would make top 20 without any problems and top 10 too I think. Competition at the very top of the game used to be bigger, but the overall field is much much tighter nowadays.

1 Justine Henin-Hardenne
2 Kim Clijsters
3 Serena Williams
4 Amelie Mauresmo
5 Lindsay Davenport
6 Jennifer Capriati
7 Anastasia Myskina
8 Elena Dementieva
9 Chanda Rubin
10 Ai Sugiyama
11 Venus Williams
12 Nadia Petrova
13 Vera Zvonareva
14 Paola Suarez
15 Jelena Dokic
16 Anna Smashnova-Pistolesi
17 Meghann Shaughnessy
18 Conchita Martinez
19 Daniela Hantuchova
20 Francesca Schiavone


I think he is right, retrievers never win anything significant, not in this era.
She could prolly take Pistolesi's place. But thats about it.

vadin124
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:44 PM
it isn't the most exciting to watch...she isn't a pusher(Cibulkova etc.) but she isn't a ball basher (Azarenka etc.)...she's somewhere in between

Vanity Bonfire
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Her game is just indifferent to me. Her forehand is solid, her backhand is solid, her volleys are solid, her serve is solid and her movement is solid. She doesn't have any standout areas of her game and she doesn't hit many winners, but at the same token, her off-days aren't really that bad as she wouldn't become a UE machine.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 01:48 PM
it isn't the most exciting to watch...she isn't a pusher(Cibulkova etc.) but she isn't a ball basher (Azarenka etc.)...she's somewhere in between

:haha:

Cibulkova is not a pusher, she hit the ball harder than Wozniacki. Though considering her size Domi should have played like Caro :tape:

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:06 PM
That retriever hit more winners (19) in her 62 62 win over Capriati at RG SF than Wozniacki did yesterday in her 64 57 75 win over Dementieva. And being two points away from victory that retriever actually hit two straight ROS winners to finish the match.
And that retriever killed Hantuchova 61 62 by painting all possible lines to reach her first big final at 2002 Eastbourne.

I'm actually with you, and frequently defended Nastya against the charge she was a pusher/retriever. And I don't, unlike some, see major similarities between her Nastyness and Caro's games--Caro can be smart, but Nastya, when she was on, was subversively brilliant.

I merely raise the point that a lot of people called Nastya a retriever, a pusher and worse. Of course to some, anyone who doesn't hit a 85+ mph forehand like TOB, the WS or EVD is a "pusher."

For me, Nastya was, if anything, the ultimate junkballer, who never gave her opponents anything clean to hit and was actually dictating most of the points she appeared to be losing. She was unlike anyone else, and that's why she is so sadly missed.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:11 PM
I'm actually with you, and frequently defended Nastya against the charge she was a pusher/retriever. And I don't, unlike some, see major similarities between her Nastyness and Caro's games--Caro can be smart, but Nastya, when she was on, was subversively brilliant.

I merely raise the point that a lot of people called Nastya a retriever, a pusher and worse. Of course to some, anyone who doesn't hit a 85+ mph forehand like TOB, the WS or EVD is a "pusher."

For me, Nastya was, if anything, the ultimate junkballer, who never gave her opponents anything clean to hit and was actually dictating most of the points she appeared to be losing. She was unlike anyone else, and that's why she is so sadly missed.

The ultimate junkballer, subversively brilliant, I know what you mean. I love these descriptions of her. You sum up here so much of what I loved about Nastya. :yeah:

Nastya :hearts:

The Dawntreader
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:15 PM
I don't 'hate' anyone's game. Of course Caro's gamestyle is not my favourite. Plays too safe, when she has the potential to be a ballstriker fundamentally. She has supressed her game to an extent, which is probably not ideal.

She's not a pusher. In fact her style of play is indistinct.

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:19 PM
Not to open up another can of worms, but haters of the Countess of Darkness accused her of being a retriever, and it seems to me she did win something of significance, as well as providing young Caro with a template for beating a particular blonde.
Haters will accuse you of anything. No way Myskina was a retriever.
Rubin? Certainly not. Between '02 and '03, Rubin had wins over Serena, Davenport, Dokicx2, Henin and Capriati. You really think La Borz would even have half of those wins?
I guess Rubin had a similar fluke tournament in LA 02 like Lisicki is having this week getting 3 of those victories there.
Anyway do you think Wozniacki would lose to Vierin (ranked 179), Schettx2, Smashnova, Granville, Vento-Kabchi, Maleeva, Serna or Loit?

bandabou
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:22 PM
:lol: Not on a grand stage? Well, if she wins today..she will have a tier I, just like Azarenka and is still a year younger.

I think this isn't a finished product yet..as Caroline grows stronger in time, I think we'll see that she CAN and IS willing to be aggressive.

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:26 PM
The ultimate junkballer, subversively brilliant, I know what you mean. I love these descriptions of her. You sum up here so much of what I loved about Nastya. :yeah:

Nastya :hearts:

Thanks. How different my personal tennis history might have been if not for a set of bangs...

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:27 PM
:lol: Not on a grand stage? Well, if she wins today..she will have a tier I, just like Azarenka and is still a year younger.

Charleston is not a tier I. It's a Premier event, former tier II -- and a very weak one.
And Tier I is not a grand stage anyway.

Viktymise
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:34 PM
Haters will accuse you of anything. No way Myskina was a retriever.

I guess Rubin had a similar fluke tournament in LA 02 like Lisicki is having this week getting 3 of those victories there.

Beating Serena Williams in mid-'02, a fluke? One of only four matches she lost all year. Nothing flukey about beating three top 10 players in a row BTW. Something La Borz could only dream about i.e, back then it NEVER would have happened. Heck, she can't even do it in today's ruinous top 10.

The losses tell you that Rubin played something of a high-risk game. Even still, some of those losses aren't all that bad - Maleeva won a TI in '02. La Borz probably wouldn't lose as many matches like that because her game is not that high-risk and she doesn't get upset as much. Still, the chances of La Borz getting wins over the likes of V&S, Clijsters and Henin back in '03 would have been zilch. She can't even beat the likes of GOAT and Jankovic for christ sake.

peanuts
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:38 PM
No I don't hate her game. In fact, I like it. :)

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:41 PM
I guess Rubin had a similar fluke tournament in LA 02 like Lisicki is having this week getting 3 of those victories there.
Anyway do you think Wozniacki would lose to Vierin (ranked 179), Schettx2, Smashnova, Granville, Vento-Kabchi, Maleeva, Serna or Loit?

Rubin returned from injury lay-out in May 2002, reached Madrid final, RG 4th round, won Eastbourne (by destroying in-form Myskina), reached Wimbledon 4th round, won LA by defeating Serena, Dokic and Davenport, reached USO 4th round (nearly took out Venus), reached Linz SF. Yes, she lost to Schett (former #7) and Smashnova (#16 at the time who enjoyed her career best season), those losses were not shameful.
In 2003 Chanda reached Sydney QF, Oz 4th round, Tokyo SF, IW QF, Miami SF (destroyed Henin and Mauresmo). Then she struggled on clay (she always did) but still won Madrid and reached RG QF, won Eastbourne again, got injured, rebounded in September to reach finals at Bali, Beijing and Luxembourg.

Wozniacki doesn't come even close to Rubin 2002/03.

bobbynorwich
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Her game is just indifferent to me. Her forehand is solid, her backhand is solid, her volleys are solid, her serve is solid and her movement is solid. She doesn't have any standout areas of her game and she doesn't hit many winners, but at the same token, her off-days aren't really that bad as she wouldn't become a UE machine.

True she doesn't take a lot of risks, but she is very steady and consistent. Since she's only 18, that explosive ball-buster type of play may well develop as she gains in maturity and confidence.

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:48 PM
Beating Serena Williams in mid-'02, a fluke? One of only four matches she lost all year. Nothing flukey about beating three top 10 players in a row BTW. Something La Borz could only dream about i.e, back then it NEVER would have happened. Heck, she can't even do it in today's ruinous top 10.
I think you just explained why it was flukey.
The losses tell you that Rubin played something of a high-risk game. Even still, some of those losses aren't all that bad - Maleeva won a TI in '02. La Borz probably wouldn't lose as many matches like that because her game is not that high-risk and she doesn't get upset as much. Still, the chances of La Borz getting wins over the likes of V&S, Clijsters and Henin back in '03 would have been zilch. She can't even beat the likes of GOAT and Jankovic for christ sake.
As far as the ranking points go Rubin's inconsistency and Wozniacki's consistency would both generate a fairly similar amount of points, Wozniacki would earn more imo, therefore ensuring a spot in the top 10 for herself.

bandabou
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Charleston is not a tier I. It's a Premier event, former tier II -- and a very weak one.
And Tier I is not a grand stage anyway.

Ok..still give her time. After a while, if she really isn't any good players will figure her out anyways..

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 02:54 PM
Rubin returned from injury lay-out in May 2002, reached Madrid final, RG 4th round, won Eastbourne (by destroying in-form Myskina), reached Wimbledon 4th round, won LA by defeating Serena, Dokic and Davenport, reached USO 4th round (nearly took out Venus), reached Linz SF. Yes, she lost to Schett (former #7) and Smashnova (#16 at the time who enjoyed her career best season), those losses were not shameful.
In 2003 Chanda reached Sydney QF, Oz 4th round, Tokyo SF, IW QF, Miami SF (destroyed Henin and Mauresmo). Then she struggled on clay (she always did) but still won Madrid and reached RG QF, won Eastbourne again, got injured, rebounded in September to reach finals at Bali, Beijing and Luxembourg.

Wozniacki doesn't come even close to Rubin 2002/03.
I read it too, it's close. Seeing Schett at #7 and Smashnova at #16 should show you the real strength of the field.

fufuqifuqishahah
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:01 PM
She plays similar to Jankovic except she doesn't have the crazy lobs on the run that Jelena has

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:02 PM
I read it too, it's close. Seeing Schett at #7 and Smashnova at #16 should show you the real strength of the field.

Schett was #7 in 1999/2000 ;)
Smashnova was #16 due to 4 MM titles, great Berlin run and other good results (IW QF, win over Henin at Miami). Wozniacki isn't doing much better, yet she's on the verge of breaking into top-10.

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:12 PM
Haters will accuse you of anything. No way Myskina was a retriever.

I guess Rubin had a similar fluke tournament in LA 02 like Lisicki is having this week getting 3 of those victories there.
Anyway do you think Wozniacki would lose to Vierin (ranked 179), Schettx2, Smashnova, Granville, Vento-Kabchi, Maleeva, Serna or Loit?
No, but she woldont beat the aforementioned players either. ;)
Ok..still give her time. After a while, if she really isn't any good players will figure her out anyways..
Well most of the players on the tour dont care about "figuring out" their opponents, no matter how simple the opponent's game it, thats the problem...

Jogi
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:16 PM
what does "la borz" mean, where does it come from?

people always complained about girls all playing the same style, powertennis, now they complain about a girl who's having success with playing a different style (I know she's not playing serve and volley nor does she have a singlehanded backhand but still, I think she's fine to watch not only because she a very decent looking girl) although it's the differences of styles that's making tennis interesting to watch I don't get it, I guess people always need something to complain about^^ all the hating here makes me already her fan

Viktymise
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:23 PM
I think you just explained why it was flukey.

How? She outplayed the player(yes, I watched the match) who had just won the last two GS's and was on her way just weeks later to winning another. It's a fluke because it's one of the the only match Serena lost that year? What kind of whacked out logic is that?

As far as the ranking points go Rubin's inconsistency and Wozniacki's consistency would both generate a fairly similar amount of points, Wozniacki would earn more imo, therefore ensuring a spot in the top 10 for herself.

The point is, Rubin didn't end up in the top 10 by default. She was able to stay competitive consistently, and even beat the elite over a one year period. She didn't whore up the MM circuit, nor didn't she feast off depleted fields(because there were none). If La Borz can't even beat the elite of today, it's ludicrous to believe that she would've had any hope of beating the elite of '02, '03. She wouldn't be able to get a load of open draws in big events. If anything, she'd be a Smashnova 2.0.

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:34 PM
No, but she woldont beat the aforementioned players either. ;)

Well most of the players on the tour dont care about "figuring out" their opponents, no matter how simple the opponent's game it, thats the problem...

Well, if by "most players" you mean that blonde idiot I root for, then, yeah...:mad:

Lunaris
Apr 19th, 2009, 03:51 PM
How? She outplayed the player(yes, I watched the match) who had just won the last two GS's and was on her way just weeks later to winning another. It's a fluke because it's one of the the only match Serena lost that year? What kind of whacked out logic is that?To me it looks like a perfect logic. :p
The point is, Rubin didn't end up in the top 10 by default. She was able to stay competitive consistently, and even beat the elite over a one year period. She didn't whore up the MM circuit, nor didn't she feast off depleted fields(because there were none). If La Borz can't even beat the elite of today, it's ludicrous to believe that she would've had any hope of beating the elite of '02, '03. She wouldn't be able to get a load of open draws in big events. If anything, she'd be a Smashnova 2.0.
Rubin wasn't competitive with the elite. LA 2002 = fluke. If you play cca 20 tournaments per season you are likely to have one tournament per season where everything clicks and you play out of your mind. I suspect that is what happened to Rubin in LA 7 years ago.
Disregarding LA 02 Rubin beat who? Dokic one more time? Jelena was a known tanker and beating her actually wasn't that difficult, besides Wozniacki matches up quite well against her. Henin in Miami? AnnaK4ever just wrote that even Smashnova managed to beat Henin there, so why not Wozniacki?

slamchamp
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:02 PM
she's boring

~MashyOwnThemAll
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:08 PM
Yeah

moby
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:14 PM
No. That's because I've gotten used to how Nadal plays. :p

Honestly though, I like the way she's thinking out there. Her shot selection is excellent, and could be better if she were not hampered by technical limitations. (But at least this shows that she knows her own weaknesses, and how to play within herself.) She knows her opponent's weaknesses and exploits them (most of the time). If she runs into someone on a good day (Dokic, Azerenka) she will get blown off, so she definitely needs to build more aggression into her game if she wants to go higher.

Her strokes are ungainly and awkward, but I guess you don't win points for having a pretty game. Brad "Winning Ugly" Gilbert has a new poster girl.

I'm usually skeptical when players who have the build to play a bigger game wimp out and become defensive baseliners instead. But in this WTA era of brainless ballbashing and 1000 UEs, even moonballs are a breath of fresh air.

Ciarán
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:16 PM
No.

oleada
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:28 PM
Her game is too one-dimensional and technically unpolished. I don't mind when a player doesn't produce winners galore, but they must do something else to make their game interesting aka show some variety. In fact I prefer variety over high number of winners. Wozniacki does neither and that's why she is so uninspiring player.

This, exactly.

Caroline's game is just completely boring. Nothing stands out. It's just retrieve-retrieve-retrieve. Just because she's doesn't play a power based game, doesn't mean she's smart. There's nothing in her game to suggest that she's particularly smart uses court placement nor does she show any variety. A lot of her shots are the same. And, while I don't think winners are everything, I do like seeing them more than every 10 minutes! She's an effective, successful player, and deserves all the credit in the world for her achievements, but that doesn't make her interesting at all. IMO, when good players are on, they should beat her quite easily.


I know my favorite is also a retriever, but IMO, Caroline makes her look aggressive :help: And, IMO, Jelena takes many more chances with her shots, has more variety, and is much more of a thinker. And you could never call her boring.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that actually. One thing that bothers me is when Wozniacki and Radwanska get lumped together as similar players. They are not. Wozniacki wins by getting to a lot of balls and hitting very consistently the same kind of ground strokes over and over all to a sufficient length that makes it very hard to hit winners against her. It is effective, it takes great mental focus and concentration, good fitness and great court coverage. But it isn't really inspiring.

Radwanska on the other hand is constantly changing the pace, spin, and depth of her shots. She mixes up her play as much as anymore on the tour, plays well at the net and has as good touch as just about anyone in the game. You never know what Agnieszka is going to hit next. Caroline, well there is usually an excellent chance her next groundie will be very similar to her last groundie. They are very different players. The only things they have in common is that neither has a big serve and neither has killer groundstrokes.

I agree completely. Also, being aggressive doesn't mean you're hitting the crap out of a ball.


And Miami >>>> Charleston, for however brought the Azarenka/Wozniacki comparison up.

Loungy
Apr 19th, 2009, 04:55 PM
No, I don't. But then again, I have a history of liking retrievers as much as aggressive players in both tours. I like Nadal's game and Tsonga's and they're almost diametrically opposite.

bandabou
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:09 PM
Miami is greater than Charleston..but, Caroline is younger too...when Azarenka was that young, she wasn't winning titles as big.

oleada
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:12 PM
Valid, but it's not like Caroline is a whole lot younger, less than a year.

Slutiana
Apr 19th, 2009, 05:15 PM
what does "la borz" mean, where does it come from?

people always complained about girls all playing the same style, powertennis, now they complain about a girl who's having success with playing a different style (I know she's not playing serve and volley nor does she have a singlehanded backhand but still, I think she's fine to watch not only because she a very decent looking girl) although it's the differences of styles that's making tennis interesting to watch I don't get it, I guess people always need something to complain about^^ all the hating here makes me already her fan
In french it means "The bore", I guess.
Well, if by "most players" you mean that blonde idiot I root for, then, yeah...:mad:
:crying2: :hug: As I said before... Shes free to take any of Tati's 420989430280938209 coaches, not like she needs them any more. :tears:
To me it looks like a perfect logic. :p

Rubin wasn't competitive with the elite. LA 2002 = fluke. If you play cca 20 tournaments per season you are likely to have one tournament per season where everything clicks and you play out of your mind. I suspect that is what happened to Rubin in LA 7 years ago.
Disregarding LA 02 Rubin beat who? Dokic one more time? Jelena was a known tanker and beating her actually wasn't that difficult, besides Wozniacki matches up quite well against her. Henin in Miami? AnnaK4ever just wrote that even Smashnova managed to beat Henin there, so why not Wozniacki?
Seriously. What? Chanda was such an amazingly Talented player. I will always remember (even though I was too young to see it live :crying2: her coming back from 0-5 0-40 in that match against Novotna. She had more guts than Caro will ever have. The only reason why she didnt crack the top 5 and beyond was because of injuries. Her injuries were probably even more horrible than Tati's :tape:.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/operation-comeback-nears-completion-for-rubin-and-davenport-640852.html
This, exactly.

Caroline's game is just completely boring. Nothing stands out. It's just retrieve-retrieve-retrieve. Just because she's doesn't play a power based game, doesn't mean she's smart. There's nothing in her game to suggest that she's particularly smart uses court placement nor does she show any variety. A lot of her shots are the same. And, while I don't think winners are everything, I do like seeing them more than every 10 minutes! She's an effective, successful player, and deserves all the credit in the world for her achievements, but that doesn't make her interesting at all. IMO, when good players are on, they should beat her quite easily.


I know my favorite is also a retriever, but IMO, Caroline makes her look aggressive :help: And, IMO, Jelena takes many more chances with her shots, has more variety, and is much more of a thinker. And you could never call her boring.



I agree completely. Also, being aggressive doesn't mean you're hitting the crap out of a ball.


And Miami >>>> Charleston, for however brought the Azarenka/Wozniacki comparison up.
Amen.

Optima
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:02 PM
Caroline and Jelena are definitely not the same player. I'm neutral towards Caroline, but while Jelena is passive sometimes, she also tries to be aggressive a lot of the time - I mean, she misses A LOT sometimes and takes her chances.

Shoulderpova
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:05 PM
I loathe it :D

miffedmax
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:10 PM
I loathe it :D

Well, regardless of how you feel about either of them, Syrup girl is the anti-TOB, that's for sure. :lol:

(aside from them both being cute blondes)

Although I do like them both.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 19th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Today's match is a perfect illustration why ability to hit winners DOES matter :p

Corswandt
Apr 19th, 2009, 10:39 PM
Kind of. It's very efficient and it works very well for her.
Howver, I prefer an agressive style of play, something taht make you win the match by yourself and not relying on somebody's else erros to win.

That style will win you a lot of matches but if you faces an opponent who's in the "zone", you'll lose in straights.

:eek:

:worship:

Corswandt
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:16 PM
She's only 18 and so likely to improve. But getting better does not mean being more interesting to watch, just more effective for her.

[...]

By some reports, she's the female equivalent of Nadal --- never satisfied or complacent, always wanting to get better, modest, a very hard worker, and self-effacing.

I take issue with this - Wozniacki lacks the raw talent to add further variety into her game. And unless she fixes the technical glitches in her homemade loopy strokes, her shots will never have much bite.

Wozniacki almost always takes the ball too late and while on the back foot - on both sides, but particularly in the FH. This means that most of the "leverage effect" generated by her swing is wasted, and that she mostly fails at transfering her own weight into the ball. Granted, this actually helps her in the defense - since she takes the ball late and merely pushes it back by default anyway, she's not forced to go out of her comfort zone when placed on the defensive by very deep shots from her opponents.

As a conclusion, I can't see her playing this kind of game much better than she does now.


But the thing is, young player do tend to improve. And I expect Wozniacki to improve too. And frankly, she is already very good already in terms of her ability to win matches.

I) I tend to believe that any player can improve. Take Vesnina for instance. Limited player, greatly hampered by her poor movement. First tried to become an all-court player, but since she wasn't going anywhere with that (she could also look into Kirilenko's career for further evidence of that), hired Chesnokov, who is transforming her into a power player, working on her serve and fixing her FH so it won't be as much of a liability.

II) That being said, not all players, young or otherwise, will actually improve. Some will achieve some minor improvements (say late Vaidisova or Golovin in late 2007, though I tend to believe that Golovin was then on the right track to reach a whole new level), most won't improve at all. Out-of-the-blue, significant enhancements such as say the SuperMasha serve first seen at 06 San Diego are the exception.

Corswandt
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:29 PM
Her game is too one-dimensional and technically unpolished. I don't mind when a player doesn't produce winners galore, but they must do something else to make their game interesting aka show some variety. In fact I prefer variety over high number of winners. Wozniacki does neither and that's why she is so uninspiring player. However, if we look at her yesterdays encounter with Dementieva we should note that the Russian proved to be just as one-dimensional and dull and certainly contributed to the lifelessness of that match.

Wozniacki wins by getting to a lot of balls and hitting very consistently the same kind of ground strokes over and over all to a sufficient length that makes it very hard to hit winners against her. It is effective, it takes great mental focus and concentration, good fitness and great court coverage.

Honestly though, I like the way she's thinking out there. Her shot selection is excellent, and could be better if she were not hampered by technical limitations. (But at least this shows that she knows her own weaknesses, and how to play within herself.) She knows her opponent's weaknesses and exploits them (most of the time). If she runs into someone on a good day (Dokic, Azerenka) she will get blown off, so she definitely needs to build more aggression into her game if she wants to go higher.

Her strokes are ungainly and awkward, but I guess you don't win points for having a pretty game. Brad "Winning Ugly" Gilbert has a new poster girl.

I'm usually skeptical when players who have the build to play a bigger game wimp out and become defensive baseliners instead. But in this WTA era of brainless ballbashing and 1000 UEs, even moonballs are a breath of fresh air.

Not much to add to these excellent posts.

After careful consideration, I no longer believe that Wozniacki's game (looping 3/4 pace topspin shots very deep from corner to corner over and over again) is ATP-ish and/or unique - though arguably the consistency with which she can execute it and the almost unnerving persistence with which she sticks to it no matter what are indeed unique. Other players of Wozniacki's type move the ball around with the ultimate aim of opening up the court, while Wozniacki's objective is clearly to draw an error from her opponent - this makes Wozniacki look even less aggresive than she actually is.

Another difference between Wozniacki and the standard issue defensive grinders is that she makes excellent use of her serve, a shot few if any players of her type can rely on. It's not the biggest serve in the game, far from it, but she has used it to get herself out of tight spots time and again.

I don't 'hate' anyone's game. Of course Caro's gamestyle is not my favourite. Plays too safe, when she has the potential to be a ballstriker fundamentally. She has supressed her game to an extent, which is probably not ideal.

She's not a pusher. In fact her style of play is indistinct.

See above post. I believe it's her technical limitations, rather than a deliberate tactical option, that dictate the way she plays.

And Miami >>>> Charleston, for however brought the Azarenka/Wozniacki comparison up.

Title >>>>> RU ;)

Golovinjured.
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:45 PM
Why all the Chanda Rubin hate? You bastards.

Dominic
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:31 AM
I could hate it if she actually had a gamestyle.

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:38 AM
i think the thing that caro lacks is a sense of always doing something with the ball. i don't always mean going for winners, but if you aren't going for winners you need to be angling the ball, slicing or putting some sort of spin on the ball to disrupt your opponent to get the the next ball easier to attack. she hits too many 'nothing' balls which is why shes described as a pusher. henin didn't always try and rip winners, but she would always be hitting with some sort of spin, slice or angle to set up the point.

miffedmax
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:07 AM
I) I tend to believe that any player can improve.

You, as a Lena D. fan, still believe this? :p

Corswandt
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:31 AM
You, as a Lena D. fan, still believe this? :p

II) That being said, not all players, young or otherwise, will actually improve.

---

miffedmax
Apr 20th, 2009, 02:02 AM
^^^ :haha:

If only Lena's game had improved and her hairstyle had stayed the same, instead of the other way around...

bobbynorwich
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:07 AM
There's something perverse in using the inflammatory word 'hate' to debate a player's tennis game. Obviously, most well-mannered posters won't baldly say they hate their faves' opponents. It's much more socially acceptable to use the code words: "I hate her style of game."

Yet, it's a dangerous and slippery slope anytime one uses the word 'hate.' Probably 99.95% of posters are sane, but as Monica Seles can attest, in only takes one deranged fan to create a horrid outcome.

Can we please ratchet down these incendiary terms? After all, we're only talking about sports.

KanSuke
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:34 AM
I don't hate it :inlove:

Her game's not that entertaining though.

Pops Maellard
May 17th, 2009, 01:11 AM
Anyone who likes it needs their head examined.

LightWarrior
May 17th, 2009, 01:45 AM
I used to hate her game, but I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to it. I watched her match against Momo today and I was impressed in the way that she feels the game, she knows what to do with the ball. She's an interesting player to watch because she's no ball basher like the Russians . She goes with the flow and she does that very well. She's a smart player, she feels the ball and is very intuitive. She's a "scientist" of the game. I just realize I underestimated her so much.

bobbynorwich
May 17th, 2009, 02:05 AM
It's very hard to hate anything about someone as pretty as Caroline Wozniacki.


http://www.murraysworld.com/forum/Smileys/default/icon_imsorry.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)


Btw, could she possibly find a tennis skirt that doesn't look like a bunch of rumpled, sewn-together dust rags?

.

pollison
May 17th, 2009, 03:00 AM
Im a big fan of hers but when not because of her tennis.

She is so nice of the court but her style of play is just not that interesting or fun to watch.
Plus other players play her style better

wondoka
May 17th, 2009, 04:23 AM
She is Eighteen!!!!!!! For God's sake!! She is 18 - Eighteen

delicatecutter
May 17th, 2009, 04:32 AM
If she looked like Kuznetsova, this whole debate wouldn't even be an issue. :rolleyes:

Hate her pusher ways. She MUST be stopped!!

dybbuk
May 17th, 2009, 04:46 AM
She is Eighteen!!!!!!! For God's sake!! She is 18 - Eighteen

So? I can't think of any player who suddenly developed an interesting gamestyle when they were 20 years old.

In response to the OP, yes, I do hate her style of game. Good for her if she takes advantage of the WTA and finds some success, but her game is neither powerful nor intelligent. Hitting with high percentages does not necessarily mean you are intelligent, in Wozniacki's case it simply means she is incapable of aggressive shots or aggressive point construction.

*Jean*
May 17th, 2009, 04:58 AM
She's boring, has no weapons and even against a "pusher" like Amélie, she does NOTHING. And she likes to yell COME ON the mistakes of the opponents. Awful.

wondoka
May 17th, 2009, 05:43 AM
[QUOTE=Alex.;15659202]So? I can't think of any player who suddenly developed an interesting gamestyle when they were 20 years old.
Back to tennis, to the big women, 1.86 and 190 pounds?

tea
May 17th, 2009, 06:42 AM
If she looked like Kuznetsova, this whole debate wouldn't even be an issue. :rolleyes:

Hate her pusher ways. She MUST be stopped!!
Get a racquet in your hands and stop her!:D

Slutiana
May 17th, 2009, 09:23 AM
I could hate it if she actually had a gamestyle.
:crying2:
So? I can't think of any player who suddenly developed anT interesting gamestyle when they were 20 years old.

In response to the OP, yes, I do hate her style of game. Good for her if she takes advantage of the WTA and finds some success, but her game is neither powerful nor intelligent. Hitting with high percentages does not necessarily mean you are intelligent, in Wozniacki's case it simply means she is incapable of aggressive shots or aggressive point construction.
PREACH IT! :bowdown:

Zweli
May 17th, 2009, 10:43 AM
She's playing ok to win matches for now,she is young and learning and she will improve ,I think.

TBO,her match with Mauresmo was ugly to watch , moonballs ,she could have easily lost it had Mauresmo played better and stopped choking.

debby
Mar 21st, 2011, 05:06 PM
Basically Getting alot of people go "Pusher!"Really when are some of you realise Making winners isnt everything。

LMAO, that's rich coming from you. :sobbing: :bigcry:

Sammo
Mar 21st, 2011, 05:09 PM
Yes, it's so freaking boring and mediocre, no quality shots at all

Paldias
Mar 21st, 2011, 05:11 PM
Yes.

Paldias
Mar 21st, 2011, 05:13 PM
Also to the Chanda Rubin hate - Rubin had weapons. She certainly had a much better serve and her forehand was definitely a weapon. Her problem was that she was always injured.