PDA

View Full Version : Is Aga Radwanska still a pusher?


dabossK
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:06 PM
It does not make sense to me that people still say she is comparable to Pushniacki's great ability to push. I don't see it that way at all.
Here's a stat to alter your decision:
in today's much vs wickmayer
Winners Aga 53. Wick 52. Ue Aga 27 wick 52.
According to these stats if one calls Aga a pusher, then Wickmayer is a pusher too! :lol:
What do you say?

Break My Rapture
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:08 PM
I was really impressed with Aga's performance today against Wickmayer. I think she's definitely not a pusher, so many great winners.

adner
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:10 PM
She always adapts her gamestyle to her opponent. When she faces some shitty Malek or Kudryavtseva she simply gets the ball over the net cuz they will self-destruct and there's no need to be offensive.

AnywhereButHome
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:13 PM
no she is not :)

Lucemferre
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:15 PM
Once a pusher always a pusher so yes.

dabossK
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:16 PM
I thinK think that if she plays like this the rest of the year she will have an amazing year! Espcially at Wimbledon! :hearts:

Cookie Power
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:54 PM
Not really. She's just a bad player in general.

Ferg
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:56 PM
Wowza! This poll totally changed mah mind about her!

play2win_win4fun
Feb 7th, 2010, 04:56 PM
Once a pusher always a pusher so yes.

:drool::tape: Completely agree

arn
Feb 7th, 2010, 06:35 PM
On most point she indeed just pushes the ball manouvring her opponent around the court. Once her opponent isbadly placed on court, she tends to hit the ball more. So yes, she's still a pusher.

AnnaK_4ever
Feb 7th, 2010, 06:48 PM
Go watch her match vs Safina at Sydney.
In fact calling her a pusher would be too generous. She's just a non-entity.

#kArLoS#
Feb 7th, 2010, 06:51 PM
Yes,she is.She hit today 53 winners,okay,but dont forget that those "winners" were a lots of volleys,lobs,dropshots...she still lacks power:shrug:

saul1333
Feb 7th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Don't think one match will change people's perception of her..

Graf~Dokic
Feb 7th, 2010, 06:53 PM
in today's much vs wickmayer
Winners Aga 53. Wick 52. Ue Aga 27 wick 52.
According to these stats if one calls Aga a pusher, then Wickmayer is a pusher too! :lol:
What do you say?

Well, in my opinion you can't judge that by just one match in which she has a pretty good amount of winners.

AcesHigh
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:00 PM
She's not a pusher.

I actually hate that term.. it's totally demeaning and is just a way to discredit a player whose gamestyle you don't like.

olivero
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:20 PM
Go watch her match vs Safina at Sydney.
In fact calling her a pusher would be too generous. She's just a non-entity.

That was probably her worst match since Indian Wells '09 QF. It doesn't tell much about her game.

Yes,she is.She hit today 53 winners,okay,but dont forget that those "winners" were a lots of volleys,lobs,dropshots...she still lacks power:shrug:

So what she lacks power? I didn't know that lack of power = being a pusher.
And since when dropshots, lobs and volleys are 'worse' winners than other shots? :lol:

Petkorazzi
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:22 PM
Well, in my opinion you can't judge that by just one match in which she has a pretty good amount of winners.
But do you seriously think someone like Wozniacki will ever get 50 winners?

Caipirinha Guy
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:22 PM
Not being a ballbasher doesn't make you pusher. :shrug:

Jane Lane
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:27 PM
The way I see it, I hesitate to call Aga a pusher. She plays smart and adapts to her opponents. I don't call her a pusher because her skills at net >>>>> Caro.

Caro pushes because she doesn't know what else to do. Aga has a sort of plan you could say.

LeonHart
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:40 PM
She's not a pusher if she can move the ball around and not be dictated all the time when playing some of the top players.

Nicolás89
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:50 PM
I rather be a pusher than UEs machine. :shrug:

Answering the poll, she is an all rounder.

Nicolás89
Feb 7th, 2010, 07:52 PM
Go watch her match vs Safina at Sydney.
In fact calling her a pusher would be too generous. She's just a non-entity.

In that match she reminded me of Myskina in 2005.

KamilZ
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:05 PM
Once a pusher always a pusher so yes.

Yep..of course she is...

Caipirinha Guy
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:11 PM
Kamil :lol: Your hatred towards Radwanska already past a peak. :spit:

Loudman
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:14 PM
She is not a hard hitter for sure, she pushes the ball well from left to right and her serve is alrigt.
No shame in her playing style, but it won't be enough to beat a good player. Just not enough real weapons to use.

KamilZ
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:17 PM
Kamil :lol: Your hatred towards Radwanska already past a peak. :spit:

Yep, maybe you're right :lol:

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:32 PM
She's not a pusher.

I actually hate that term.. it's totally demeaning and is just a way to discredit a player whose gamestyle you don't like.

This.

Go watch her match vs Safina at Sydney.
In fact calling her a pusher would be too generous. She's just a non-entity.

Using an overtly subpar match as a demostration of a players abilities to prove an argument about a percieved weakness in a player is one of the most overused tricks in the book. Unfortunately it is one only worthy of the lowest trolls.

Good players play bad matches. Fact.

Now I could say Kim Clijsters is nothing more than an unforced error machine...look at her match against Petrova at the AO.

Or Serena Williams doesn't move well at all and if you keep the ball in play against her for 3 or 4 shots her whole game will break down. Check out her match against Bammer at Cincinnati for proof.

Or Elena Dementieva has no idea how to properly construct points, look at her match against Melanie Oudin at the US Open.

I could say all these things. But I would be a fool to do so because none of those statements are infact valid. In each case it was a bad day at the office for the losing player, nothing more.

Repeat. Good players play bad matches. Fact.

Now I don't wish to have my words twisted and be told I am sugesting that Radwanska is as good a player as Kim Clijsters or Serena Williams or Elena Dementieva. But like every player, if you wish to evalute their strengths and weaknesses you are very much better off doing it from a match where they played well. And Radwanska's performance against Safina is not a fair representation of what she is capable of.

Now I am quite happy to have Radwanska evaluated on the basis of her match against Wickmayer. Honestly I don't think anyone who actually saw that match could suggest she wasn't a very good and dangerous player. Yes she lost. But she lost to another very good and dangerous player. When two good players play each other one of them always loses.

I would however stay away from using this match as "evidence" that she can't beat good players when they are playing well. If that really was the case she would not have come as close winning this match as she was. She was one point away. Wickmayer was a very deserving winner but Radwanska was an unlucky loser. Had Radwanska won her match point the reverse would have been true, Radwanska would have been a deserving winner but Wickmayer would have been an unlucky loser. We forgot sometimes how thin the margins can be between victory and defeat. On the basis of that match I believe the only thing one could conclude about their future encounters is that if they both play well they are likely to be very competitive and tightly contested.

Discounting a match when a player hits 53 winners as not relevent and then bringing up a match when a player is very much subpar as an alternative example to use to put forth their argument is....just sad. :shrug:

dsanders06
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:42 PM
I think she has quite an aggressive mindset, but she simply doesn't possess the firepower to translate that mindset into a top-quality aggressive game. Even though she is more aggressive than Wozniacki, I wouldn't hesitate to say Wozniacki's game is more potent and that she has more potential.

AnnaK_4ever
Feb 7th, 2010, 09:12 PM
This.



Using an overtly subpar match as a demostration of a players abilities to prove an argument about a percieved weakness in a player is one of the most overused tricks in the book. Unfortunately it is one only worthy of the lowest trolls.

Good players play bad matches. Fact.

Now I could say Kim Clijsters is nothing more than an unforced error machine...look at her match against Petrova at the AO.

Or Serena Williams doesn't move well at all and if you keep the ball in play against her for 3 or 4 shots her whole game will break down. Check out her match against Bammer at Cincinnati for proof.

Or Elena Dementieva has no idea how to properly construct points, look at her match against Melanie Oudin at the US Open.



1) Kim Clijsters has been an UE machine since her 2005 USO win with the only exception being 2009 USO. Unless you think her QF matches against Hingis at 06 AO and RG and 07 AO, her SF matches against Sharapova at AO 07 and Henin at RG 06 mean absolutely nothing.
2) Serena Williams doesn't move well at all. The list of matches that prove it is endless and I don't know how anyone could state otherwise.
3) Elena Dementieva has no idea how to properly construct points. The list of matches that prove it is endless as well and I don't know how anyone could state otherwise either.

Now back to Radwanska. Her match against Safina was not an exception. It was an exception in terms of out-of-this-world horrifying display of her passiveness. But she's played dozens of matches in this manner over the last two years, just not being so horrifyingly bad.

Shvedbarilescu
Feb 7th, 2010, 09:48 PM
1) Kim Clijsters has been an UE machine since her 2005 USO win with the only exception being 2009 USO. Unless you think her QF matches against Hingis at 06 AO and RG and 07 AO, her SF matches against Sharapova at AO 07 and Henin at RG 06 mean absolutely nothing.
2) Serena Williams doesn't move well at all. The list of matches that prove it is endless and I don't know how anyone could state otherwise.
3) Elena Dementieva has no idea how to properly construct points. The list of matches that prove it is endless as well and I don't know how anyone could state otherwise either.

Now back to Radwanska. Her match against Safina was not an exception. It was an exception in terms of out-of-this-world horrifying display of her passiveness. But she's played dozens of matches in this manner over the last two years, just not being so horrifyingly bad.

:eek:

Ok. I will leave you to those opinions then. I shall just quietly add that given these presumed qualities they haven't actually done that badly for themselves.

For me personally, yeah I have see all these players on occassion play in a manner which you describe above. But I have also seen matches where it appeared to me that Serena was moving pretty damn well, and I've seen matches where Clijsters did not give away many cheap points and I've seen matches where Dementieva looked tactically shrewd. So while on a bad or even an indifferent day these aspects can be true, I personally don't believe them to be true all the time.

With regards to your comments here on Aga well...I'd say dozens is stretching it but yeah there have been numerous occasions when she has played in a similar manner to the match against Safina albeit generally not as bad, although that said I can think of a couple of other cases that were as bad too :lol:. But there have also been numerous matches when she has played some very enterprising tennis as well. And I do rather think those matches are more representative of what she is capable of.

matty
Feb 8th, 2010, 01:39 AM
She's not a pusher.

I actually hate that term.. it's totally demeaning and is just a way to discredit a player whose gamestyle you don't like.

I think I've read that pro's call other pro's pushers, so it may be a valid term :shrug:

Szavay #1
Feb 8th, 2010, 08:50 AM
aga isn't but she is more defensive than offensive.