PDA

View Full Version : Whose 1st Premier win was more impressive: Makarova or Dulgheru?


MechWarrior2k
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:18 PM
Seriously, both girls pulled off the improbable in winning their 1st title... and a Premier at that.

Both went in as qualifiers. Both took out quality players. In Dulgheru's case, her win in '09 was backed up with defending the title successfully this year and her rank has gradually improved. Won her debut WTA event at that.

Makarova's 3rd time in a final proved to be the charm. Came into Eastbourne playing rather poor, but emerged victorious. This will certainly bump her rank some spots, but I think it will certainly boost her confidence even more so.

ElusiveChanteuse
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:28 PM
Makarova...came through qualifying and then beat five top 20 players in a row.:worship: not even Serena can boast this record.:p

cellophane
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:29 PM
Um, Makarova, without question.

KournikovaFan91
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:30 PM
Makarova much tougher field in Eastbourne.

fouc
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:31 PM
of course Dulgheru. It's not even close.

cellophane
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:33 PM
of course Dulgheru. It's not even close.


:spit:

GOAT run

Warsaw Premier Clay May 24 2009
Qual 1 Dulgheru - Lenka Wienerova 5-7 7-5 6-2
Qual 2 Dulgheru - Anna Korzeniak 5-7 6-4 6-2
Qual 3 Dulgheru - Alicja Rosolska 6-1 6-0
1 Dulgheru-Q - Agnes Szatmari-Q 6-3 6-4
2 Dulgheru-Q - Sara Errani(5) 6-4 6-3
QF Dulgheru-Q - Galina Voskoboeva 6-1 7-5
SF Dulgheru-Q - Daniela Hantuchova(6) 6-4 6-72 6-1
F Dulgheru-Q - Alyona Bondarenko(8) 7-6(3) 3-6 6-0

BluSthil
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:33 PM
I am impressed with the way Makarova plays. If she stays healthly, this girl could soon challenge the "big girls" !

ElusiveChanteuse
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:35 PM
of course Dulgheru. It's not even close.

The poll result indeed shows it isn't that close.:p

iPatty
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:36 PM
Obviously it's Makarova, but I believe Dulgheru is the better player. :shrug:

Slutiana
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:38 PM
of course Dulgheru. It's not even close.

Why? :happy: I'd like to hear this argument.

Ferg
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:40 PM
Dulgheru's was out of nowhere whilst Makarova had won 5 matches in a row in her two previous outings at Eastbourne. But Makarovas was more impressive due to the far superior quality, and how she won all in straight sets.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:40 PM
I am a very big fan of Alexandra Dulgheru but I admire Katya Makarova too. I think overall in terms of who the two girls beat one has to give the nod to Katya. 5 top 20 players speaks for itself. That does not happen very often at any level of tournament, even in a Grand Slam that is quite rare. And to pull something like that off coming through qualifying and to win one's 1st tournament in such a manner is truely remarkable. So overall who's win was more impressive? I got to say Makarova's by a substantial margin.

But Alex still gets credit for having the more surprising and amazing of the two tournament wins as she came from absolutely nowhere to accomplish her win. Makarova had already had many outstanding wins in the past, been a top 40 player and reached a couple of finals. Prior to winning Warsaw, Alex had yet to crack the top 200, had not a single match at WTA maindraw level and had yet to record a single top 100 victory. Although Alex's form in the weeks leading up to her breakthrough suggested she was ready to make a move up the rankings the manner in which she broke through was something no one could have anticipated. What also makes Alex's breakthrough so impressive is the way she has backed it up and built on it and just a bit more than a year later she is top 30 and still rising. This truely was one of the most rapid and unexpected, although clearly very deserved, breakthoughs in WTA history.

It really is hard to compare these two acheivements though. Both accomplished something great and neither result should in anyway be undermined by what the other did. I am sure both girls will forever be very proud of and always have great memories of the week they won their 1st title and so they should.

cellophane
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:42 PM
Obviously it's Makarova, but I believe Dulgheru is the better player. :shrug:

:scratch:

poulao
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:45 PM
What I think speaks for Makarova, is the quality of the draw in Eastbourne. ;)

iPatty
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:52 PM
:scratch:

:shrug:

fouc
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:55 PM
Why? :happy: I'd like to hear this argument.

kiddin, right? Makarova was #35 just a year ago, she is an established player, who was twice a quaterfinalist in this very tournament as a q. While Dulgheru just came out of freakin nowhere, never had played a single WTA match or even GS qualis. As far as I know, she made history as the lowest ranked player to win a TierII, and it's not gonna be broken anytime soon. This was such a crazy story and she will be always remembered for this.
I hope this can be a breakthrough for Makarova, but she's only a lower-ranked player playing her peak and winning a tournament. Dulgheru? Well, that was something that shouldn't have happened. ;)

And yes, Makarova has better wins here, unarguable, but she's not even 10% of a story that Dulgheru was.

LCS
Jun 19th, 2010, 05:59 PM
In terms of quality of draw: Makarova

When it comes to unlikelyness: Dulgheru, I mean where the hell was she before (and after) that 1st Warsaw trohpy? :confused:

Makarova on the other hand really likes her grass. :)

SoClose
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:00 PM
Um, Makarova, without question.

:yeah:

goldenlox
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:01 PM
For me, Dulgheru, because I knew Makarova could do this. I've seen her out play Dinara by a wide margin at the AO, then she stops, like she's exhausted.
Her stamina is what surprised me, but I've seen her hit 4 aces in 1 game

Ferg
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:03 PM
In terms of quality of draw: Makarova

When it comes to unlikelyness: Dulgheru, I mean where the hell was she before (and after) that 1st Warsaw trohpy? :confused:

Makarova on the other hand really likes her grass. :)

ummm..... making semi-finals on and off clay and defending her title and also being seeded for this years Roland Garros and Wimbledon?

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:05 PM
kiddin, right? Makarova was #35 just a year ago, she is an established player, who was twice a quaterfinalist in this very tournament as a q. While Dulgheru just came out of freakin nowhere, never had played a single WTA match or even GS qualis. As far as I know, she made history as the lowest ranked player to win a TierII, and it's not gonna be broken anytime soon. This was such a crazy story and she will be always remembered for this.
I hope this can be a breakthrough for Makarova, but she's only a lower-ranked player playing her peak and winning a tournament. Dulgheru? Well, that was something that shouldn't have happened. ;)

And yes, Makarova has better wins here, unarguable, but she's not even 10% of a story that Dulgheru was.

Great post. I voted for Makarova based on the fact that she undeniable had the bigger scalps. But what Dulgheru did was remarkable for far more than the ranking of her victories, it really was a win from out of nowhere and for that reason it will always go down as one of the most extraordinary beginings of a WTA career ever.

Petkorazzi
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:07 PM
As said before, there is no contest here really. Makarova is an established player, already known grass-goat and she has already challenged many top players.

Dulgheru, on the other hand, came out of nowhere. :confused: Can't even compare these two.

cellophane
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:08 PM
Dulgheru's was far more surprising... but not more impressive IMO just because she had never won a tour level match.

Surprising is different from impressive. Not to say that wiining your 1st tournament out of nowhere is NOT impressive, but the quality of opposition was not comparable to Makarova's run in Eastbourne.

VIKA?
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:11 PM
Alex by far.

JujulCactus
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:12 PM
Dulgheru, because I was not knowing a lot about her before her first title
Makarova is always playing great on grass and in Eastbourne : so less surprising ;)

goldenlox
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:12 PM
I agree surprising and impressive. Makarova beat 5 top 20 players.
That is impressive. Its just that none of them by themselves, is a surprise.
All in a row was impressive

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:15 PM
It's all in the wording. Katya's Eastbourne win was more accomplished, impressive and difficult. Whereas Alex's Warsaw win was more amazing, remarkable, surprising and a more incredible story. Both great in their own ways.

fouc
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:19 PM
Dulgheru's was far more surprising... but not more impressive IMO just because she had never won a tour level match.

Surprising is different from impressive.

Still I think it's undoubtedly more impressive to win the first WTA you enter, that is a premier event, and when you're 201 in rankings and NOT an up-and-comer.

In terms of pure numbers, yes it's Makarova, yuppie, what's there to debate on? It's like debating whether it's better to be #1 or #28 in rankings. But we have to take into consideration the players we're talking about. Makarova - with all the facts that I've already given, and Dulgheru - basically a tennis equivalent of nobody back then.

fouc
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:20 PM
It's all in the wording. Katya's Eastbourne win was more accomplished, impressive and difficult. Whereas Alex's Warsaw win was more amazing, remarkable, surprising and a more incredible story. Both great in their own ways.

I can definitely settle on that :)

SVK
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:23 PM
hmm..hard question..definitely Dulgheru´s was less expected...as 201st player...Makarova is already known player with some nice wins..but Dulgheru was absolutely unknown person who suddenly won a premier tournament beating Hantuchova, or Bondarenko...of course Makarova beat 5 TOP 20 players, but as I said, she had already some nice wins, Dulgheru hadn´t anything before this, just some ITF titles...and it was her first WTA tournament in her career..so I think it´s hard to say

Monzanator
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:30 PM
If Makarova comes back and wins Eastbourne next year, then I'll back her up but right now it's obviously Dulgheru since she's risen from 200 to Top 30 after winning Warsaw last year plus she'd defended that title which is always much harder to do no matter what the opposition is like. Not to mention Makarova played visibly second-handed Azarenka in the final and was former #35, so her title is not even close upset-wise compared to Dulgheru.

debby
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:34 PM
Makarova...came through qualifying and then beat five top 20 players in a row.:worship: not even Serena can boast this record.:p

This.

LCS
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:57 PM
ummm..... making semi-finals on and off clay and defending her title and also being seeded for this years Roland Garros and Wimbledon?

But that was only after her 2nd Warsaw win. Please read carefully. :wavey:

dos Santos
Jun 19th, 2010, 07:00 PM
Alex:worship:

LeonHart
Jun 19th, 2010, 08:32 PM
Dulgheru. Makarova beat some big names, but they're all slumping horribly.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 19th, 2010, 08:37 PM
Dulgheru. Makarova beat some big names, but they're all slumping horribly.

I'm sorry but as arguments go....that one does not cut it. Can you really present a case that the players Alex beat were in any better form? Looking at their results around Warsaw that simply does not appear to be the case.

Eduardo Oliveira
Jun 19th, 2010, 09:13 PM
Makarova :worship:

Delfii
Jun 19th, 2010, 09:21 PM
Well Makarova didn't deserve to win the tittle, 'cuz she played aganist 1/2 Vika so Dulgheru

Ellery
Jun 19th, 2010, 09:47 PM
Katya's, because of the quality of the opposition she faced.

Slutiana
Jun 19th, 2010, 09:50 PM
Well Makarova didn't deserve to win the tittle, 'cuz she played aganist 1/2 Vika so Dulgheru
Yes, because Azarenka was t00tally by far the best player Makarova beat. Totally.

Ferg
Jun 19th, 2010, 09:52 PM
Well Makarova didn't deserve to win the tittle, 'cuz she played aganist 1/2 Vika so Dulgheru

People as dumb as you shouldnt be allowed post here.

Ferg
Jun 19th, 2010, 09:54 PM
Dulgheru. Makarova beat some big names, but they're all slumping horribly.

Penneta = recent RG 4th round, Petrova = recent RG quarter finalist, Stosur = recent RG finalist, thats some pretty heavy logic with FAIL written all over it.

Caralenko
Jun 20th, 2010, 01:32 AM
Penneta = recent RG 4th round, Petrova = recent RG quarter finalist, Stosur = recent RG finalist, thats some pretty heavy logic with FAIL written all over it.

FIRST premier win. As in, the time she won it in 2009.

LeonHart
Jun 20th, 2010, 01:55 AM
Penneta = recent RG 4th round, Petrova = recent RG quarter finalist, Stosur = recent RG finalist, thats some pretty heavy logic with FAIL written all over it.

Lets see how these girls do at Wimbledon :)

Clay does not equate with grass honey.

Slutiana
Jun 20th, 2010, 02:05 AM
Lets see how these girls do at Wimbledon :)

Clay does not equate with grass honey.
Ok? But he was simply highlighting the fact that your absurd claim of "they're all slumping horribly", was categorically and undeniably wrong.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 20th, 2010, 02:29 AM
Lets see how these girls do at Wimbledon :)

Clay does not equate with grass honey.

The girls Alex beat at Warsaw 1st time around combined for a grand total of One win. I don't know how the girls Katya beat at Eastbourne will do as I don't have a crystal ball, but I predict it will be a few more wins than "one".

danieln1
Jun 20th, 2010, 05:48 AM
Makarova obviously...

Sp!ffy
Jun 20th, 2010, 05:50 AM
I'm going to wait and see how Makarova does in Wimbledon. Because then I'll see which player doesnt choke on the big stage.

danieln1
Jun 20th, 2010, 05:59 AM
Also Warsaw 2009 can´t even be considered a premier event, because it looked liked it a good tier III event

rockstar
Jun 20th, 2010, 06:13 AM
i think it's impressive dulgheru managed to defend her title, seeing she did shit for one whole year after the first time :lol:

AnomyBC
Jun 20th, 2010, 06:50 AM
Dulgheru was actually more impressive to me because of her low ranking and lack of previous achievements. She had never been in the Top 200 at the time of her victory and only a few months before that she had been outside of the Top 300. She had also apparently never won a maindraw WTA match before. Makarova obviously had the tougher draw, but she's at least a Top 100 player and she was previously ranked as high as #35, so it's not as wacky to me as someone like Dulgheru winning, you know? So I vote Dulgheru :)

Carotastrophe
Jun 20th, 2010, 06:59 AM
Makarova, stronger field and came through Q

AnomyBC
Jun 20th, 2010, 07:05 AM
Makarova, stronger field and came through Q

Dulgheru had to play through the qualifying rounds also---as you would expect for player ranked outside the Top 200.

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 20th, 2010, 07:24 AM
i think it's impressive dulgheru managed to defend her title, seeing she did shit for one whole year after the first time :lol:

That is catergorically not true.

AnDrEi.b
Jun 20th, 2010, 07:47 AM
Dulgheru was actually more impressive to me because of her low ranking and lack of previous achievements. She had never been in the Top 200 at the time of her victory and only a few months before that she had been outside of the Top 300. She had also apparently never won a maindraw WTA match before. Makarova obviously had the tougher draw, but she's at least a Top 100 player and she was previously ranked as high as #35, so it's not as wacky to me as someone like Dulgheru winning, you know? So I vote Dulgheru :)

I totally agree with you

Renalicious
Jun 20th, 2010, 07:56 AM
Makarova. The players she beat are more 'quality' ones.

So Disrespectful
Jun 20th, 2010, 08:01 AM
Dulgheru's title defence makes hers all the more impressive. Many people thought she'd never win another title, let alone defend the one she had.

EastbourneAgain
Jun 20th, 2010, 08:13 AM
It's very close. On one hand, you have Dulgheru who won Warsaw 2009 pretty much out of nowhere as she'd never played on the tour before where as Makarova had been around quite a while before her Eastbourne triumph. However, Makarova had much bigger scalps in Eastbourne and it's always good to see a player take their first title after a few years on the tour.

I'd say Makarova's Eastbourne victory, just. 5 TOP 20 scalps is something that doesn't even happen in most slams.

Corswandt
Jun 20th, 2010, 10:49 AM
Whose 1st Premier win was more impressive: Makarova or Dulgheru?

Is this even a question?

Corswandt
Jun 20th, 2010, 10:50 AM
Dulgheru was actually more impressive to me because of her low ranking and lack of previous achievements. She had never been in the Top 200 at the time of her victory and only a few months before that she had been outside of the Top 300. She had also apparently never won a maindraw WTA match before. Makarova obviously had the tougher draw, but she's at least a Top 100 player and she was previously ranked as high as #35, so it's not as wacky to me as someone like Dulgheru winning, you know? So I vote Dulgheru :)

The question in the thread title is which win was more impressive, not more surprising.

Ferg
Jun 20th, 2010, 10:51 AM
Lets see how these girls do at Wimbledon :)

Clay does not equate with grass honey.

Recent good results do not equal 'slumping horribly'. Saying RG and Wimbledon surfaces isnt reinforcing your statement at all.

Joe.
Jun 20th, 2010, 10:51 AM
Makarova by miles. Not even close.

Patrick345
Jun 20th, 2010, 10:58 AM
Makarova´s was better, but Dulgheru can actually play. That´s all that matters.

AnomyBC
Jun 20th, 2010, 11:03 AM
The question in the thread title is which win was more impressive, not more surprising.

Dulgheru won a Premier tournament while ranked outside of the Top 200 and without having ever previously won a maindraw match in a WTA tournament. For a player like that to do what she did is definitely more impressive to me. In fact, it's probably the most impressive achievement of any lower ranked player, male or female, in recent history. It still blows my mind to this day, whereas I had much less of a reaction to Makarova winning. And then she actually backed up that result in subsequent tournaments and even defended her title, which just makes the whole thing that much more impressive because it proves that her winning wasn't just a fluke.

Ferg
Jun 20th, 2010, 11:07 AM
FIRST premier win. As in, the time she won it in 2009.

Makarova?

claypova
Jun 20th, 2010, 11:33 AM
makarova becuase of the field she beat.

dulgehru was impressive as well,( but not as much) seeing as it was her first MD

Caralenko
Jun 20th, 2010, 11:34 AM
Makarova?

Dulgheru, Warsaw 2009. You posted stats from her 2010 win.

teo_honey
Jun 20th, 2010, 01:31 PM
Obviously it's Makarova, but I believe Dulgheru is the better player. :shrug:

Why would that be so obvious? Were you confident she would win last year, being the 201st player in the world, participating in her first WTA main draw? Makarova had already had 2 finals, if i'm not mistaken. She was certainly no "nobody", whereas Alexandra was generally unknown.

teo_honey
Jun 20th, 2010, 01:40 PM
The question in the thread title is which win was more impressive, not more surprising.

So you DO know it's a question... Then why bother to ask? :)

Beat
Jun 20th, 2010, 01:44 PM
i think dulgheru's was slightly more surprising, but makarova's more impressive because she had to beat 5 top20 players and the eastbourne draw was ultrastrong.

Corswandt
Jun 20th, 2010, 01:48 PM
So you DO know it's a question... Then why bother to ask? :)

hyperbole hy·per·bole (hī pʉr′bə lē)

noun

exaggeration for effect and not meant to be taken literally

---------

You're still in the lower tier of my h8t0rz BTW. Try harder.

EastbourneAgain
Jun 20th, 2010, 02:17 PM
The question in the thread title is which win was more impressive, not more surprising.

You don't think the fact that Dulgheru hadn't played, let alone won a WTA MD match before Warsaw 2009 adds to it's impressiveness? I most certainly do.

That said, I still stay Makarova. :)

hdfb
Jun 20th, 2010, 02:48 PM
Alex. She was really a nobody travelling in between challengers, opportunistically playing WTA tournaments week before slams due to weaker fields. And then it all changed in a week.

EastbourneAgain
Jun 20th, 2010, 03:00 PM
Alex. She was really a nobody travelling in between challengers, opportunistically playing WTA tournaments week before slams due to weaker fields. And then it all changed in a week.

IIRC, Warsaw 2009 was her first WTA MD.

And she was hardly a nobody, a lot of people had taken notice from an impressive winning streak she had on the ITF tour just prior.

sweetpeas
Jun 20th, 2010, 03:48 PM
Makarova.

Ferg
Jun 20th, 2010, 03:54 PM
Dulgheru, Warsaw 2009. You posted stats from her 2010 win.

I posted stats from Makarova's Eastbourne win over the players he said were 'horribly slumping'...

Freakan
Jun 20th, 2010, 10:22 PM
Dulgheru because polls here are some of the most meaningless things in the whole world :)

teo_honey
Jun 23rd, 2010, 10:44 AM
hyperbole hy·per·bole (hī pʉr′bə lē)

noun

exaggeration for effect and not meant to be taken literally

---------

You're still in the lower tier of my h8t0rz BTW. Try harder.

Too bad I visit the forum so rarely, as you can see, since I do have a life. We could have had some fun. :)

Oh and since what you were using was a hyperbole, what I was using is called sarcasm.

Corswandt
Jun 23rd, 2010, 04:25 PM
Too bad I visit the forum so rarely, as you can see, since I do have a life. We could have had some fun. :)

At any place, and with any weapons, I'm at your disposal, Sir, whenever that full, purposeful life you claim to lead may leave you with a few minutes for such matters.

andrewC
Jun 24th, 2010, 02:56 AM
of course Dulgheru. It's not even close.

haha whatevs.

Alex was an unknown quantity, so surprise element. Maka has been playing woefully, known for mentally choking, so for her to qualify AND string several matches together against a much higher ranked field than Alex ever had to face, Ekaterina easily is more impressive. sorry!

Maka :banana:

Lulu.
Jun 24th, 2010, 03:41 AM
Dulgheru for sure. That win came out of nowhere and she seems to be the more talented.