PDA

View Full Version : Azarenka: Top 4 without a slam SF!


thegreendestiny
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:42 AM
The ascent of Azarenka to top 5 this week adds another blunder to the already defiled WTA ranking. :o


-----
Update:
She is now No.4 and the prospect of reaching RG SF is slim after her latest injury. If Vera falls in the rankings these coming months, she will be No. 3. :help:

WTA :worship:

jimbo mack
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:44 AM
Magdalena Maleeva was top 5 in 1996 without even a grandslam quarter-final...so this is nothing new

SVK
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Always just about slams...like they are the only tournaments in WTA...:yawn:

Then there are players who have slam final or GS title and people talk about that they doesn´t deserve TOP 5 spot (Schiavone and Stosur)...a mess :shrug:

ivanban
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:47 AM
Reaching last 16 at every tourny will get you to top10 :inlove:

Shonami Slam
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:47 AM
Magdalena Maleeva was top 5 in 1996 without even a grandslam quarter-final...so this is nothing new

mugs are endless, timeless and always nostalgicly loved.

maleeva was a very good player, and you are spot on because i'd give her an azarenka-ish level nowadays

MakarovaFan
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:51 AM
Okay and Wozniacki was number 1 with no slam F and only a single SF.....

young_gunner913
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:52 AM
Players can make fluke grandslam runs. Vika's 2 Miami's pretty much cast a shadow on anything Chakvetadze has ever won.

A-Bond
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:57 AM
Players can make fluke grandslam runs. Vika's 2 Miami's pretty much cast a shadow on anything Chakvetadze has ever won.

Agree. Furthemore Chakvetadze had an easy road to her US Open SF with Paszek and Peer compared to Vika, who got Serena twice in QFs and in-form Clay-Safina in another.

goldenlox
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:59 AM
Chakvetadze was much more consistent than Vika when she was top 5.
Then when she got there, consistency went away.
Anna & Vika were doubles partners in 2007.

Mynarco
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:00 PM
Magdalena Maleeva was top 5 in 1996 without even a grandslam quarter-final...so this is nothing new

:spit: for real

spiceboy
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:02 PM
Magdalena Maleeva was top 5 in 1996 without even a grandslam quarter-final...so this is nothing new

:spit: for real

Not really. She reached the QF at the USO 1992 while she was still a junior but that was it. She never reached that stage again eventhough she got as far as #4 in the WTA rankings :help:

A-Bond
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:05 PM
Chakvetadze was much more consistent than Vika when she was top 5.
Then when she got there, consistency went away.
Anna & Vika were doubles partners in 2007.

Well I actually don't think so. Chakvetadze was probably a Top 5 player from Moscow 2006 till US Open 2007, afterwards she played shitty apart from Paris GDF in 2008. Vika is threat for Top Players since the beginning of 2009 and her title collection is better than Chaky's.

Maddox
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:08 PM
Well that doesn't matter, she won Miami so beating Madusah along the way so..............

young_gunner913
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:10 PM
Chakvetadze was much more consistent than Vika when she was top 5.
Then when she got there, consistency went away.
Anna & Vika were doubles partners in 2007.

:bs: Anna won Cincinnati/Stanford back to back without even facing a top 10 player. Her USO run wasn't even that impressive and the SF match that occured was shameful. Plus she had a poor record against the top 10 players that year. She was just capitalizing on scrubs.

Ciarán
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:11 PM
Players can make fluke grandslam runs. Vika's 2 Miami's pretty much cast a shadow on anything Chakvetadze has ever won.

Chakvetadze's 2007 season pretty much casts a shadow over anything Victoria has ever achieved :wavey: I also think Chakvetadze is by far the better player, regardless of where she is ranked now.



Agree. Furthemore Chakvetadze had an easy road to her US Open SF with Paszek and Peer compared to Vika, who got Serena twice in QFs and in-form Clay-Safina in another.

I would hardly call any route to your first Grand Slam SF and easy one :rolleyes:

Lord Choc Ice
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:14 PM
What are you talking about? She beat Errani in the semis of the fifth slam Marbella. :shrug:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:23 PM
Chakvetadze's 2007 season pretty much casts a shadow over anything Victoria has ever achieved :wavey: I also think Chakvetadze is by far the better player, regardless of where she is ranked now.


:lol:

Miracle Worker
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:25 PM
What are you talking about? She beat Errani in the semis of the fifth slam Marbella. :shrug:

They forgot about this. And about her Slam title in Marbella.

Andreas
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:27 PM
Chakvetadze's 2007 season pretty much casts a shadow over anything Victoria has ever achieved :wavey: I also think Chakvetadze is by far the better player, regardless of where she is ranked now.


How on earth can you possibly say that Chakvetadze has achieved more than Vika? :lol: Her biggest title is a Tier I (as it was called back then) in Moscow. Vika won that title last year and furthermore has 2 Miami titles. Chakvetadze beat 4 top 10 players in finished matches in 2007 and 3 of those were Hantuchova, Petrova and Schnyder :tape::lol: The last one was against Jankovic where she even got bagelled. Vika has already matched that number this year after only 4 months (Clijsters, Zvonareva, Radwanskax2).

I really can't in any way can see how Chakvetadze has achieved more than Vika, who is even leading their H2H.

thegreendestiny
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:29 PM
What are you talking about? She beat Errani in the semis of the fifth slam Marbella. :shrug:

:eek: OMG you're right! How could I forget about it! :tape:

Linguae^
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:31 PM
Is this a 'Azarenka vs. Chakvetadze overachieving thread' :o

thegreendestiny
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:40 PM
Is this a 'Azarenka vs. Chakvetadze overachieving thread' :o

IKR. :rolleyes:

This is not about Chakvetadze. It's about Azarenka's non-SF in slams.

Hian
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:43 PM
World n.1 has no GS.

madmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:45 PM
well, we do have a current Nr.1 without a slam final to her name in the last 18 months or so...this just proves that all one needs to do today is play enough tournaments and take advantage of all the choking mugs along the way

Miracle Worker
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:45 PM
World n.1 has senior Slam. :rolleyes:

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:47 PM
Chakvetadze's 2007 season pretty much casts a shadow over anything Victoria has ever achieved :wavey: I also think Chakvetadze is by far the better player, regardless of where she is ranked now.



I would hardly call any route to your first Grand Slam SF and easy one :rolleyes:

Chakvetadze is the weakest top 5 player in the history of the WTA rankings. It is no question. It is no dispute.

bandabou
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:53 PM
:lol: Another blow to generation 'sucks'. no.1 without a major final on her 52 weeks, no.5 without even a SF..:lol: :facepalm:

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:55 PM
:lol: Another blow to generation 'sucks'. no.1 without a major final on her 52 weeks, no.5 without even a SF..:lol: :facepalm:

Actually Azarenka does not even have a QF right now. R4 R1 R3 R2.

Great player, really.

Singleniacki
Apr 13th, 2011, 12:57 PM
Has everyone forgotten about the reason behind Chakvetadze's fall in the rankings?

Miracle Worker
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:00 PM
Has everyone forgotten about the reason behind Chakvetadze's fall in the rankings?

No, but it's thread about Azarenka ;)

Welcome1
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:00 PM
I would hardly call any route to your first Grand Slam SF and easy one :rolleyes:

You can call it whatever you like but

Ashley Weinhold
Nicole Pratt
Sania Mirza
Tamira Paszek
Shahar Peer

is not very impressive list :lol:

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Has everyone forgotten about the reason behind Chakvetadze's fall in the rankings?

This is under the bold assumption that Chakvetadze was really going to continuously and perpetually repeat top 5 quality seasons.

She was never that good. Give it up already. She beat '07 decline Petrova numerous amount of times as well as a host of other useless and irrelevant names, but got her ass handed to her by the top 5 all year.

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:11 PM
well, we do have a current Nr.1 without a slam final to her name in the last 18 months or so...this just proves that all one needs to do today is play enough tournaments and take advantage of all the choking mugs along the way


And what does this have to do with today? The same had already happened in 2001, 2004 and in several other years so you're posting :bs: as always.

madmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:26 PM
And what does this have to do with today? The same had already happened in 2001, 2004 and in several other years so you're posting :bs: as always.

:rolleyes:
It has a lot to do with today because we have opportunistic hacks taking advantage of the weakest era in women's tennis...it's downright sad and bad for the game seeing such horrible level of play in most of the matches. Retirements, walkovers and chokefests galore define today's era. I don't really know how you can even disagree with this...

goldenlox
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:29 PM
:rolleyes:
.. Retirements, walkovers and chokefests galore define today's era. I don't really know how you can even disagree with this...The World #1 is as physically & mentally tough as anyone. The top doesnt have retirements & chokefests. That for below the World #1.

Marionated
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:47 PM
This is under the bold assumption that Chakvetadze was really going to continuously and perpetually repeat top 5 quality seasons.

She was never that good. Give it up already. She beat '07 decline Petrova numerous amount of times as well as a host of other useless and irrelevant names, but got her ass handed to her by the top 5 all year.

She beat Venus when Venus was the Wimbledon champion, and she beat top 5 JJ on a number of occassions.

MisterMan
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:32 PM
GS Semi's don't mean much - didn't Hantuchova make one ? :lol:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:01 PM
GS Semi's don't mean much - didn't Hantuchova make one ? :lol:


Very witty.

swim4life227
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Pironkova having a slam SF and not Vika is just :lol:

Sammo
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:18 PM
Kind of James Blake I guess :shrug:

Jajaloo
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:21 PM
Who's mad?

FORZA SARITA
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:26 PM
You can call it whatever you like but

Ashley Weinhold
Nicole Pratt
Sania Mirza
Tamira Paszek
Shahar Peer

is not very impressive list :lol:

:tape::tape::tape:

Joelina
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:27 PM
GS Semi's don't mean much - didn't Hantuchova make one ? :lol:

who cares, Daniela has one so she´s better than Vika :p

zhengjieforever
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:41 PM
little jie has 2 SFs :D but she couldn't ever get farther than 15 in the world :sad:

Mynarco
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:45 PM
so should Pironkova be top 5?

Mistress of Evil
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:57 PM
Pironkova having a slam SF and not Vika is just :lol:

so should Pironkova be top 5?

Fluke :oh:

Break My Rapture
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:00 PM
Actually Azarenka does not even have a QF right now. R4 R1 R3 R2.

Great player, really.
You can only perform so much on the court when:
1. you didn't have any decent match practice plus having no confidence because of that on the clay;
2. you have a concussion.
At AO and Wimbledon she, typically, ran into the player in the form of their life and admittedly it's Vika's fault for folding fairly easily but nonetheless, not many people stood a chance against Li or Kvitova the way they played in their matches against Azarenka.

frenchie
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:03 PM
Maleeva having only 1 GS QF is one of the biggest tennis mystery to me?!

Corswandt
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:12 PM
At AO and Wimbledon she, typically, ran into the player in the form of their life and admittedly it's Vika's fault for folding fairly easily but nonetheless, not many people stood a chance against Li or Kvitova the way they played in their matches against Azarenka.

vs KvittyGOAT, 'Toria served for the first set and DFed twice in that game. :oh:

DecoTurf
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:15 PM
The ascent of Azarenka to top 5 this week adds another blunder to the already defiled WTA ranking. :o

Even a top 5 Chakvetadze at least had one.

EDIT: She did reach Marbella Finals though and won her first "slam"! :worship:

no need to rush the fo is around the corner, wait and watch

Apoleb
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:16 PM
Azarenka is mentally weak. That will be her biggest hurdle for GS success, but I think she already made improvements.

backhandsmash
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:22 PM
no need to rush the fo is around the corner, wait and watch

Yeeess! First SF coming there, I think.

Break My Rapture
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:33 PM
vs KvittyGOAT, 'Toria served for the first set and DFed twice in that game. :oh:
That was when KvittyGOAT caught fire and Vika folded. :oh:

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:35 PM
You can only perform so much on the court when:
1. you didn't have any decent match practice plus having no confidence because of that on the clay;
2. you have a concussion.
At AO and Wimbledon she, typically, ran into the player in the form of their life and admittedly it's Vika's fault for folding fairly easily but nonetheless, not many people stood a chance against Li or Kvitova the way they played in their matches against Azarenka.

She could have fared better, but not necessarily won, against Li if she was capable of ANY sort of pace change.

Instead, for two sets she hit directly at someone who was hitting harder, flatter, and more precise.

I think she already made improvements.

Name them?

Break My Rapture
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:38 PM
She could have fared better, but not necessarily won, against Li if she was capable of ANY sort of pace change.

Instead, for two sets she hit directly at someone who was hitting harder, flatter, and more precise.
True, she was probably too discouraged to rethink her strategy though. Also, her shots were falling very short at times and she tried a couple of loopy balls IIRC but Li ate them for breakfast.

Apoleb
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:39 PM
Name them?

If it wasn't clear from my post, I meant she improved mentally. She ditched her crazy behavior after she broke up with that Portuguese coach and seems to handle going down in a set much better. I still think that there's a ton of work to be done there.

Game-wise, she's going more for her first serve, which did give her an appreciable advantage in Miami.

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:46 PM
If it wasn't clear from my post, I meant she improved mentally. She ditched her crazy behavior after she broke up with that Portuguese coach and seems to handle going down in a set much better. I still think that there's a ton of work to be done there.

I think she is realizing that she is going to be broken twice or more a set by anyone in the top 25.

I don't buy the serving.

Not that I'm saying you're lying about her serving in Miami, but Azarenka has had period(s) or tournaments when she went for a little extra on her serve(Eastbourne '10). It never lasts. Talk to me at the end of the year and I may vouch.

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:46 PM
Azarenka is mentally weak. That will be her biggest hurdle for GS success, but I think she already made improvements.





Name them?

Victoria's old pregame regimen:
http://assets.kaboose.com/media/00/00/04/ab/62aa2a542305d673d7384afd87ebc8232bde16b8/476x357/Slideshow-Snickers_476x357.jpg

Victoria's new, improved, much superior pregame regimen:

http://image10.bizrate-images.com/resize?sq=160&uid=1952538587&mid=826

hurricanejeanne
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:56 PM
All bullshit aside, just do the math people.

Vika was number 6 after her Miami title win, Stosur was number 5 with her Charleston champion points on.
Add Marbella champion points to Vika, who was (and still is) defending jack shit until the grass and subtract Stosur's points from failing to defend Charleston. Thus you get Vika at number 5.

In summary, this is what happens when a player is defending the bulk of their points in one segment of the rolling 52 weeks.

I do agree that Vika needs a slam semifinal or better and it needs to come either this year or next year if she's going to have any real chance to break out of the mid-range and become a true contender. I do think she's made a mental adjustment that we've seen so far this spring, but it's a whole different game in the slams so it still remains unknown how she'll handle that kind of pressure.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:11 PM
chakvetadze between september 2006 and november 2007 won 6 titles (tier 1, tier 2 and 3 MM's) went QTR, QTR, 3R, SF at the slams and made SF of miami and YEC.

vika has never put together a set of results like that, just saying.

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:50 PM
vika has never put together a set of results like that, just saying.

I guess I'll bite for this, and I'll even use your time frame of September '06 to November '07.

A. Chakvetadze - September '06 - November '07

W/L (excluding walkover v. Sharapova)

overall: 70-22 (76%)
top 10: 8-10 (44%) (Safina, Dementieva, Petrova x2, Schnyder, Jankovic x2, S. Williams)
slam: QF QF R3 SF

Tier I: Moscow
Tier II: Stanford
Tier III: Guangzhou, Hobart, Hertogenbosch, Cincinnati

V. Azarenka - January '09 - February '10

overall: 56-18 (74%)
top 10: 8-11 (42%) (Safina, Kuznetsova, S. Williams, Ivanovic, Petrova, Jankovic, Zvonareva, Radwanska)
slam: QF QF R3 QF

Tier I: Miami
Tier II:
Tier III: Brisbane, Memphis

The difference is not far off, but Chakvetadze has the edge with the slam SF, Tier II, MMs, and slightly better percentages.

$uricate
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:56 PM
Plenty of players reached the top 5 without a slam semi, and its not like Vika's not young and extremely promising. She was probably always gonna get there.



The World #1 is as physically & mentally tough as anyone. The top doesnt have retirements & chokefests. That for below the World #1.

Are you some sort of malware programmed to respond in every thread with some Woz love, lest we forget about her for 5 minutes?

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:08 PM
I guess I'll bite for this, and I'll even use your time frame of September '06 to November '07.

A. Chakvetadze - September '06 - November '07

W/L (excluding walkover v. Sharapova)

overall: 70-22 (76%)
top 10: 8-10 (44%) (Safina, Dementieva, Petrova x2, Schnyder, Jankovic x2, S. Williams)
slam: QF QF R3 SF

Tier I: Moscow
Tier II: Stanford
Tier III: Guangzhou, Hobart, Hertogenbosch

V. Azarenka - January '09 - February '10

overall: 56-18 (74%)
top 10: 8-11 (42%) (Safina, Kuznetsova, S. Williams, Ivanovic, Petrova, Jankovic, Zvonareva, Radwanska)
slam: QF QF R3 QF

Tier I: Miami
Tier II:
Tier III: Brisbane, Memphis

The difference is not far off, but Chakvetadze has the edge with the slam SF, Tier II, extra MM, and slightly better percentages.

chak in that time frame also made the YEC sf and beat venus williams who was wimbledon champion (and would be back in the top 10 soon after chak beat her).

not to mention won the fed cup to.

Londoner
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:14 PM
Leave Maggie Maleeva out of it as I liked her and she was very popular with other players!

And that's the nub of it, this scenario is only bothersome if you don't like the player!

olivero
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:15 PM
why the hell do you need a SF to be in top 5? QF is a different story, but she'll get it at FO.

Loungy
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:19 PM
Tier I: Moscow
Tier II: Stanford
Tier III: Guangzhou, Hobart, Hertogenbosch
Why aren't you counting tier III Cincy in 2007?

fouc
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:24 PM
making it sound like she didn't deserve is really pointless. i don't really like her, but she did well, and her place is well justified. period.

LCS
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:28 PM
Please here are always looking for a spot on players' curricula :lol:

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:34 PM
This is so lame. Are we supposed to get our panties in a wad if somebody makes the Top 20 without making a Slam QF? Or is it okay if they at least made the Rnd of 16?

What if they made a Slam QF, but it was like five years before they make the Top 20?

What if a player makes a Slam QF, then gets married and changes her name. Does it still count? What if she changes racket sponsors? Or trims (or grows) bangs?

What if somebody wins a slam and doesn't make the Top 5? Should they take her slam away? What if someone gives up tennis and becomes a famous violin player instead? Should we just kill her or something?

Protoss
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:38 PM
chak in that time frame also made the YEC sf and beat venus williams who was wimbledon champion (and would be back in the top 10 soon after chak beat her).

not to mention won the fed cup to.
Yes, but can she do a dorky post match celebration? :p

Vikapower
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:39 PM
chakvetadze between september 2006 and november 2007 won 6 titles (tier 1, tier 2 and 3 MM's) went QTR, QTR, 3R, SF at the slams and made SF of miami and YEC.

vika has never put together a set of results like that, just saying.

What an accomplishment... Waouh... now I must wonder to myself why Caro doesn't get credit for accomplishing even 10 times better what Chack has done !!? Goldenlox needs to help me there with the W/L...

Children around here just can't stop contradicting thelselves... when it's Chack/Vika just for the sake of hating the "Chack slam" takes a Federized dimension that his Rogerness himself would have bowed in respect... when it's Caro the same experts who used the "Chak slam" to stab Vika are unabled to validate the even better one of Caro...

Haters need to find a conduct line... too much hypocrisy and if the Caro Premier domination is irrelevant then the little strings of wins Djokotadze had back then are irrelevant in the same manner... and worst...

By so this argument just can not be used against Victoria. Next.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:40 PM
This is so lame. Are we supposed to get our panties in a wad if somebody makes the Top 20 without making a Slam QF? Or is it okay if they at least made the Rnd of 16?

What if they made a Slam QF, but it was like five years before they make the Top 20?

What if a player makes a Slam QF, then gets married and changes her name. Does it still count? What if she changes racket sponsors? Or trims (or grows) bangs?

What if somebody wins a slam and doesn't make the Top 5? Should they take her slam away? What if someone gives up tennis and becomes a famous violin player instead? Should we just kill her or something?

Don't try to make this seem like an arbitrary thing. This is a very rare occurrence. It makes the WTA look bad because the top ranked players are not competitive in slams. SF-less top 5 is the new Slamless number 1. Oh wait, we have one of those too! :lol:

The answer to your question is that if someone is top 5 without a slam semifinal, we should point it out and lament at the state of the WTA.

Nicolás89
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:48 PM
MIAMI.

well, we do have a current Nr.1 without a slam final to her name in the last 18 months or so...this just proves that all one needs to do today is play enough tournaments and take advantage of all the choking mugs along the way

Yep, Sharapova being the clearest example this year.

Break My Rapture
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:50 PM
Don't try to make this seem like an arbitrary thing. This is a very rare occurrence. It makes the WTA look bad because the top ranked players are not competitive in slams. SF-less top 5 is the new Slamless number 1. Oh wait, we have one of those too! :lol:

The answer to your question is that if someone is top 5 without a slam semifinal, we should point it out and lament at the state of the WTA.
She has just won 2 titles back-to-back, one of them being arguably the 5th slam, to reach #5 and she has bad luck at the slams. What more can you ask from her when the next slam is still more than a month away?
Not trying to change the subject here, but at least she didn't rise to a new CH on top of only average showings in her last tournaments...Wozniacki reached #2/#3 in the world last year for the first time when she made the 4th round at the AO I think, for example.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:58 PM
What an accomplishment... Waouh... now I must wonder to myself why Caro doesn't get credit for accomplishing even 10 times better what Chack has done !!? Goldenlox needs to help me there with the W/L...

Children around here just can't stop contradicting thelselves... when it's Chack/Vika just for the sake of hating the "Chack slam" takes a Federized dimension that his Rogerness himself would have bowed in respect... when it's Caro the same experts who used the "Chak slam" to stab Vika are unabled to validate the even better one of Caro...

Haters need to find a conduct line... too much hypocrisy and if the Caro Premier domination is irrelevant then the little strings of wins Djokotadze had back then are irrelevant in the same manner... and worst...

By so this argument just can not be used against Victoria. Next.

because chak isn't number 1, so people don't expect her to have been winning slams. most people who follow tennis expect the number 1 to be winning slams, number 2 to be winning slams/making finals and the top 5 to be making semi's.

we were comparing chak and vika as top 5 players. if you want to compare caro to anyone it has to be other #1 plyers and all but safina and jj are slam champions thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caro and safina made 3 finals. right now caro is one of the worst numbers ever with jj. whether you like it or not caro will as the number 1 player be judged on slams won, as it is what people expect of a number 1 player.

i don't think that is hard to understand.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:59 PM
She has just won 2 titles back-to-back, one of them being arguably the 5th slam, to reach #5 and she has bad luck at the slams. What more can you ask from her when the next slam is still more than a month away?
What more could be asked? How about making at least a slam QF in her last 4 slams! :lol: If she can't even make the last 8 in any of the last 4 slams despite all the depleted fields, it is sad that she is ranked top 5.


Not trying to change the subject here, but at least she didn't rise to a new CH on top of only average showings in her last tournaments...Wozniacki reached #2/#3 in the world last year for the first time when she made the 4th round at the AO I think, for example.

I'm not praising Wozniacki either :tape:

Ciarán
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:05 PM
How on earth can you possibly say that Chakvetadze has achieved more than Vika? :lol: Her biggest title is a Tier I (as it was called back then) in Moscow. Vika won that title last year and furthermore has 2 Miami titles. Chakvetadze beat 4 top 10 players in finished matches in 2007 and 3 of those were Hantuchova, Petrova and Schnyder :tape::lol: The last one was against Jankovic where she even got bagelled. Vika has already matched that number this year after only 4 months (Clijsters, Zvonareva, Radwanskax2).

I really can't in any way can see how Chakvetadze has achieved more than Vika, who is even leading their H2H.

Maybe it's my mutual hate of Diktoria blinding me.

Break My Rapture
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:07 PM
What more could be asked? How about making at least a slam QF in her last 4 slams! :lol: If she can't even make the last 8 in any of the last 4 slams despite all the depleted fields, it is sad that she is ranked top 5.
Like numerous people have already said, she had bad luck considering the slams.
AO: comes up against Na Li in the best form of her life
RG: injured the entire clay season, no decent match practice or confidence
Wimbly: comes up against Petra Kvitova in the best form of her life
USO: suffered a concussion in the gym

Various stuff ruined her momentum going into the slams, particularly last year.

AcesHigh
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Bad luck? sounds like bad excuses. Azarenka just really hasn't been that good.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:23 PM
LOL. If you need good luck to even make a slam QF, then you have no business being in the top 5. Top 5 players should be ranked that high because they can consistently go to the end of slams despite many conditions.
Like numerous people have already said, she had bad luck considering the slams.
AO: comes up against Na Li in the best form of her life
RG: injured the entire clay season, no decent match practice or confidence
Wimbly: comes up against Petra Kvitova in the best form of her life
USO: suffered a concussion in the gym

Various stuff ruined her momentum going into the slams, particularly last year.

It doesn't matter what the reasons were. Based on those performances Azarenka shouldn't be in the top 5. In the past a player with that slam record would never make it to top 5, no matter how many other tournaments she hogged. Does Azarenka have top 5 potential? Yes, but she should not get that ranking based on this last year. She should have had to wait longer.

By the way, your excuses are very sad. No self respecting top 5 player would use the likes of Kvitova and Na Li as an excuse. It doesn't matter what form Kvitova and Li were in, in all of those tournaments, they were eventually beaten by REAL top players. It only makes Azarenka look like a pretender.

Apoleb
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:27 PM
lol @ Kimtard lecturing everyone why the tour is bad. Maybe it is the way it is because GS champions only play part time and take a few months vacation every year to play with the husband and the babies.

Vikapower
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:30 PM
What more could be asked? How about making at least a slam QF in her last 4 slams! :lol: If she can't even make the last 8 in any of the last 4 slams despite all the depleted fields, it is sad that she is ranked top 5.

Damn. At least hate with sense or stop polluting the board with stupid stuff. NoOb. :hug:

because chak isn't number 1, so people don't expect her to have been winning slams. most people who follow tennis expect the number 1 to be winning slams, number 2 to be winning slams/making finals and the top 5 to be making semi's.

Your double standards just doesn't go with me and please confirm me you depreciate Sam and Fransc as equally - both hadn't had a 1/2 or a F in a major the last months... otherwise you're just a desperate lonely soul trying to derail Vika's achievements... only my pity can save you from there.

[...] we were comparing chak and vika as top 5 players. if you want to compare caro to anyone it has to be other #1 plyers and all but safina and jj are slam champions [What !!? :spit:] thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caro and safina made 3 finals. right now caro is one of the worst numbers ever with jj. whether you like it or not caro will as the number 1 player be judged on slams won, as it is what people expect of a number 1 player.

i don't think that is hard to understand.

I've never denied that... and it doesn't change the fact that you just can't use the "Chak slam" against Vika and since Caro still yet hasn't won a slam of her own you are then constrained to use what is in the present and from there Caro is performing in great manner streak-wise and better than Chak in her time... double-standards.

AcesHigh
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:37 PM
Either way, I think this thread is premature. She'll most likely make a slam QF at one or two of the slams left and maybe even a SF if she can find a way to improve. I just don't see her as one of the 4 best players in a slam though.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:41 PM
lol @ Kimtard lecturing everyone why the tour is bad. Maybe it is the way it is because GS champions only play part time and take a few months vacation every year to play with the husband and the babies.

Sorry, Kim has paid her dues to the WTA. She played a lot when she was younger and supported the tour fully. When she came back, she did not hide the fact that she was only going to play selectively around her family life schedule. It's not her fault that the rest of the tour is so bad that they can't even challenge a part time mom. :tape:

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:42 PM
Don't try to make this seem like an arbitrary thing. This is a very rare occurrence. It makes the WTA look bad because the top ranked players are not competitive in slams. SF-less top 5 is the new Slamless number 1. Oh wait, we have one of those too! :lol:

The answer to your question is that if someone is top 5 without a slam semifinal, we should point it out and lament at the state of the WTA.

This just in:

They play more than four tournaments a year.

Pegging someone's ranking to their performance at one out of four tournaments out of the year is far more arbitrary, statistically speaking, than tracking their performance over some 15-25 tournaments a year.

Your argument makes no sense at all.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:47 PM
This just in:

They play more than four tournaments a year.

Pegging someone's ranking to their performance at one out of four tournaments out of the year is far more arbitrary, statistically speaking, than tracking their performance over some 15-25 tournaments a year.

LOL you are too transparent! :lol: Again trying to minimize the importance of slams (must be your Dementieva fan showing). Stop pretending like all the tournaments are equal. It's not just any four tournaments, it's THE four tournaments that define all of tennis. Winning 5 matches at a slam is obviously much harder than winning Miami or Moscow or whatever. It must be, because Azarenka's never done it. :tape:

AcesHigh
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:51 PM
This just in:

They play more than four tournaments a year.

Pegging someone's ranking to their performance at one out of four tournaments out of the year is far more arbitrary, statistically speaking, than tracking their performance over some 15-25 tournaments a year.

Your argument makes no sense at all.

Just shake your head and move on. Otherwise you're headed towards a dead end.

Flabbergaster
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Mehh. If she is there. She deserves it!

Good luck girl :kiss:

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Believe it or not, who I am a fan of does not change they way statistics work.

doomsday
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:57 PM
edit

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:57 PM
Believe it or not, who I am a fan of does not change they way statistics work.

Believe it or not, you have a poor understanding of statistics if you think treat all tournaments as equal.

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:58 PM
lol @ Kimtard lecturing everyone why the tour is bad. Maybe it is the way it is because GS champions only play part time and take a few months vacation every year to play with the husband and the babies.


Yeah, especially considering that Kim was one of the first ones to become #1 without winning a Slam. :tape:

doomsday
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:00 PM
I don't understand why some people bash her, do I need to remind you that we have a N1 who hasn't reached a GS final since her first in 2009. She reaches coples of semis but other than that she was destroyed left and right by Na Li, Zvonareva and Kvitova.
Let's get rid of her N1 and then maybe we can attack players in the top 5:)

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:03 PM
Yeah, especially considering that Kim was one of the first ones to become #1 without winning a Slam. :tape:

I've got to say. Sniping with petty comments and piggybacking on other people's remarks, never making an argument face to face is very cowardly. Grow up.

Batiguza
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Why people feel the need to bash other players only to relieve their own frustation?

If your favorite player is not achiving what you expect her to do, it's not other players' fault. If your favorite player cannot be as sucessful as Vika is being at the moment, so go criticize your favorite, not Vika. :wavey:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:07 PM
I don't understand why some people bash her, do I need to remind you that we have a N1 who hasn't reached a GS final since her first in 2009. She reaches coples of semis but other than that she was destroyed left and right by Na Li, Zvonareva and Kvitova.
Let's get rid of her N1 and then maybe we can attack players in the top 5:)


How about we also get rid of the other Top Ten players who can't make it to the 2nd week of any Slams in teh last year, e.g. like Sharapova?

goldenlox
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:10 PM
Vika hasnt stopped growing yet. So dont sell her short.

New world No. 5 Victoria Azarenka (http://www.tennis.com/players/player_info.aspx?player_name=Victoria+Azarenka) tells Eurosport that she is still growing even though she’s already 21. "A lot has changed," she said. "It’s tough though because my body is still growing. Girls are supposed to stop growing at 20. But I found out last year that I could still grow up to another five centimeters – I wouldn’t mind that, as it would definitely help my serve!"—Matthew Cronin

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:13 PM
How about we also get rid of the other Top Ten players who can't make it to the 2nd week of any Slams in teh last year, e.g. like Sharapova?

Sharapova made the second week of half of the slams last year. :lol:

miffedmax
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:14 PM
Believe it or not, you have a poor understanding of statistics if you think treat all tournaments as equal.

Where did I say that?

So far, your arguments are to respond with irrelevant facts about my being a Dementieva fan, and then to claim I said things I never said. I know how the rankings systems work. If you're going to claim that you do, too, then deal with the fact that Vika's performance at the majors is factored into her rankings. You can't have it both ways.

Vikapower
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:17 PM
Yeah, especially considering that Kim was one of the first ones to become #1 without winning a Slam. :tape:

I must take you on this one... I just realized that his/her Damamerness was a Kimmie fan... :rolls: Damn. :rolls:


Vika is up-rising again so it's convenient to wait and see what she can pull off in the sequence Rome-Madrid-RG-Wim... she's a late bloomer in majors but once she gets past the 1/4 IMO with the experience she has already gained in big events and with her style of play she can be that type who wins a major on first attempt...

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:18 PM
Sharapova made the second week of half of the slams last year. :lol:


Obviously I meant: 2nd week = at least QF :wavey:

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:22 PM
Where did I say that?

So far, your arguments are to respond with irrelevant facts about my being a Dementieva fan, and then to claim I said things I never said. I know how the rankings systems work. If you're going to claim that you do, too, then deal with the fact that Vika's performance at the majors is factored into her rankings. You can't have it both ways.

LOL, sorry about the Dementieva comment. I just threw it in without thinking but it obviously touched a nerve. I'm not disagreeing with Azarenka's points total. How can anyone disagree with that? I'm just highlighting how sad the ranking system and the rest of the WTA tour looks right now that a player with Azarenka's slam record is now in the top 5.

DecoTurf
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:22 PM
Very witty.

Witty, hahahaha good one :bounce:

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:23 PM
Obviously I meant: 2nd week = at least QF :wavey:

Obviously you invented your own definition. :lol: What's next, redefining semifinal to mean R16? Then Azarenka will have many semifinals on her record! :cheer:

Miracle Worker
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:24 PM
It will be better for all of us, if we have only one thread "N.1/TOP3/TOP5 without Slam/SF/QF. It will be easier...

And in all threads like this, we discuss about Kim, Vera, Caroline, Vika and others...

doomsday
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:51 PM
Obviously you invented your own definition. :lol: What's next, redefining semifinal to mean R16? Then Azarenka will have many semifinals on her record! :cheer:

Or redefining Premier Events to Majors? Then Wozniacki will have many majors sorry but it deosn't work that way Matthew, Sharapova reached the 2nd week at Wimbledon and US and even OZ this year, maybe this is pathetic for her standards but she was supposed to lose against players ranked higher, Henin wasn't( but she is better on clay) Serena and Woz:shrug:

VeeJJ
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:53 PM
Sharapova made the second week of half of the slams last year. :lol:

Obviously you invented your own definition. :lol: What's next, redefining semifinal to mean R16? Then Azarenka will have many semifinals on her record! :cheer:

4R are played at the end of the first week of a slam and BEFORE the second week. How do you not know this?

Batiguza
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:00 PM
LOL, sorry about the Dementieva comment. I just threw it in without thinking but it obviously touched a nerve. I'm not disagreeing with Azarenka's points total. How can anyone disagree with that? I'm just highlighting how sad the ranking system and the rest of the WTA tour looks right now that a player with Azarenka's slam record is now in the top 5.

At least the players show some commitment by playing a lot of tournaments, something that your Kimmy doesn't show at all. If they are where they are, it's because they play tournaments, win points and don't make up excuses to not play here and there. :oh:

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:05 PM
4R are played at the end of the first week of a slam and BEFORE the second week. How do you not know this?

Reaching the fourth round means reaching the second week. How do YOU not know this? :help: :lol:


Clijsters defeats Cornet to reach second week of Oz
AP - Saturday, January 22, 2011
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=10000&zoneid=25


Soderling slips quietly into the fourth round

Saturday, 22 January, 2011
By Darren Saligari


Swede Robin Soderling's stealthy progress to the second week continued as he bumped journeyman Jan Hernych aside to make a date with the fourth round on Saturday.
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2011-01-22/201101221295669503912.html

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:06 PM
At least the players show some commitment by playing a lot of tournaments, something that your Kimmy doesn't show at all. If they are where they are, it's because they play tournaments, win points and don't make up excuses to not play here and there. :oh:

So you're saying they are really committed but just not that good? How does that make the WTA look? :tape:

doomsday
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:13 PM
Reaching the fourth round means reaching the second week. How do YOU not know this? :help: :lol:

He is a JJ fan, forgive him.

jimmy_the_greek
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:14 PM
Vika has made the semis of a grand slam. 2009 Roland Garros against Safina.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:17 PM
Vika has made the semis of a grand slam. 2009 Roland Garros against Safina.

That was a QF. Vika fans, please check your facts before spouting off.

DecoTurf
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:20 PM
He is a JJ fan, forgive him.

:lol::worship:

saul1333
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:21 PM
I guess this was Vika's plan :)

Batiguza
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:26 PM
So you're saying they are really committed but just not that good? How does that make the WTA look? :tape:

I didn't say that, but if you think so.... It's still better to have players who take their carrers seriously than someone who doesn't give a shit for the tour and just wants to play big tournaments. :wavey:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:30 PM
Reaching the fourth round means reaching the second week. How do YOU not know this? :help: :lol:


Hey guys, what I meant was that Sharapova hasn't reached a Slam QUARTERfinal in over a year. The 4th round of a Slam is sometimes played on a Sunday, sometimes on Monday. Let's not fight about this :hug:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:31 PM
I didn't say that, but if you think so.... It's still better to have players who take their carrers seriously than someone who doesn't give a shit for the tour and just wants to play big tournaments. :wavey:


This.

Sharapovian
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:18 AM
In my opinion she deserves it. She's had good results recently.

There's probably been a few other players who reached the top 5 without a slam SF :shrug:

Randy H
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:31 AM
Reaching #5 without a slam SF isn't bad...5th in the world, means you are seeded to lose in the QF's of the slams.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:32 AM
Reaching #5 without a slam SF isn't bad...5th in the world, means you are seeded to lose in the QF's of the slams.

She hasn't even reached a QF in a year. :tape:

DaMamaJama87
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:35 AM
I didn't say that, but if you think so.... It's still better to have players who take their carrers seriously than someone who doesn't give a shit for the tour and just wants to play big tournaments. :wavey:

I think it's better to have talented players who can put on great performances like Kim, Serena and Venus but don't play a lot than to have players who show up every week but can't deliver on court.

Batiguza
Apr 14th, 2011, 01:09 AM
I think it's better to have talented players who can put on great performances like Kim, Serena and Venus but don't play a lot than to have players who show up every week but can't deliver on court.

Come on, it's not like they're going to retire tomorrow without reaching a SF or winning a GS. They are still young. They can still achieve a lot in their careers. I think you are a little bitter just because your favorite players are getting old and will retire soon... :rolleyes:

zhengjieforever
Apr 14th, 2011, 02:29 AM
Reaching #5 without a slam SF isn't bad...5th in the world, means you are seeded to lose in the QF's of the slams.

so basically she loses when she's supposed to :rolleyes: considering how often that draws fall apart and seeds find themselves losing in the first round (schiavone stosur 2010 wimbledon, right after both making FO final) or just failing to do what they're supposed to do (woz still no slam), a player of vika's caliber should have been able to capitalize even just once on the breakdowns of other players. :p

if pironkova, who has never even broken into the top 30, can have one good run in her, shouldn't vika have that in her too (she probably will, but that's later talk)? i think most people expect a top 5 player to have a GS semifinal basically.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 14th, 2011, 03:05 AM
Come on, it's not like they're going to retire tomorrow without reaching a SF or winning a GS. They are still young. They can still achieve a lot in their careers. I think you are a little bitter just because your favorite players are getting old and will retire soon... :rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with what these players are going to achieve in the future. Azarenka could win the French Open for all I care. It's just that they are overranked based on their achievements in the past year. Kim had to make a slam final and had titles at Leipzig, Stanford and finals at Filderstadt, Indian Wells and s' Hertogenbosch to enter the top 5. Serena had to win a slam and the YEC, Indian Wells, Paris and LA and a Miami final to make the top 5. Azarenka showed up to the top 5 just on the basis of Marbella, Miami, Stanford, Moscow and an Easbourne final. :tape:

Berlin_Calling
Apr 14th, 2011, 03:28 AM
This has nothing to do with what these players are going to achieve in the future. Azarenka could win the French Open for all I care. It's just that they are overranked based on their achievements in the past year. Kim had to make a slam final and had titles at Leipzig, Stanford and finals at Filderstadt, Indian Wells and s' Hertogenbosch to enter the top 5. Serena had to win a slam and the YEC, Indian Wells, Paris and LA and a Miami final to make the top 5. Azarenka showed up to the top 5 just on the basis of Marbella, Miami, Stanford, Moscow and an Easbourne final. :tape:

So who are you saying deserves a top 5 ranking above Vika? Fran or Sam? Since RG last year, neither Schiavone nor Stosur, albiet reaching two GS and 1 GS quarterfinal(s) respectively, have made a tour final. Vika may not have made any GS quarterfinals, but she has won four titles, including Miami. Judging by these statistics, I would say that Vika is more deserving of her top 5 ranking than these other two, especially taking into consideration the relative weakness of the current top 10.

Having said that, I do think that Vika went through a minislump at times within the last year, and even I began to doubt her ability to reach the top echelon after her subpar start to 2011. But, since then, she has hired a new trainer to work on her fitness and debuted her new, calmer demeanor at Miami. Vika, within the last month, looks to me has matured, and I am positive that she will make great runs at the remaining slams this year, thus justifying her new top 5 ranking. We can't look to the past because Vika will only get better.

And since when is making one GS semifinal a more determinate factor of a top 5 ranking than four titles? Players like Nathalie Dechy, Paola Suarez and even Clarisa Fernandez (:tape:) have made slam semis in the past decade (not to mention Sexy Lexy...). Does this show you that GS semifinal flukes happen relatively often? Yes. Does this mean that these players deserved a top 5 ranking more than Vika? Definitely NOT.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 14th, 2011, 03:41 AM
So who are you saying deserves a top 5 ranking above Vika? Fran or Sam? Since RG last year, neither Schiavone nor Stosur, albiet reaching two GS and 1 GS quarterfinal(s) respectively, have made a tour final. Vika may not have made any GS quarterfinals, but she has won four titles, including Miami. Judging by these statistics, I would say that Vika is more deserving of her top 5 ranking than these other two, especially taking into consideration the relative weakness of the current top 10.


That just proves how the WTA is in shambles. :lol:


Having said that, I do think that Vika went through a minislump at times within the last year, and even I began to doubt her ability to reach the top echelon after her subpar start to 2011. But, since then, she has hired a new trainer to work on her fitness and debuted her new, calmer demeanor at Miami. Vika, within the last month, looks to me has matured, and I am positive that she will make great runs at the remaining slams this year, thus justifying her new top 5 ranking. We can't look to the past because Vika will only get better.

Rankings are based on past results not future predictions. Like I said, Azarenka may as well win the French Open in a few months, but that won't justify her ranking NOW.


And since when is making one GS semifinal a more determinate factor of a top 5 ranking than four titles? Players like Nathalie Dechy, Paola Suarez and even Clarisa Fernandez (:tape:) have made slam semis in the past decade (not to mention Sexy Lexy...). Does this show you that GS semifinal flukes happen relatively often? Yes. Does this mean that these players deserved a top 5 ranking more than Vika? Definitely NOT.

If making a slam semifinal is so easy to fluke, how come Azarenka has never been able to do it in all her years of playing? You're saying she hasn't been good enough AND she hasn't been lucky enough? :lol: Even Clarisa Fernandez has a slam semi-final. :tape:

Berlin_Calling
Apr 14th, 2011, 03:55 AM
That just proves how the WTA is in shambles. :lol:


Rankings are based on past results not future predictions. Like I said, Azarenka may as well win the French Open in a few months, but that won't justify her ranking NOW.



If making a slam semifinal is so easy to fluke, how come Azarenka has never been able to do it in all her years of playing? You're saying she hasn't been good enough AND she hasn't been lucky enough? :lol: Even Clarisa Fernandez has a slam semi-final. :tape:


I agree that the WTA is in shambles, but nevertheless, Vika has justified her ranking as she has beaten #2 and #3 and won back to back titles within the three weaks. That shows for A LOT more than any player currently ranked below her's (or Schiavone's) achievements.

And I am not going to sit here and make excuses for Vika not making a GS semi yet. I admit that I expected her to make at least one or two since 2009, but it just hasn't happened yet. With poor play (and to be honest, some bad luck with injuries/concussion), it has taken her longer than expected to get to this point physically and mentally. But I have no doubt that if she had had a lucky draw, a la Chak, Fernandez, etc etc. at a GS, she definitely would've taken advantage of it. Doesn't matter though, because Vika's time will inevitably come soon.

Batiguza
Apr 14th, 2011, 04:34 AM
This has nothing to do with what these players are going to achieve in the future. Azarenka could win the French Open for all I care. It's just that they are overranked based on their achievements in the past year. Kim had to make a slam final and had titles at Leipzig, Stanford and finals at Filderstadt, Indian Wells and s' Hertogenbosch to enter the top 5. Serena had to win a slam and the YEC, Indian Wells, Paris and LA and a Miami final to make the top 5. Azarenka showed up to the top 5 just on the basis of Marbella, Miami, Stanford, Moscow and an Easbourne final. :tape:

Ok, I have a tip for you: Why don't you write a letter to WTA asking for a change in their ranking system? I bet they would love it. :rolleyes:

And if you think Vika doesn't deserve to be #5 just because she didn't make a Slam SF yet, I think when Kim first reached #1 without winning a Slam, you probably thought that she didn't deserve it too, right? Because as you think the #5 has to make a Slam SF before reaching #5, you also should think that someone has to win a Slam before reaching #1. Otherwise, she doesn't deserve to be #1 at all.

Loungy
Apr 14th, 2011, 04:44 AM
Sorry, Kim has paid her dues to the WTA. She played a lot when she was younger and supported the tour fully. When she came back, she did not hide the fact that she was only going to play selectively around her family life schedule. It's not her fault that the rest of the tour is so bad that they can't even challenge a part time mom. :tape:
She was so upfront about it, from the get-go. I understand people who don't like what she's doing, but it's not like she set out to deceive anyone.

The 2nd Law
Apr 14th, 2011, 08:07 AM
Reaching #5 without a slam SF isn't bad...5th in the world, means you are seeded to lose in the QF's of the slams.

Bingo

DecoTurf
Apr 14th, 2011, 08:30 AM
c'mon guys give vika time she was not that fortunate with the seeding she was always either 9th or 8th seed, if she goes deep in rome and madrid we could see her as 4th seed, i hope

bandabou
Apr 14th, 2011, 09:10 AM
:lol: Oh the generation-next..what a joke! :facepalm:

debby
Apr 14th, 2011, 09:23 AM
I think it's better to have talented players who can put on great performances like Kim, Serena and Venus but don't play a lot than to have players who show up every week but can't deliver on court.

SHut the fuck up, you are annoying, everyone can't stand reading you, and you don't even realize that.

For god's sake, Azarenka is 21 !!!!!!!!!!

Your beloved Madusah was #1 when Justine won TWO slams and reached a lot of other finals....
Azarenka has been unlucky with her health and draws, but she has rights to mature later than girls like Sharapova....

And now she is #2 with a lot of Slams :lmao: Hilarious. Bitch Karma ? :lmao: No but see, that's because she CHOSE not to play as much tournaments as Vika, Caro do in order to IMPROVE their palmares, their game.

How on earth can you blame them for playing more than Madusah and (in case of Caro) being better ranked ?

Lapaco
Apr 14th, 2011, 09:52 AM
the standard is lowering. one only needs around 3000 pts to be in top 10 now, which equals 1500 pts with the old ranking system. that's meagre. I remember last year a player needed to have at least 3700 pts to enter top 10 which was a tad more respectable. The same obviously applies for top 5 and so forth.

QuietPlease
Apr 14th, 2011, 10:39 AM
The ascent of Azarenka to top 5 this week adds another blunder to the already defiled WTA ranking. :o

Mandatory W = 1000 points (Miami)
Premier5 W = 900 points
Slam SF = 900 points

Seems alright to me.
If anything a Miami win should mean even more compared to a Slam SF.

Actually it does on the ATP tour. A Masters title (like Miami) is also 1000 points, but a Slam SF is just 720 points :shrug:
A Slam F is just 1200 on the ATP, not much more than a Masters title :eek:

The ATP does have more of a 'winner takes it all attitude' in their ranking system (slam or non-slam).
Example: A Masters QF is only 180 points compared to 250 points for a WTA Mandatory QF (even 225 for Premier5 QF)

miffedmax
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:20 PM
You're arguing with innumerates.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:24 PM
You're arguing with innumerates.

The last resort. If you can't beat them with logic, make fun of them with a big word. The points allocation is fine. It's the tour that's broken.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:38 PM
SHut the fuck up, you are annoying, everyone can't stand reading you, and you don't even realize that.

For god's sake, Azarenka is 21 !!!!!!!!!!


LOL. I always knew you were very mature :tape:



Your beloved Madusah was #1 when Justine won TWO slams and reached a lot of other finals....
Azarenka has been unlucky with her health and draws, but she has rights to mature later than girls like Sharapova....

LOL again. Reread my posts before making things up. I never criticized Azarenka for not maturing early enough. What kind of dumb person would even think of such a thing? :tape:



And now she is #2 with a lot of Slams :lmao: Hilarious. Bitch Karma ? :lmao: No but see, that's because she CHOSE not to play as much tournaments as Vika, Caro do in order to IMPROVE their palmares, their game.

How on earth can you blame them for playing more than Madusah and (in case of Caro) being better ranked ?

LOL x3. I'm sorry you hate Kim so much but you seem to be obsessed with her. Am I sad that she's winning slams left and right and still in the race for the number 1 ranking even despite playing part time? No. :lol: Did I blame the others for playing too much? No. Do you just make things up when you have no rational arguments? Yes.

Matt01
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:46 PM
A Slam F is just 1200 on the ATP, not much more than a Masters title :eek:


Which is a bit ridiculous since it is much more difficult to reach a Slam final than to win a Masters title.

miffedmax
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:52 PM
The last resort. If you can't beat them with logic, make fun of them with a big word. The points allocation is fine. It's the tour that's broken.

You're the one whose logic does not hold up. In one breath, you claim that Azza doesn't deserve to be Number 5, then you say the points system is fine. Then you say the WTA is a shambles, which would logically mean that we'd have an inferior No. 5, yet you find yourself shocked that we have a player you deem an unworthy No. 5. And on a broken tour, majors somehow retain their value.

The internal contradictions are breathtaking. Of course, the main problem is that you don't actually have an argument, you simply respond to individual posters on an ad hoc basis with what you imagine are clever responses.

BartoLiNa
Apr 14th, 2011, 01:16 PM
In fairness to Azarenka, whenever she's playing great in a Grand Slam she seems to run into Serena :lol:

Lucemferre
Apr 14th, 2011, 01:25 PM
Which is a bit ridiculous since it is much more difficult to reach a Slam final than to win a Masters title.

No it isn't. Not on the men's tour.There are extremely tough top players you must actually beat to win a masters. They almost always reach latter rounds and beating two of them back to back is worth every point.Major final can be easier depending on the draw and upsets. Like nadal's cakewalk to the Us Open final last year:tape:

QuietPlease
Apr 14th, 2011, 02:36 PM
Which is a bit ridiculous since it is much more difficult to reach a Slam final than to win a Masters title.

Of the last 56 Masters (since the beginning of 2005) 44 have been won by either Nadal (18), Federer (13), Djokovic (7) & Murray (6)
The same 4 that made most of the GS finals too. Winning a Masters isn't easy at all.

(The other 12 Masters won by Davydenko x 3, Roddick x 2, Nalbandian x 2, Söderling, Ljubicic, Tsonga, Robredo and Berdych - most Slam Finalists and all top 10 players)

ReboundAce
Apr 14th, 2011, 02:52 PM
In fairness to Azarenka, whenever she's playing great in a Grand Slam she seems to run into Serena :lol:

She can have her revenge now, wheterh it is grass or slay or hard, she will beat notfullyrecoveredRena

thegreendestiny
May 5th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Yeah, Sam Smith thinks Vika's better than Semipova. :lol:

Halepsova
May 5th, 2011, 01:44 PM
She won 2 Miamis so that counts as a slam.

Welcome1
May 5th, 2011, 01:44 PM
Yeah, Sam Smith thinks Vika's better than Semipova. :lol:

Who cares about Sharapova nowadays? She's done ;)

thegreendestiny
May 5th, 2011, 01:47 PM
She won 2 Miamis so that counts as a slam.

So, we might as well say then that Wozniacki winning 5 straight Tier I's counts as a slam. :confused:

AndreConrad
May 5th, 2011, 02:04 PM
So, we might as well say then that Wozniacki winning 5 straight Tier I's counts as a slam. :confused:
It doesn't but it is pretty impressive, however. I don't see a problem with Victoria's ranking either.

Frontin
May 5th, 2011, 03:25 PM
Umm Azarenka is probably playing the best outta the Top 10 atm and I wouldn't call myself a fan.

She's 21. Her grand slam SF, F, W will come :)

Halepsova
May 5th, 2011, 03:41 PM
I think she's the top favourite for RG unless she injures herself again. :o

miffedmax
May 5th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Oh noes! It just dawned on me that Wickmayer's made a slam semi without ever reaching the Top 5!

Vikapower
May 5th, 2011, 03:46 PM
Yeah, Sam Smith thinks Vika's better than Semipova. :lol:

Vika is the best player inside and outside the top 5 right now... Let RG slowly come you shouldn't be laughing to long.

Vikapower
May 5th, 2011, 03:49 PM
Oh noes! It just dawned on me that Wickmayer's made a slam semi without ever reaching the Top 5!

You're just too good. :rolls: Wickmayer >>> Vika. :oh:

duhcity
May 5th, 2011, 04:16 PM
You're just too good. :rolls: Wickmayer >>> Vika. :oh:

Pironkova? :lol:

Dominika23
May 5th, 2011, 04:21 PM
basic the whole top ten dont have grand slam beside Schiavone,Clijsters,Sharapova, & Serena Williams

miffedmax
May 5th, 2011, 04:27 PM
Her too!

Coconut91
May 5th, 2011, 04:30 PM
You're just too good. :rolls: Wickmayer >>> Vika. :oh:

:lol: This kind of logic is complete fail. And I even like Wickmayer, but seriously... :rolleyes:

miffedmax
May 5th, 2011, 04:34 PM
That's the point. The logic of the original thread is a complete fail, too.

You can't claim that the rankings prove the tour is crap, then turn around and say that doing well at a particular tournament--against the same crappy players--suddenly gives you or the tour legitimacy.

A weaker tour with weaker ranked players means weaker fields at slams. If Vika beats Woz or if Woz beats Vika in a slam final, how does that suddenly make them "legitimate" top-ranked players? Even Clijsters last couple of slams are tainted by weak fields. Slams may be a gold standard of sorts, but the value of gold fluctuates all the time.

Given the state of the WTA, it's hard to say whether the rankings or the slams are more accurate indicators of the state of the game, once you get beyond Serena and Kim.

Vikapower
May 5th, 2011, 05:12 PM
:lol: This kind of logic is complete fail. And I even like Wickmayer, but seriously... :rolleyes:

Pironkova? :lol:

According to this thread all these players >>> Vika for not having made a GS semi... We have to respect it. ;)

Indeed this is a pure scandal the WTA instances should deduct from her ranking points to get her out of the top 5 which is the only obvious solution since Terminarenka can't stop herself from winning and crushing her opps. and making it far in the different events she takes part in.

miffedmax
May 5th, 2011, 05:51 PM
I'm telling you, it's those godawful Red Vines that hold her back. She needs to switch to Twizzlers.

thegreendestiny
May 14th, 2011, 10:30 AM
After her latest injury, I think Azarenka will have to wait 'til Wimbledon for her maiden slam SF. :tape:

thegreendestiny
May 14th, 2011, 10:38 AM
By this logic, Pironkova would be more deserving of a Top 5 spot than Azarenka :shrug:

In Philosophy, this is what they call false inference, a common fallacy of the the feeble-minded. :wavey:

KBlade
May 14th, 2011, 10:39 AM
In Philosophy, this is what they call false inference, a common fallacy of the the feeble-minded. :wavey:

Thought I'd remove this when I realised the point had already been raised. Evidently I was not fast enough :lol:

Caralenko
May 14th, 2011, 10:52 AM
World #4.
RG R1, USO R2, Wimbledon R3, AO R4.

-Sonic-
May 14th, 2011, 11:53 AM
If you matched up Azarenka tomorrow (assuming her elbow wasn't screwed, and assuming no-one else was too injured to play) with each of the other 9 in the top 10, I'd pick her to win 6, perhaps 7 of them.... so her ranking seems fine to me.

At worst its like 1 place wrong.

Steven.
May 14th, 2011, 12:04 PM
World #4.
RG R1, USO R2, Wimbledon R3, AO R4.

To be fair she was injured throughout the whole clay season and pretty much just showed up to fulfill her top 10 requirements. Coming into Wimbledon she didn't exactly have much match practice and she also had a concussion at the US Open.

It's not that her tennis ability causes her to lose so early in slams for the past year, but her inability to keep herself safe and healthy.

Lord Choc Ice
May 14th, 2011, 12:05 PM
World #4.
RG R1, USO R2, Wimbledon R3, AO R4.

That's pretty shockingly bad.

thegreendestiny
May 14th, 2011, 12:14 PM
We have to update the title. She is now No. 4! :eek:

Break My Rapture
May 14th, 2011, 12:56 PM
World #4.
RG R1, USO R2, Wimbledon R3, AO R4.

:cheer:

Your faves could NEVA.

thegreendestiny
Jun 1st, 2011, 06:10 AM
This is it! I hope Na will maintain the order! :bounce:

LUVMIRZA
Jun 1st, 2011, 08:05 AM
This is it! I hope Na will maintain the order! :bounce:

ur thread title and the statement here are clearly contradicting....
u(b*tc*) are a clear hater:bounce:

bbjpa
Jun 1st, 2011, 09:09 AM
Not for long :cheer:

thegreendestiny
Jun 1st, 2011, 01:49 PM
Li Na safely guards the SF berth and keeps this thread alive. :worship:

Azarenka will probably reach her first SF by next year at the earliest and will probably be No.3 before the USO. :oh:

Temperenka
Jun 1st, 2011, 01:56 PM
I will gladly take Vika's career (with 2 Miami titles) over the careers of plenty of players who have made GS SFs.

Domi, Wickmayer, Zheng? Yeah. Proves anyone can make a SF on a fluke run and that comparing the # of SFs really doesn't matter.

Vika will make it. Everything in her career has taken time. ;)

Kim's_fan_4ever
Jun 1st, 2011, 01:56 PM
:spit:

atennisfanid
Jun 1st, 2011, 02:26 PM
I'm a novice at tennis history, but this must be the worst/weakest era ever for women tennis.
#1 who never won a slam?
#4 who has never been in a GS SF?
a mother who is holder of the last two Slams?

KBdoubleu
Jun 1st, 2011, 02:42 PM
I will gladly take Vika's career (with 2 Miami titles) over the careers of plenty of players who have made GS SFs.

Domi, Wickmayer, Zheng? Yeah. Proves anyone can make a SF on a fluke run and that comparing the # of SFs really doesn't matter.

Vika will make it. Everything in her career has taken time. ;)

True. She was 0-4 in her first four tour finals. She has since gone 6-3 in finals since then. She is now 0-4 in slam quarters, but that doesn't mean she won't get over that hump. She has also had very difficult quarterfinal opponents. Serena (twice), Safina (playing her best tennis of her life at the time), and Na Li (who Navratilova said played the 'match of her life').

DecoTurf
Jun 2nd, 2011, 09:41 PM
Well as long as we have N.1 with none GS title, why not N.4 with 4 QF ? :p

CloudAtlas
Jun 2nd, 2011, 09:47 PM
Well if multi-Grand Slam finalists these days have 5 match losing streaks on their rankings and also get to only 3 semi-finals in an entire year who cares if someone is #4 without a Slam semi?

dragonflies
Jun 2nd, 2011, 09:56 PM
The trend continues, but this thread is for sure too hard on Vika.


She has had bad draws in Grand slams. If this slam she is Maria spot or anywhere in the top half, then she would definitely make the semi. QFs and SMs finishes are not that different to each other, mostly depends on lucks ( Only winning championship, or maybe F is considering different to QFs, depends on the draws.

Temperenka
Jun 3rd, 2011, 12:41 AM
Many of these tournaments that she has made the QF in, she came up against the top player left in the draw.

French Open 2009: Came up against the hottest clay court player of the season and #1 seed Dinara Safina who SHOULD have won the tournament.
Others still in the draw: Cibulkova, an exhausted Sharapova, Cirstea, Stosur, shaky Serena, and Kuznetsova. Vika could have beaten at least 4 of them.

Wimbledon 2009: Came up against eventual champion Serena. Enough said.
Others still in the draw: fragile Dinara, Lisicki, Venus, Radwanska, Schiavone, Dementieva. Probably could have beaten all of them but Venus and Elena.

Australian Open 2010: Came up against eventual champion Serena. Had her on the ropes up a set and a break at 4-1.
Others still in the draw: Na, Venus, Justine, Petrova,Zheng, Kirilenko. Probably could have beaten at least 3, maybe more considering how well she started against Serena.

French Open 2011: Came up against eventual finalist (maybe champion) Na Li.
Others still in the draw: Kuznetsova, Bartoli, Pavlyuchenkova, Schiavone, Sharapova, Petkovic. She could have potentially beaten them all.

So essentially, she got the toughest 4 quarterfinal opponents possible. In addition, she ran into eventual finalist Na Li in the 4th round of this year's Austalian Open and eventual semifinalist Kvitova in last year's Wimbledon in the third round.

Compare her luck to Caroline's:
US Open 2009: QF opponent: unseeded Melanie Oudin.
US Open 2010: QF opponent: unseeded Dominika Cibulkova.
Australian Open 2011: QF opponent: Francesca Schiavone who had just completed the longest match in women's grand slam history against Kuznetsova.

I hate to completely diagnose her inability thus far to make a SF as bad luck because she does need to step up in these matches, but it certainly would help to not always play the hottest person left in the draw as she is trying to make her first SF. :shrug:

CloudAtlas
Jun 3rd, 2011, 02:38 AM
Many of these tournaments that she has made the QF in, she came up against the top player left in the draw.

French Open 2009: Came up against the hottest clay court player of the season and #1 seed Dinara Safina who SHOULD have won the tournament.
Others still in the draw: Cibulkova, an exhausted Sharapova, Cirstea, Stosur, shaky Serena, and Kuznetsova. Vika could have beaten at least 4 of them.

Wimbledon 2009: Came up against eventual champion Serena. Enough said.
Others still in the draw: fragile Dinara, Lisicki, Venus, Radwanska, Schiavone, Dementieva. Probably could have beaten all of them but Venus and Elena.

Australian Open 2010: Came up against eventual champion Serena. Had her on the ropes up a set and a break at 4-1.
Others still in the draw: Na, Venus, Justine, Petrova,Zheng, Kirilenko. Probably could have beaten at least 3, maybe more considering how well she started against Serena.

French Open 2011: Came up against eventual finalist (maybe champion) Na Li.
Others still in the draw: Kuznetsova, Bartoli, Pavlyuchenkova, Schiavone, Sharapova, Petkovic. She could have potentially beaten them all.

So essentially, she got the toughest 4 quarterfinal opponents possible. In addition, she ran into eventual finalist Na Li in the 4th round of this year's Austalian Open and eventual semifinalist Kvitova in last year's Wimbledon in the third round.

Compare her luck to Caroline's:
US Open 2009: QF opponent: unseeded Melanie Oudin.
US Open 2010: QF opponent: unseeded Dominika Cibulkova.
Australian Open 2011: QF opponent: Francesca Schiavone who had just completed the longest match in women's grand slam history against Kuznetsova.

I hate to completely diagnose her inability thus far to make a SF as bad luck because she does need to step up in these matches, but it certainly would help to not always play the hottest person left in the draw as she is trying to make her first SF. :shrug:


I do understand your point and I think it's completely valid but I don't think it's fair to attempt to diminish Wozniacki's achievements as you have. Azarenka herself has also lost early in Slams where she could have gone further than the quarterfinals and her opponents would have been easier.

LUVMIRZA
Jun 3rd, 2011, 02:58 AM
I will gladly take Vika's career (with 2 Miami titles) over the careers of plenty of players who have made GS SFs.

Domi, Wickmayer, Zheng? Yeah. Proves anyone can make a SF on a fluke run and that comparing the # of SFs really doesn't matter.

Vika will make it. Everything in her career has taken time. ;)

:worship:

StoneRose
Jun 3rd, 2011, 03:03 AM
Vika is a very strong player and she will be very successful in the future i feel.

Ivanovic2008
Jun 3rd, 2011, 04:09 AM
The ascent of Azarenka to top 5 this week adds another blunder to the already defiled WTA ranking. :o


-----
Update:
She is now No.4 and the prospect of reaching RG SF is slim after her latest injury. If Vera falls in the rankings these coming months, she will be No. 3. :help:

WTA :worship:

Woz No.1 = No Slam in terrible era!!!!!

zhengjieforever
Jun 3rd, 2011, 05:10 AM
temperenka, no need to bring jie into it :rolleyes: she made 2 semifinals anyway, which is unlike domi and wickmayer. her 2008 run was absolutely legit. she took out so many seeds including the no. 1, and then had set point against the serena williams in the semifinals.

i agree that azarenka doesn't exactly have the best luck. still, why not look at it from li na's point of view? having to take out 3 title contenders just to make the finals? (azarenka, kvitova, and sharapova)

Temperenka
Jun 3rd, 2011, 05:16 AM
I do understand your point and I think it's completely valid but I don't think it's fair to attempt to diminish Wozniacki's achievements as you have. Azarenka herself has also lost early in Slams where she could have gone further than the quarterfinals and her opponents would have been easier.

Oh trust me, I'm not trying to diminish Caroline's acheivements. As you can see, I'm actually a pretty big fan of hers.

It was just to point out that comparing the number of slam SFs, QFs, etc. can be fairly arbitrary. I could have picked a number of players who have multiple slam semifinals.

I'm simply saying that Vika has the ability and the talent to make it deep into the slams, she just needs to clear that hurdle and so far those hurdles have been quite tall. ;)

goldenlox
Jun 3rd, 2011, 10:54 AM
I dont believe there's some magic to a major, and a player who wins 2 Miamis, doesnt have that slam magic.
But Vika, for whatever reasons, hasnt had that 1st slam semi yet.
Definately adds something to draw day, to see what her draw to the semis is.
She had a tough one in Paris with Li/Kvitova in her quarter

Smitten
Jun 3rd, 2011, 11:40 AM
i agree that azarenka doesn't exactly have the best luck. still, why not look at it from li na's point of view? having to take out 3 title contenders just to make the finals? (azarenka, kvitova, and sharapova)

Exactly. All this crying about how Azarenka is cursed and unfortunate about how she had to face Li in the QF is pointless. Azarenka had more than a generous draw to actually get to the QF.

You should be able to MAKE a way through a draw. If you need to set up scenarios for your favorite where they only way they can make a SF is if they play Oudin or a player comparable to Oudin, then they are just not good.

Azarenka had more than enough form coming into Roland Garros and there was no excuse for her not making the SF even with her "bad" draw other than she just doesn't measure up.

GoofyDuck
Jun 3rd, 2011, 12:13 PM
And it doesn't look like this will change anytime soon.

duhcity
Jun 4th, 2011, 02:02 AM
Lord. I realized I shouldn't have picked Vika to win.

The girl is not fit and doesn't have the physical ability to play her game for 7 matches nor focus herself to do so. Until she changes that, she'll be stuck.

Also, girl. Everytime you show up on the Tennis Channel it's either the Haagen Daaz commercial where you talk about Dulche de Leche or your bag check where you pull out pretzels, Doritos and other chips, and king size snickers. Maybe you should at least downgrade to regular sized snickers.

Boxuan
Jun 4th, 2011, 10:17 AM
Rankings don't lie. It's the WTA who tells how important a tournament is by giving certain amount of points. You can't just claim the 4 slams are the only events that matters or all events have the same importance.

In fact, in the current mess of WTA, nobody could achieve an universal recognization as world's No.1, but the ranking system has to pick one, that's the actual problem.

ReboundAce
Jun 4th, 2011, 11:10 AM
They should have made it more competitive like the ATP rankings sth like the winner takes it all, if a masters win is 1000 points the finalist gets 620, the semifinalist get 300, and NOT 450 like the WTA, so then we will see who is the best one.However Azarenka has done great this year, it doesn't matter after all, hope she climbs higher at the rankings, when Vera could why she wouldn't :shrug:

Hian
Jun 4th, 2011, 11:13 AM
http://images.smh.com.au/2011/06/01/2400487/ipad-art-wide-FROM_TIME_TO_TIME-360x0.jpg

thegreendestiny
Jun 4th, 2011, 11:38 AM
Vika is a very strong player and she will be very successful in the future i feel.

:haha:

Dominika23
Jun 6th, 2011, 02:58 AM
hopefully vika make a SF soon damn even Yanina Wickmayer made a slam SF

Lin Lin
Jun 6th, 2011, 03:01 AM
Vika:hug:

Steven.
Jun 6th, 2011, 03:47 AM
hopefully vika make a SF soon damn even Yanina Wickmayer made a slam SF

:facepalm:

Temperenka
Jun 6th, 2011, 05:52 AM
hopefully vika make a SF soon damn even Yanina Wickmayer made a slam SF

Well, the only seed Yanina beat in that run at the US Open was #16 seed, Virginie Razzano. Her quarterfinal opponent was Kateryna Bondarenko.

Not exactly a spectacular run. Caroline dismantled her in that semifinal.

Another example of why comparing the number of slam SFs is worthless. Let's instead compare quality wins, they seem to be a better indicator of ability and less an indicator of how successful one is at crawling through a dissolving draw. :shrug:

Vika has played in 4 slam QFs (3 times against the eventual champion) while Yanina has made it past the third round of a major only twice (once at that US Open in 2009 and once to the 4R at AO in 2010).

That's a more awful statistic than Vika not beating Serena x 2, Dinara, or Na in my opinion.

Maybe I should start a thread about how bad Nina has been at majors?

Claycourter
Jun 6th, 2011, 06:01 AM
Azarenka was something like 6-4 4-0 against Serena in AO. She's a choker, that's why she failed on the big stage. Until she fixes her fragile mind, she'll always be in a losing position.

bandabou
Jun 6th, 2011, 08:30 AM
Well, the only seed Yanina beat in that run at the US Open was #16 seed, Virginie Razzano. Her quarterfinal opponent was Kateryna Bondarenko.

Not exactly a spectacular run. Caroline dismantled her in that semifinal.

Another example of why comparing the number of slam SFs is worthless. Let's instead compare quality wins, they seem to be a better indicator of ability and less an indicator of how successful one is at crawling through a dissolving draw. :shrug:

Vika has played in 4 slam QFs (3 times against the eventual champion) while Yanina has made it past the third round of a major only twice (once at that US Open in 2009 and once to the 4R at AO in 2010).

That's a more awful statistic than Vika not beating Serena x 2, Dinara, or Na in my opinion.

Maybe I should start a thread about how bad Nina has been at majors?

Yanina isn't ranked in the top 4, is she?! :shrug:

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2011, 10:32 AM
No one under 23 holds a major. 10 years from now, no one under 33 holds a major?
I dont think so.
Young players dont prioritize majors. Sometimes they'll break thru, like Serena at 17, but then she didnt win again at a major for almost 3 years.

These young players dont base their world around majors. None of them do.
It comes naturally as a generation takes over.

eck
Jun 6th, 2011, 10:59 AM
No one under 23 holds a major. 10 years from now, no one under 33 holds a major?
I dont think so.
Young players dont prioritize majors. Sometimes they'll break thru, like Serena at 17, but then she didnt win again at a major for almost 3 years.

These young players dont base their world around majors. None of them do.
It comes naturally as a generation takes over.

:lol:

Adal
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:00 AM
Young players dont prioritize majors. Sometimes they'll break thru, like Serena at 17, but then she didnt win again at a major for almost 3 years.
That doesn't mean they don't prioritize slams, just means they aren't able to win them.

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:06 AM
They want to win every event they enter.
Because of all this talk about Wozniacki not having a major at 20, I was looking at other players who were #1's
Capriati won her 1st major years after her breaktrhru. It took Henin & Clijsters years~they have 11 now, & Kim still going.

If I was a huge Vika fan, I wouldnt worry about this.
2 Miamis is a very big accomplishment on its own, and she's still early in her career

Lord Choc Ice
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:08 AM
What's worse, being top 5 without a slam SF or being #1 without a slam final? :lol:

thegreendestiny
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:09 AM
Its funny how Azarenka fans keep using 2 Miami's to compensate her failure. :tape:

J4m3ka
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:11 AM
GOAT #1-4 :worship:

LUVMIRZA
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:17 AM
Young players winning Majors will not be happening as often as it happened in the 90s.

I think - It might be coz of the mental maturity level of the current young generation. People's mental strength is defined by - the environment they grow up, the way they are raised, the hardships they have to go through...etc.

In the 80s/90s, life style was not so advanced, house hold income was less, people actually had to struggle a lot and go through hardships from childhood. To become a tennis player, one had to spend a lotta money which added to the struggle. But these days, with more income & an advanced life style, parents raise their kids in an environment which is more safe,secure and kinda cocooned which results in not so mentally matured, impatient and a bit arroagant generation. Once they go through the hardships of the real world outside of their parent's protection, they'd really understand the world and mature.

Apart from Hingis(she is a natural talent with an advantage of her mom coaching her from childhood, but she was not very strong mentally), Serena and Maria won slams in their early teens. Maria had to leave her parents and Country & had to strive hard to come up. We know about the hardships Williams Sisters had to go through. That gave a mental edge to them.

Victoria also had to come to US but she had a better environment than Maria and most of the times she behaved like a spoilt child on court 2 years ago that we all knew. It tells that she was grown up in an environment which's very soft & papmering..

I might be wrong but I think its the reason....

GoofyDuck
Jun 6th, 2011, 11:18 AM
She deserves her number 4 spot, I mean... She won Miami and uhm..Miami :haha:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jun 6th, 2011, 12:51 PM
No one under 23 holds a major. 10 years from now, no one under 33 holds a major?
I dont think so.
Young players dont prioritize majors. Sometimes they'll break thru, like Serena at 17, but then she didnt win again at a major for almost 3 years.

These young players dont base their world around majors. None of them do.
It comes naturally as a generation takes over.

:lol: good one

Steven.
Jun 6th, 2011, 12:51 PM
They want to win every event they enter.
Because of all this talk about Wozniacki not having a major at 20, I was looking at other players who were #1's
Capriati won her 1st major years after her breaktrhru. It took Henin & Clijsters years~they have 11 now, & Kim still going.

If I was a huge Vika fan, I wouldnt worry about this.
2 Miamis is a very big accomplishment on its own, and she's still early in her career

Capriati is a different matter. She could've won more slams than she did with her talent. It's a shame that child stars usually get exposed to the real world much too soon and long before they even have a hint of maturity.

Henin took a mere 5 full years on tour to capture her 1st, 2nd AND 3rd slam (Wozniacki happens to be on her 5th year on tour this year!). In addition, Henin had to compete with peak Venus, peak Serena, peak Capriati, Seles, Davenport and Hingis before she won her first slam.

I wouldn't compare Wozniacki's current career to Henin or JCap, but I'd compare her possible career to Clijsters, Mauresmo etc. While I don't think Wozniacki will capture a title any time soon, I think she will eventually win a couple of slams during her mid-twenties despite racking other lead-up titles. She can feel free to prove me wrong.

bandabou
Jun 6th, 2011, 12:59 PM
Generation next haven't figured out how to pace themselves yet. Seems like they don't have an extra gear left for when the majors roll along. Maybe this will come in time..

Smitten
Jun 6th, 2011, 02:40 PM
Henin took a mere 5 full years on tour to capture her 1st, 2nd AND 3rd slam (Wozniacki happens to be on her 5th year on tour this year!). In addition, Henin had to compete with peak Venus, peak Serena, peak Capriati, Seles, Davenport and Hingis before she won her first slam.



And Henin's 2nd and 3rd slam did not even feature Venus, Serena, Seles, or Hingis in the draw. :lol:

Lord Choc Ice
Jun 7th, 2011, 04:01 AM
I think even with a slam SF Vika would be overachieving. The only thing that really stands out about her game is her ROS. Everything else about her game is just OK.

thegreendestiny
Jun 28th, 2011, 01:51 AM
This is Azarenka's biggest chance to her first slam SF. :bounce:

If she messes this up, I don't know what to say anymore.

LUVMIRZA
Jun 28th, 2011, 08:50 PM
She got it:yeah:

Matt01
Jun 28th, 2011, 10:40 PM
:dance:

:wavey:

TeamTactics
Jun 28th, 2011, 10:41 PM
I think she hush a lot of haters tonight.

thegreendestiny
Jun 29th, 2011, 03:11 AM
Well, if Kvitova beats her and if she reaches No.2 some weeks later, this thread will be updated. :oh: