PDA

View Full Version : In what way Myskina was better than Caro???


mirzafanindia
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:27 AM
What is the reason why Myskina was able to win a slam who acording to me had a similar game as to Caro's was able to win the FO in 2004 and Caro still not able to do well in slams?Vote on the poll or do you have different opinion..

dybbuk
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:34 AM
The most glaring difference is Nastya was much, much more technically astute than Wozniacki is or ever will be. Nastya could play an entirely different gameplan depending on who she was playing.

Yoncé
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:36 AM
I would vote on the poll if there was one...

sammy01
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:43 AM
The most glaring difference is Nastya was much, much more technically astute than Wozniacki is or ever will be. Nastya could play an entirely different gameplan depending on who she was playing.

this. myskina was a counter puncher by heart, but if she needed to step it up she very much was prepared to. she knew she was never going to outrally henin or the other big names, so she stepped up against those players.

myskina was also an out of sight better mover than woz could ever be.

skanky~skanketta
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:12 AM
I like Caro and wasn't really a fan of Myskina, but really, the Caro only trumps Myskina in 2 categories - the ability to handle power hitters better and a better serve.

Kəv.
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:14 AM
There should be an option saying.

Myskina was just better.

pav
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:29 AM
Myskina was much better at swearing at her coach.

Yoncé
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:33 AM
Myskina could step it up when she needed too and managed to beat Justine, Kim and Venus all more than once

faboozadoo15
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:35 AM
I don't really see Myskina as much better than Caro at anything, even though her game was aesthetically pleasing. She was a more fluid mover and had a more adept transition game and touch. Aside from that, Caro serves better and is stronger overall.

Expat
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:51 AM
she had dementieva on the other side. caro has a chance if she finds today's dementieva (maria sharapova w/o serve) on the other side.

moby
Feb 15th, 2012, 06:13 AM
Voted for the third option.

Wozniacka is definitely more consistent and mentally stronger, and if I may say, more reliable technique on her groundstrokes. Myskina, IIRC, had a pretty flashy game that was less reliant on spin and more reliant on change of pace and quick sudden flat shots. (Wozniacka always takes the ball late; Myskina had the ability to take the ball late or early, depending on the situation.)

She didn't really have stable rally strokes - while she did fairly well in long rallies, she usually threw up loops and junk and relied on her superb movement and excellent anticipation skills to get away with those kinds of shots. Unlike Wozniacka, who is capable of rallying all day without missing and has superior weight of shot, Myskina had to take a more opportunistic approach. I don't think she took on any rally with the intent of waiting for an error to come. Usually she was looking for her opponent to drop a ball short, or to work themselves out of position, so that she can take charge and move forward.

The reason Myskina has a slam and Wozniacka doesn't is because she is capable of a higher peak level of play. Granted 2004 was a soft draw, and that Demented in a slam final is almost a bye, but it's not a given that Caro would have gotten past Venus and especially Capriati, both of whom Myskina completely outplayed.

thegreendestiny
Feb 15th, 2012, 06:28 AM
Myskina had enormous talent but I didn't really see her as a hardworker (like working harder to improve her serve). She's more of like a Marat Safin of WTA.

Karolina is less than talented compared to the crafty and cunning Myskina, but she HAS power and undoubtedly better work ethic. I know that she will one day surpass Myskina's lone slam, because unlike Nastya who wasted her talent, she actually has the determination to be great.

skanky~skanketta
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:05 AM
Voted for the third option.

Wozniacka is definitely more consistent and mentally stronger, and if I may say, more reliable technique on her groundstrokes. Myskina, IIRC, had a pretty flashy game that was less reliant on spin and more reliant on change of pace and quick sudden flat shots. (Wozniacka always takes the ball late; Myskina had the ability to take the ball late or early, depending on the situation.)

She didn't really have stable rally strokes - while she did fairly well in long rallies, she usually threw up loops and junk and relied on her superb movement and excellent anticipation skills to get away with those kinds of shots. Unlike Wozniacka, who is capable of rallying all day without missing and has superior weight of shot, Myskina had to take a more opportunistic approach. I don't think she took on any rally with the intent of waiting for an error to come. Usually she was looking for her opponent to drop a ball short, or to work themselves out of position, so that she can take charge and move forward.

The reason Myskina has a slam and Wozniacka doesn't is because she is capable of a higher peak level of play. Granted 2004 was a soft draw, and that Demented in a slam final is almost a bye, but it's not a given that Caro would have gotten past Venus and especially Capriati, both of whom Myskina completely outplayed. How so? It was a pretty bad draw for Myskina - her coming through that draw made it all the more spectacular. And it wasn't as though clay was her best surface.

Don't mean to sound argumentative, but just stating. And I agree with everything else.

Michael*
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:30 AM
well, she's not. awkward.

Sombrerero loco
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:57 AM
myskina used to hit way harder than caro does

Graf~Dokic
Feb 15th, 2012, 08:08 AM
- Myskina was more consistent and mentally stronger
- Myskina had a better technique, footwork and game than Caro
- Myskina was more than just a pusher


All of these, I think. She's just the better player overall.

justineheninfan
Feb 15th, 2012, 08:10 AM
What is the reason why Myskina was able to win a slam who acording to me had a similar game as to Caro's was able to win the FO in 2004 and Caro still not able to do well in slams?Vote on the poll or do you have different opinion..

Myskina was a hugely unlikely slam winner, probably the 2nd most in the last 30 years after only Schiavone. In hindsight actually more than Schiavone who defended her final the next year, and didnt win the slam on her worst surface. Myskina didnt get past the quarters of any other slam event in her career. Just being more likely to win a slam than Myskina wouldnt make you likely to win one.

You say Caro has not done well in slams, but she has 3 semifinals already, triple what Myskina did her whole career. Myskina just had it all come together for one event that turned out to be wide open and she won it. Wozniacki could even have 8 slam semis by the time her career is over, which would be 8 times what Myskina has, and yet still might well have 0 slams.


All that said Myskina actually probably has a slightly better game. She has a far superior forehand, equally good but more lethal backhand, returned just as well, was probably as quick but with better anticipation, had a better net game, and actually had some finesse shots which Wozniacki isnt even capable of hitting. Other than the serve and superior mentality Wozniacki doesnt do anything better. She was more up and down but her peak game was better and more capable of winning a slam than Wozniacki.

madmax
Feb 15th, 2012, 09:16 AM
in that one way which matters in tennis - being a more talented player than danish moonballer

Madoka
Feb 15th, 2012, 09:47 AM
cos she faced dementieva in the final, while the pusher faced kim.

thegreendestiny
Feb 15th, 2012, 10:07 AM
cos she faced dementieva in the final, while the pusher faced kim.

Yeah and Myskina faced Venus and Capriati in QF and SF while the pusher faced Oudin and Wickmayer. :oh:

DomenicDemaria
Feb 15th, 2012, 10:19 AM
I think the main difference is that Myskina hit a flatter ball so her shots didn't sit up like Caro's forehand does. I think Caro is mentally stronger, Myskina had quite a few meltdowns and let a few matches go when she had big leads.
The reason Myskina has a slam is she stepped it up when it mattered to take out Venus and Capriati. On the flip she can say she was lucky to win it because she could have been eliminated by Kuzzie in the fourth round when she saved match points.

Juju Nostalgique
Feb 15th, 2012, 11:09 AM
http://www.tennis-histoire.com/images/anecdotes/coupe-lenglen.jpg

Next.

Marilyn Monheaux
Feb 15th, 2012, 12:00 PM
http://www.tennis-histoire.com/images/anecdotes/coupe-lenglen.jpg

Next.


[/thread]

:)

miffedmax
Feb 15th, 2012, 12:39 PM
Nastya's game had infinite variety and she actually changed her strategy to try and play her strengths against her opponents weaknesses. Caro plays the same game every match.

It's a shame Nastya wasn't more durable (which is really Caro's main advantage) because the Countess of Darkness was one of the best personalities on the tour.

mauresmofan
Feb 15th, 2012, 12:47 PM
Myskina had deceptive movement, she was very light on her feet and she had a great flat backhand which she could hit on the run incredibly well. She was a very tricky opponent but her glaring weakness was the serve. It's nice watching her matches, she had a great game to watch, quite a counter puncher but had other facets to her game on top of that.

danieln1
Feb 15th, 2012, 12:52 PM
she had dementieva on the other side. caro has a chance if she finds today's dementieva (maria sharapova w/o serve) on the other side.

This.

madmax
Feb 15th, 2012, 01:00 PM
This.

this what? Are you insinuating that Maria plays like Demented did?

shap_half
Feb 15th, 2012, 01:25 PM
Myskina could also manipulate the direction of the ball much better than Caroline has ever shown she could. I would say that Myskina is probably among the top 3 or 4 players when of her generation when it came to changing the direction of the ball.

Apoleb
Feb 15th, 2012, 01:35 PM
Because Wozniacki is so dreadful on clay, so she can't take advantage of the MM slam even when there is no competition.

Matt01
Feb 15th, 2012, 03:12 PM
Yeah and Myskina faced Venus and Capriati in QF and SF while the pusher faced Oudin and Wickmayer. :oh:


Can't believe it but I agree with you :oh:

hablo
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:04 PM
I voted for option #2.

hurricanejeanne
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:06 PM
Nastya's game had infinite variety and she actually changed her strategy to try and play her strengths against her opponents weaknesses. Caro plays the same game every match.

It's a shame Nastya wasn't more durable (which is really Caro's main advantage) because the Countess of Darkness was one of the best personalities on the tour.

Exactly. Nastya had this ability to adapt her game plan according to who she was playing and on what surface, and even then she was usually able to adjust that game plan throughout the match if needed. Also, I feel that Nastya was able to read plays better than Caro does; Nastya was just smarter on court and was able to play a better chess match. The only ways to beat her was to literally blow her off the court or wait for her to meltdown and not be able to recover.

And as has already been said, Nastya redirected the ball better, had better technique on her ground game and her movement was remarkable. Caro can run but Nastya could run to the ball, cut off the angle and send it back with interest.

Timariot
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:10 PM
These "what player of the yesteryear was similar to Caro" threads have got pretty tiresome. Myskina's game was almost complete antithesis of Wozniacki's and these two are not comparable in any way. Neither is Caro similar to Hingis, ASV, Martinez, Schnyder or anysuch player. I guess eventually we will get "Wozniacki vs Daja Bedanova" and 40% of the people reply "I think Bedanova was better. She could actually hit winners".

If one really insists, perhaps Amanda Coetzer had a playing style which in many ways was similar, though I maintain Wozniacki is signifantly better.

Apoleb
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:13 PM
If one really insists, perhaps Amanda Coetzer had a playing style which in many ways was similar, though I maintain Wozniacki is signifantly better.

Uh-uh? Coetzer is a million times better athlete and faster player. Plus she had better footwork, more variety (a great slice backhand), and was smarter and more tactically aware. Woz has more weight on her backhands.. that's it.

moby
Feb 15th, 2012, 04:18 PM
How so? It was a pretty bad draw for Myskina - her coming through that draw made it all the more spectacular. And it wasn't as though clay was her best surface.

Don't mean to sound argumentative, but just stating. And I agree with everything else.No, you're right. I guess it was only a "soft" draw in retrospect. No one knew that Svetlana was so near to becoming a force/headcase; or that Venus would "never be the same again" after her injury, or that Dementieva was a headcase in slam finals. Capriati was a really really good win however one cuts it.

Actually, prior to Myskina's French Open win, one had to go back 4 years to the 2000 French Open to find a slam winner who was not one of the four: Venus, Serena, Henin, Capriati. Serena wasn't in the draw that French Open, Henin might as well not have been, Myskina beat the last two. :yeah:

justineheninfan
Feb 15th, 2012, 05:21 PM
If one really insists, perhaps Amanda Coetzer had a playing style which in many ways was similar, though I maintain Wozniacki is signifantly better.

Coetzer was actully faster and a better defender than Wozniacki. She had a MUCH superior forehand, and was much better at the net. She was mentally stronger and a better fighter too, areas Wozniacki only seems fairly strong relative to the current headcase WTA. She had finesse shots, not great ones but better than Wozniacki can muster, and she was a much smarter player who constructed points better. Wozniacki had the superior serve and superior backhand, and those are her only edges. Prime Coetzer was a better player, Wozniacki would make even less impact than Coetzer did if she had her prime the same time as Coetzer did.

$uricate
Feb 15th, 2012, 06:06 PM
Voted for the third option.

Wozniacka is definitely more consistent and mentally stronger, and if I may say, more reliable technique on her groundstrokes. Myskina, IIRC, had a pretty flashy game that was less reliant on spin and more reliant on change of pace and quick sudden flat shots. (Wozniacka always takes the ball late; Myskina had the ability to take the ball late or early, depending on the situation.)

She didn't really have stable rally strokes - while she did fairly well in long rallies, she usually threw up loops and junk and relied on her superb movement and excellent anticipation skills to get away with those kinds of shots. Unlike Wozniacka, who is capable of rallying all day without missing and has superior weight of shot, Myskina had to take a more opportunistic approach. I don't think she took on any rally with the intent of waiting for an error to come. Usually she was looking for her opponent to drop a ball short, or to work themselves out of position, so that she can take charge and move forward.

The reason Myskina has a slam and Wozniacka doesn't is because she is capable of a higher peak level of play. Granted 2004 was a soft draw, and that Demented in a slam final is almost a bye, but it's not a given that Caro would have gotten past Venus and especially Capriati, both of whom Myskina completely outplayed.

Such a myth.

Molik, Kuznetsova, Venus and Capriati is not soft. Dementieva in the final I will give.

These "what player of the yesteryear was similar to Caro" threads have got pretty tiresome. Myskina's game was almost complete antithesis of Wozniacki's and these two are not comparable in any way. Neither is Caro similar to Hingis, ASV, Martinez, Schnyder or anysuch player. I guess eventually we will get "Wozniacki vs Daja Bedanova" and 40% of the people reply "I think Bedanova was better. She could actually hit winners".

If one really insists, perhaps Amanda Coetzer had a playing style which in many ways was similar, though I maintain Wozniacki is signifantly better.

Me too.

tonybotz
Feb 15th, 2012, 06:21 PM
from what i remember myskina was quite "elastic" out there and capable of whipping winners.

dsanders06
Feb 15th, 2012, 06:29 PM
Option 3 is the closest - although I do think largely they BOTH fit into the pure defensive grinders category and both are actually quite similar in most aspects of the game (both actually don't have that great raw footspeed, but have great defence from great anticipation and footwork) and both would largely just try to get the ball back and draw errors. But Myskina had that bit more flair and craftiness, and was occasionally capable of threading the needle with a nice flat shot at unpredictable times (even if the shot wasn't that "powerful" in terms of weight of shot), whereas "unpredictability" isn't in Wozniacki's vocabulary.

kaetchen
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:02 PM
I don't get it why the two of them are compared. Myskina was not a pusher, she could defend well and was very fast over the court but she could also hit amazing winners Caro can only dream of. She was simply a better player.
Nastya had more variety in her shots, was much more natural in her movement, her technique was infinitely better. Caro's backhand is her best shot but compared to Myskina's looks average. IMO, the only areas where Caro has the advantage are mental side and the serve.
And I hate it when people call Nastya's RG draw soft - it was much harder than that of most recent slam winners.

LCS
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:25 PM
Myskina wins on every department except the serve. But serve can frequently be deemed irrelevant in women's tennis so.

miffedmax
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:45 PM
Such a myth.

Molik, Kuznetsova, Venus and Capriati is not soft. Dementieva in the final I will give.





Final? What final? There was no final.

It never happened!

Also, the Olympics are more important.

$uricate
Feb 15th, 2012, 07:59 PM
Final? What final? There was no final.

It never happened!

Also, the Olympics are more important.

Yes, of course. I don't know what I was thinking of...

It's like how at the 2008 Australian Open there was only one semifinal on the womens side :)

Number19
Feb 15th, 2012, 08:04 PM
I don't know how that first option is an option because consistency and mental strength do not get along with Myskina. So, those, along with serve, are the only things Wozniacki has on Nastya. Its all Myskina. Even when Wozniacki is trying she can't be as entertaining as Nastya. Or throw a racquet for that matter.

frenchie
Feb 15th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Nastya was a natural talent.
Caroline is more of a hard worker.

MakarovaFan
Feb 15th, 2012, 08:33 PM
Myskina was a hugely unlikely slam winner, probably the 2nd most in the last 30 years after only Schiavone. In hindsight actually more than Schiavone who defended her final the next year, and didnt win the slam on her worst surface. Myskina didnt get past the quarters of any other slam event in her career. Just being more likely to win a slam than Myskina wouldnt make you likely to win one.

You say Caro has not done well in slams, but she has 3 semifinals already, triple what Myskina did her whole career. Myskina just had it all come together for one event that turned out to be wide open and she won it. Wozniacki could even have 8 slam semis by the time her career is over, which would be 8 times what Myskina has, and yet still might well have 0 slams.


All that said Myskina actually probably has a slightly better game. She has a far superior forehand, equally good but more lethal backhand, returned just as well, was probably as quick but with better anticipation, had a better net game, and actually had some finesse shots which Wozniacki isnt even capable of hitting. Other than the serve and superior mentality Wozniacki doesnt do anything better. She was more up and down but her peak game was better and more capable of winning a slam than Wozniacki.

Schiavone has only gotten past a QF one other time....and the stat on Myskina is rather misleading as after her RG Myskina's career didnt even last 2 more full season!!! Heck she only played 2 more Roland Garros's and then a final swan RG in 07.

The Dawntreader
Feb 15th, 2012, 08:48 PM
Myskina's strength was her ability to keep a rally in neutral, with her above-average length aided by her terrific footwork that often ensured she was never badly out of position. By absorbing pace, she was often able to redirect it with some potency, but she didn't have aggressive instincts. It's the kind of game Jankovic was playing in late 2008, however a flatter strike and not so intently defensive. A good mix of the two.

Like others have said, she was quite intuitive and was able to navigate the whole court quite well, and understood angles and how to change pace. She wasn't really concentrated on hitting junk and loop, but she understood how to hit around the ball and hit acutely. Later on in her career, she became more and more comfortable with broaching the net too, often showing some ungainly, but nifty touch.

Her biggest weakness was her second serve and probably her general stroke-patterns. A lot of CC rallies that kind of invited big hitters to crank up the pace and direction of the ball and begin to overpower her. Her second serve was so innocuous too, that even benign returners such as Mauresmo used to punish it. Another case in point is the Olympic SF with Henin. Could just not get any cheap points off her serve.

I think Wozniacki has a far superior serve, and she's a much more robust specimen, as opposed to Myskina who was slender and not appropiately built for the WTA of 2012, which is becoming ridiculously physical, and there was probably a reason why Myskina was irretrievably injured in 2006, as her game became too lightweight at the highest level.

Myskina's great advantage over Wozniacki however though is her return. Able to anticipate and retrieve even the most formidable of serves. Wozniacki on the other hand must be one of the worst returners of serve ever to make number 1.

moby
Feb 15th, 2012, 09:47 PM
5VBQV2OiAu8

Wozniacka could never. :shrug:

BikezAreForever!
Feb 15th, 2012, 11:00 PM
Myskina has not been showing off her boyfriend at all.

Stonerpova
Feb 15th, 2012, 11:51 PM
Myskina was a counterpuncher whereas Wozniacki is a retriever. There really aren't a lot of comparisons to make between them.

Myskina had clean, flat strokes, and she was more than capable of taking control of points and she re-directed pace like a boss. She was tricky in that there were a couple of ways she could play each match. I actually think Wozniacki is mentally more steady than Myskina, but Myskina had more game.

justineheninfan
Feb 16th, 2012, 12:10 AM
5VBQV2OiAu8

Wozniacka could never. :shrug:

I doubt Wozniacki would ever get more than 6 games off prime Henin if they played 8 matches on all different surfaces. So yes, the odd upsets over people like Henin already prove prime Myskina > prime Wozniaacki as far as playing ability goes.

Barktra
Feb 16th, 2012, 01:33 AM
I have always thought Myskina was a wannabe Hingis :shrug:

justineheninfan
Feb 16th, 2012, 03:52 AM
Wanabee Hingis > Wanabee Coetzer which is what Wozniacki is. Myskina did beat Hingis once btw.

thegreendestiny
Feb 16th, 2012, 05:00 AM
I have always thought Myskina was a wannabe Hingis :shrug:

No. That's Radwanska actually. Myskina would be more of like wannabe Navratilova.