PDA

View Full Version : Radwanska won a set with 1 (one!) winner


JustPetko
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:45 PM
Is that kind of record? :spit:

RenaSlam.
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:45 PM
:tape:

Gilas.
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:47 PM
yes, and it's a GOAT record. Your faves could never :hearts:

Adrian.
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:47 PM
Didn't Woz win a set with 0 winners 2 years ago in Beijing or Tokyo? :oh::spit:

Wiggly
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:49 PM
At least the match is close and the crowd seems to enjoy it.
It's been the best tournament since foreeeeeeeever for the WTA.

I would even say they had a better one than the men, especially with that SFs fiasco.

Madoka
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:49 PM
please masha do somoething.

JJ all the way
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:52 PM
this match is all in sharapova's hands....... radwanska is lucky to have won that set without doing much

stevos
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:52 PM
I think the real story is that Maria lost the set with that stat. Good for Radwanska.
:sobbing:

darrinbaker00
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:53 PM
this match is all in sharapova's hands....... radwanska is lucky to have won that set without doing much

She kept more balls in play than her opponent. If you consider that "not doing much," then you don't jack about tennis.

metamorpha
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:56 PM
Radwanska played some clever tennis though. Unlike Pushniacki in her absolute best. But yeah, she's a little bit lucky here and there.

If she can be more confident and hit some winners, it would be better and really give Maria more pressure, especially on serve. Otherwise most part of the match is still on Maria's hands.

Matt01
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:58 PM
She kept more balls in play than her opponent. If you consider that "not doing much," then you don't jack about tennis.


Please. :rolleyes: Don't confuse the children in this thread with common sense...

Uranium
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:59 PM
Didn't Kateryna Bondarenko hit 0 winners to win the final set against Venus in Toronto?

Petkorazzi
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:00 PM
Katya Bondarenko won the third set against Venus a few years ago with no winners IIRC. :p

Edit: ^ :lol:

darrinbaker00
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:01 PM
What's been pleasantly surprising to me is that there's only been ONE break of serve in 17 games so far. :yeah:

Joelina
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:04 PM
whatever, this is a shame for tennis

bobito
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:07 PM
I could be wrong but I think Jill Craybas won a set against Serena at Wimbledon without hitting a winner.

DragonFlame
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:13 PM
Agatha is so clutch these days, doesn't give an inch.

Just Do It
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:19 PM
I don't know what would I rather pick, to hit 1 winner or 25 unforced errors in a set.

Rex59
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:29 PM
whatever, this is a shame for tennis

:yeah:

silverwhite
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:32 PM
But she forced a bunch of errors. Forced errors

The Dawntreader
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:33 PM
No one can talk shit about Wozniacki ever again:lol:

Emina.
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:36 PM
she had a total of 4 winners in this final :worship:

darrinbaker00
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:36 PM
I don't know what would I rather pick, to hit 1 winner or 25 unforced errors in a set.

I would pick winning over losing. ;)

NashaMasha
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:36 PM
No one can talk shit about Wozniacki ever again:lol:

Who is playing more shitty tennis, Aga or Woz? It is gonna be a question for the next month in TF )))

Sombrerero loco
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:38 PM
aGOATnieszka radwanska :bowdown:

it-girl
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:43 PM
I bet Maria would happily change stats with Aga today if it meant victory.

doujyr
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:46 PM
horrible, truly horrible. yet she is, apparently the fans favourite. do people really want to watch players like her? :hysteric:

Vee Williams
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:52 PM
quite impressive.

Sombrerero loco
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:55 PM
I bet Maria would happily change stats with Aga today if it meant victory.

who wouldnt?

Adrian.
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:56 PM
Masha hit 6 winners in the match against LI :bigwave:

Charlatan
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:57 PM
well, this is her game...i don't think one should criticize for that...she is doing what she has been doing best. admittedly, impressive...
if it's hard for maria her opponents to keep the ball in court, then it's not aga's fault

Ferg
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:03 PM
:hysteric:

bobito
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:07 PM
Correction she won two sets. And yes, there was only one winner.

Adrian.
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:08 PM
she hit also 6 winners in this match :rolleyes::bigwave:

Sombrerero loco
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:12 PM
she didnt even need making winners to beat sharapova :oh:

bbjpa
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:13 PM
Radwanska is about to ridiculize Wozniacki :haha:

Matt01
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:28 PM
Who is playing more shitty tennis, Aga or Woz? It is gonna be a question for the next month in TF )))


Maybe it's just me but I found Pova's tennis the shittiest today :shrug:

JRena
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:30 PM
Only one person can save us.

The Queen.

Bethany Mattek Sands :worship:

Anabelcroft
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:40 PM
she hit also 6 winners in this match :rolleyes::bigwave:

Oh god...hate watching pushers!

backhandsmash
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:43 PM
Correction she won two sets. And yes, there was only one winner.

Haha, very nice.

treufreund
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:46 PM
This court is abominably slow. Li hit only 4 winner in a whole match. Djokovic only 1 ace. Nadal, Roddick, Mardy Fish and even Tsonga go entire sets barely hitting winners.

marineblue
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:48 PM
Oh god...hate watching pushers!

But I think you do watch them anyway:lol:

treufreund
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:52 PM
I remember back in the days when the courts were a lot faster and yet even back then a powerful player like Jennifer Capriati would not even hit a lot of winners.

faboozadoo15
Mar 31st, 2012, 08:10 PM
It's a shame on Maria that she let this happen. If your opponent beats you like that, then it's back to the drawing board.

Let.them.talk
Mar 31st, 2012, 08:20 PM
Actually the thread title really sounds bad.

gaja kesari
Mar 31st, 2012, 08:39 PM
well really, she only needed one - to BE a winner! :inlove: :devil:

Shivank17
Mar 31st, 2012, 08:47 PM
Queen Agatha is GOAT, she can win a slam by hitting no winners, I mean she won the Fan favorite you know. :angel:

FedererBulgaria
Mar 31st, 2012, 08:51 PM
Shame for tennis!Thats why Aga is my most hated player ever

Rest Maria!
Mar 31st, 2012, 08:59 PM
Looking at semifinals, Sharapova hit winners on 26% of points played in that match with Wozniacki giving her a lot of "easy" balls. Radwanska hit winners in 18% points of her match, with Bartoli not giving her easy balls (but admittedly being a much mover than Wozniacki). The point is, 18% is a very respectable stat and shows that Radwanska can go for it when she has the opportunity. She didn't go for it as much against Sharapova because it's much harder to contruct points against such powerful opponent being so underpowered herself. It doesn't mean she didn't put pressure on Sharapova because she did.

Miracle Worker
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:01 PM
It seems one winner is enough to win set these days :weirdo:

Good for her :yeah:

:sobbing:

BluSthil
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:05 PM
Rad won because she has an all around game which Sharapova does not have. Maria is flat out most of the time with an occasional drop point put in for good measure. Rad does not let the moment discourage her. She finds the shot, the off pace, and the athleticism to keep pace with any of the players.
The top players will give her plenty of respect from now on...

BluSthil
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:11 PM
Sharapova has a one dimensional game, flat out !

Vikapower
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:40 PM
Radwanska is does with what she has -- she's hardly blamable --

Her game is truly atrocious, boring, extraordinarily poor, over-analyzed by her fans to imprint things that are not into her very controversial game --

You can hardly throw a rant at her because tennis is about strategy and finding the right strategy to win but you can hardly find a more mediocre player than Radwanska --

At least Wozniacki's technique has something to drool upon even if it's not right up there -- Radwanska has nothing in shots or technique --

Just a physically weak pusher with generally very short little back-swings just fluffing and puffing shots back into play -- and even when she has time, time to go for her shots, she puts so much efforts, rotating all her tiny little body in desperation for a result who ends just as a minuscule as her that even my 10 year old little brother would have reached to, the latter being shorter and much less physically developed.

The worst is if Radwanska had just a better technique probably she would translate her mindset more efficiently on court but she's so limited -- so poor in her stroke production, so painful to watch when she tries her best to produce velocity that you can only end up feeling just a little bit of pity for her.

NashaMasha
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:51 PM
a very professional arcticle by Steve Tignor
http://blogs.tennis.com/racquet_reaction/2012/03/miami-radwanska-d-sharapova.html

spiritedenergy
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:56 PM
Radwanska is does with what she has -- she's hardly blamable --

Her game is truly atrocious, boring, extraordinarily poor, over-analyzed by her fans to imprint things that are not into her very controversial game --

You can hardly throw a rant at her because tennis is about strategy and finding the right strategy to win but you can hardly find a more mediocre player than Radwanska --

At least Wozniacki's technique has something to drool upon even if it's not right up there -- Radwanska has nothing in shots or technique --

Just a physically weak pusher with generally very short little back-swings just fluffing and puffing shots back into play -- and even when she has time, time to go for her shots, she puts so much efforts, rotating all her tiny little body in desperation for a result who ends just as a minuscule as her that even my 10 year old little brother would have reached to, the latter being shorter and much less physically developed.

The worst is if Radwanska had just a better technique probably she would translate her mindset more efficiently on court but she's so limited -- so poor in her stroke production, so painful to watch when she tries her best to produce velocity that you can only end up feeling just a little bit of pity for her.

someone is mad :oh:

sammy01
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:07 PM
What's been pleasantly surprising to me is that there's only been ONE break of serve in 17 games so far. :yeah:

normally that would indicate great quality, sadly having seen the match it was because sharapova slapped error after error off aga's puffball serve into the net or miles long.

it was the best example of mindless returning for a very long time. no thought from maria of trying to angle some returns off aga's nothing serve, just slapping at it as hard as she could.

Henpova
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:15 PM
I think people are forgetting that most players are not going to hit a lot of winner at Miami with the courts being so slow. There is just to much time for the opponent to get their racket on it.

Henpova
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:18 PM
normally that would indicate great quality, sadly having seen the match it was because sharapova slapped error after error off aga's puffball serve into the net or miles long.

it was the best example of mindless returning for a very long time. no thought from maria of trying to angle some returns off aga's nothing serve, just slapping at it as hard as she could.

First a lot of Maria errors where late in the rally so it is not like she was playing bad and most of them were forced. Also Aga served great not fast or hard but great. Her placement was spot on and that is why Maria was going for more and hitting returns in the net. If a serve is hit in the right spot in the box it is hard to return even at 80mph.

LUXXXAS
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:37 PM
I prefer to win a set with one winner than lose with 50 stupid unforced errors :tape:

JCTennisFan
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:55 PM
This is not really all that surprising.. It would appear that Azarenka/Radwanska type players are bad matchups for Sharapova. Radwanska did afterall beat Sharapova at the 07 US open... right before her run at the AO 08.

And on the comment made of Radwanska being "well-rounded" :spit: . When she gets a serve and has the ability to hit winners at will then she will be well-rounded. Until then she is underpowered and has a liability of a serve. Still with all of that her game is enough to win Miami... but will it be enough to win slams?

thrust
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:33 PM
I don't know what would I rather pick, to hit 1 winner or 25 unforced errors in a set.

Good point-LOL! Aga's game proves that one does not have to be a ball basher in order to win a tournament. Hopefully, she can prove this in a Slam too. I would think the FO would be a possible slam for her to win.

chingching
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:53 PM
Against Hantuchova in FO 3rd round, Wozniacki took until 3-1 down in the second set to hit a winner, which just happenned to be a netcord winner :)

Jerem
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:55 PM
The number of winners doesn't mean anything actually. Make a winner is putting the ball out of reach of the opponent, but you don't have to do that necessarily to win a point.
All is in the ball control, induce errors is also a solution and it doesn't appear in the statisics at the end of the match, while Radwanska is actually one of the best in this field.

SwingVolley93
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:00 AM
Queen Agatha is GOAT, she can win a slam by hitting no winners, I mean she won the Fan favorite you know. :angel:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g247/kenity/tumblr_lpncvh9Xoi1qhe4xn.gif

JCTennisFan
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:01 AM
The number of winners doesn't mean anything actually. Make a winner is putting the ball out of reach of the opponent, but you don't have to do that necessarily to win a point.
All is in the ball control, induce errors is also a solution and it doesn't appear in the statisics at the end of the match, while Radwanska is actually one of the best in this field.

That ability is diluted greatly whenever the player lacks enough power to get their opponent stetched out and on the run.

Viennalover
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:20 AM
I hate recent trends of being consistence wins at the end.
They don't take risks but play solid and the one who played aggressive (took initiative on rallies) lose making errors.

Do we only have Pushers & brainless ball bashers in Top10? :rolleyes:
Former play style is boring and latter is rough...

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:24 AM
That ability is diluted greatly whenever the player lacks enough power to get their opponent stetched out and on the run.

No. Not true at all. You can vary the spin, pace, depth and angle of your shots. You can disguise your shots and mess up your opponents timing. There are loads of ways of inducing errors that don't involve hitting with power.

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:28 AM
The number of winners doesn't mean anything actually. Make a winner is putting the ball out of reach of the opponent, but you don't have to do that necessarily to win a point.
All is in the ball control, induce errors is also a solution and it doesn't appear in the statisics at the end of the match, while Radwanska is actually one of the best in this field.

not true , it works only if her opponent is making UE from easy positions, as today. The wind also helped her significantly , as laser precision shots are much harder to hit with such a strong wind

If Masha played 10% better she would have finished some BP in her favour and win in 2 sets. Masha can play better for sure

For Radwanska it is a peak game and no more weapons in the pockets


No. Not true at all. You can vary the spin, pace, depth and angle of your shots. You can disguise your shots and mess up your opponents timing. There are loads of ways of inducing errors that don't involve hitting with power.

Radwanska was not inducing errors at all or more than any other player, she just tried to send all balls back and wait till Masha will become impatient and send the ball out or in the net
Nothing new in her play. The court was so slow today, that even for Masha it was easy to run from one line to another hitting balls back ))))

Sam L
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:56 AM
That's just pathetic.

Malva
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:57 AM
horrible, truly horrible. yet she is, apparently the fans favourite. do people really want to watch players like her? :hysteric:

Absolutely. Skill over power -- any time!

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:00 AM
Radwanska was not inducing errors at all or more than any other player, she just tried to send all balls back and wait till Masha will become impatient and send the ball out or in the net
Nothing new in her play. The court was so slow today, that even for Masha it was easy to run from one line to another hitting balls back ))))

That is my point. There are more ways to induce errors than forcing your opponent to run. You can do it by simply giving your opponent something different on your ball each shot. The result can be very subtle and I'm afraid apparently too subtle for the likes of you.

Jerem
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:01 AM
Radwanska was not inducing errors at all or more than any other player, she just tried to send all balls back and wait till Masha will become impatient and send the ball out or in the net

Maria in her post-match interview: "She hit a lot of good balls on the run and they were deep. She didn't just bring them back; she had something on them." (Source: http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2012/Interview-Transcripts/Maria-Sharapova-31-March.aspx).

I think it says a lot ;)

Malva
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:09 AM
Maria in her post-match interview: "She hit a lot of good balls on the run and they were deep. She didn't just bring them back; she had something on them." (Source: http://www.sonyericssonopen.com/News/Tennis/2012/Interview-Transcripts/Maria-Sharapova-31-March.aspx).

I think it says a lot ;)

That something was a "slow poison" -- according to Peter Bodo.

NeKo
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:22 AM
And no, she is not a pusher according to her fans who believe that her game is similar to Martina's.

Brad[le]y.
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:26 AM
And no, she is not a pusher according to her fans who believe that her game is similar to Martina's.

of course it's not similar to Martina Navratilova, Aga is not a S&V player :)

BH both wings
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:43 AM
not true , it works only if her opponent is making UE from easy positions, as today. The wind also helped her significantly , as laser precision shots are much harder to hit with such a strong wind

If Masha played 10% better she would have finished some BP in her favour and win in 2 sets. Masha can play better for sure

For Radwanska it is a peak game and no more weapons in the pockets




Radwanska was not inducing errors at all or more than any other player, she just tried to send all balls back and wait till Masha will become impatient and send the ball out or in the net
Nothing new in her play. The court was so slow today, that even for Masha it was easy to run from one line to another hitting balls back ))))

Take two consecutive points from the final game. Radwanska miss-hits, which is obvious both visually and audibly. The ball just bounces in the corner of the court. What do you do in this situation if you are Maria Sharapova? A miss-hit with probably extreme and unknown spin, you are positioned well outside the court? Right, you hit a low percentage shot very flat down the line. Next point, Radwanska has time to position herself well for a push-slice deep into the court. Sharapova again doing the right thing: Bash the ball as hard as you can, because you don't know anything about the bounce.

Yes, Radwanska wasn't doing a lot to cause trouble to her opponent. But you don't need a lot if your opponent is Sharapova with _that_ kind of approach.

Rest Maria!
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:55 AM
Please start writing "to mishit" because I can't help but read "mis-shit".

JRena
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:36 AM
Absolutely. Skill over power -- any time!

Well she obviously doesn't have the skills to create her own winners.

Maybe we've just all been spoiled. We've been too used to magnificent winners, come from behind victories, grit and determination.

Maybe we're reverting back to the days of Chris Everts where she could stay on the court for hours at a time and just drive you nuts with her consistency...

Malva
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:53 AM
Well she obviously doesn't have the skills to create her own winners

"Obviously" you don't trouble yourself observing her playing to say that.

TeamUla
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:36 AM
CCPaZKRh-nw

The video of the winner.

Miracle Worker
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:43 AM
CCPaZKRh-nw

The video of the winner.

Radwanska is real star. She has videos with all winners she makes :worship:

JRena
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:46 AM
"Obviously" you don't trouble yourself observing her playing to say that.

To which part of her game are you referring to? The drop shots she attempts? The lobs? I've seen her play, then I change the channel. :rolleyes:

Albeit she's a crafty player, Martina Hingis' second coming? She's not that special.

Shivank17
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:55 AM
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g247/kenity/tumblr_lpncvh9Xoi1qhe4xn.gif
The irony again. :rolls:

Seriously, when are you getting banned?

Utterchaos
Apr 1st, 2012, 10:02 AM
Not a surprise really, I watched Venus vs Radwanska highlights and even though Venus lost badly, the highlight reel was still all Venus coming to the net, hitting amazing volleys and dictating play. Fluffdwanska is only where she is today because there are no good players (Well, Vika is and she hammered her in their last 4 meetings) and because courts are hideously slow which allows her to put every ball back into play. She'd get double bageled by true attacking player like Venus on fast grass or fast indoor.

doujyr
Apr 1st, 2012, 10:18 AM
i'm struggling to see how a playing style like this will attract and keep fans. purists can eulogise as much as they want, but the masses are going to find this sort of game deathly dull and vote with their remote controls.

it's going to be bad, very bad.

sammy01
Apr 1st, 2012, 10:47 AM
CCPaZKRh-nw

The video of the winner.

this sums up womens tennis for me. sharapova with aga on the run but hasn't the brains or skill to come to net on aga's desperate defense or angle the ball given how far back aga is.

aga will be #2 in the world soon because of dumb players like sharapova that the tour is filled with these days.

SoBizarre
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:00 AM
i'm struggling to see how a playing style like this will attract and keep fans. purists can eulogise as much as they want, but the masses are going to find this sort of game deathly dull and vote with their remote controls.

it's going to be bad, very bad.

Please, SUICIDE.

Pops Maellard
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:19 AM
Wozniacki could never :lol:.

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:20 AM
She kept more balls in play than her opponent. If you consider that "not doing much," then you don't jack about tennis.

thread should have stopped here :lol: even my bro came in at the end of the set and i showed him the 1 winner stat, but then he asked how many errors she made, then was like "oh so she's playing smarter then..ok i'm cheering for her" :lol:

Malva
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:22 AM
To which part of her game are you referring to? The drop shots she attempts? The lobs? I've seen her play, then I change the channel. :rolleyes:

Albeit she's a crafty player, Martina Hingis' second coming? She's not that special.

This has been explained here dozens of times and sometimes very eloquently (OsloErik used to be among the most eloquent ones, by the way) -- there is no need for me to attempt it again.


Regarding yesterday's match I will only say that watching it for me was like observing an aggresive bull against a lightly armed torreador: the roaring bull is charging head-on all the time, of course -- the torreador would be stupid if he responded for example by trying to roar even louder, or by charging at the bull head-on himself -- he has a better use for his own head and, instead, employs all his skills to outmanoeuvre the bull, so that the bull misses more often than not. With proper skills and some luck, the roaring bull is defeated in the end.

This is what happened yesterday.

I suppose you prefer watching two roaring bulls charge at each other. I may be currently in minority at this forum but I do not associate this kind of entertainment with tennis, especially with women's tennis.

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:23 AM
this sums up womens tennis for me. sharapova with aga on the run but hasn't the brains or skill to come to net on aga's desperate defense or angle the ball given how far back aga is.

aga will be #2 in the world soon because of dumb players like sharapova that the tour is filled with these days.


for all your apparent tennis brains you, and a few others, keep acting like it's only the women who refuse to come to net :lol:

Mariusz82
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:32 AM
haters :o

Anabelcroft
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:53 AM
Radwanska is real star. She has videos with all winners she makes :worship:

:lol:

Joelina
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:00 PM
Aga is the biggest shit in top 10, even Wozniacki is better than her.

Jerem
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:09 PM
Aga is the biggest shit in top 10, even Wozniacki is better than her.
This kind of statement has absolutely no value without argument ;)

doomsday
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:12 PM
This kind of statement has absolutely no value without argument ;)

Read the thread title.:lol:

Jerem
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:21 PM
Read the thread title.:lol:
Read the whole thread. Tennis is not only based on winners.

Also I don't know if making 46 UE is better.

Pops Maellard
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:22 PM
Radwanska is real star. She has videos with all winners she makes :worship:

TBPH the point should've been over the shot after she put that Godawful second serve so short in the middle of the service box :lol:.

goldenlox
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:24 PM
There were people back in 2009 spamming the board when Caro made the USO final.
Like Caro was terrible and she couldnt stay in the top 10.

Radwanska is a really good player. Only thing that will stop her at majors is nerves on her service games. Same issues Caroline has.

Aga was able to play well on key points on her service game that whole final. Like Caro was against Serena.

If they do that week 2 at majors, they will be strong contenders for the next decade, if they stay healthy

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:34 PM
Read the whole thread. Tennis is not only based on winners.

Also I don't know if making 46 UE is better.

lets make courts on something soft as mattress. No winners at all , The winner will be the one who makes less errors
Backhand/forehand/volley/serve - why do we need this words in tennis any more? , if matches can be won without it

Jerem
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:44 PM
Do you know what is a forced error? The game is not made only of winners and UE...

We call a winner when the opponent doesn't touch the ball. Not so many player are able to make this kind of shot 40 times in a match. But you can control the point by placing the ball well, changing the pace and directions, using angles, working on effects, making drop shots and lobs, all these things which can induce an error when your opponent tries to hit his own shot. This is not a "winner", but it's a way to win the point anyway.

Radwanska usually hits more winners than 6 in a match (22 against Bartoli for example), but Sharapova's power didn't give her many occasions to do it this time, also because of her own lack of power.

NeKo
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:51 PM
Read the whole thread. Tennis is not only based on winners.

Also I don't know if making 46 UE is better.

Radwanska is a pusher, that's a fact. I prefer seeing a player who tries to win the point by his own powers, not by waiting for your opponent to hit UEs.

Jerem
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:56 PM
Except that Radwanska doesn't wait for the opponent's UE all the time, as she knows how to construct her points.
Some here should really revise their definition of what is a pusher.

TeamUla
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:01 PM
If Agnieszka only "waited" for Sharapova's errors, she would have lost that match. Most players wouldn't make Maria commit so many errors.

sammy01
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:02 PM
for all your apparent tennis brains you, and a few others, keep acting like it's only the women who refuse to come to net :lol:

wtf are you on about. i wasn't talking about men's tennis.

given 3 of the 4 top men have more grinding baseline games i wouldn't expect them to come to net much (fed comes to net a decent amount when he plays the other 3 to counter their baseline games). the sharapova types on the atp are tsonga-like (shot maker) who tries to come forward whenever he can to kill points as he knows his ground game alone isn't enough to beat players like fed, nadal ect who can reset the points with defense.

StoneRose
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:19 PM
Do you know what is a forced error? The game is not made only of winners and UE...

We call a winner when the opponent doesn't touch the ball. Not so many player are able to make this kind of shot 40 times in a match. But you can control the point by placing the ball well, changing the pace and directions, using angles, working on effects, making drop shots and lobs, all these things which can induce an error when your opponent tries to hit his own shot. This is not a "winner", but it's a way to win the point anyway.

Radwanska usually hits more winners than 6 in a match (22 against Bartoli for example), but Sharapova's power didn't give her many occasions to do it this time, also because of her own lack of power.
You're right. Maria is not always consistent, when she's not it would be very silly to go for winners yourself when it's so much safer to let Maria hit those errors.Just sound match tactics from Aga.

n1_and_uh_noone
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:22 PM
wtf are you on about. i wasn't talking about men's tennis.

given 3 of the 4 top men have more grinding baseline games i wouldn't expect them to come to net much (fed comes to net a decent amount when he plays the other 3 to counter their baseline games). the sharapova types on the atp are tsonga-like (shot maker) who tries to come forward whenever he can to kill points as he knows his ground game alone isn't enough to beat players like fed, nadal ect who can reset the points with defense.

Please don't compare Tsonga to Sharapova without a massive disclaimer like 'I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT NET SKILLS, JUST GENERAL AGGRESSION'

Yoncé
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:22 PM
I love you had to clarify that 1 meant one :lol:

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:22 PM
Do you know what is a forced error? The game is not made only of winners and UE...



the only way Radwanska forced erorrs in the final was that she tried to send all balls back

For Sharapova it is was enough due to her inconsistent play and plenty of real UE (like drive volleys sent in the net) , for Azarenka it will never be enough
Anyway head to head Sharapova vs Radwanska is 7-2 and Aga gained this 2 win only on the slowest courts in the tour , much slower than RG or any clay court

n1_and_uh_noone
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:23 PM
You're right. Maria is not always consistent, when she's not it would be very silly to go for winners yourself when it's so much safer to let Maria hit those errors.Just sound match tactics from Aga.

Pretty much the sound tactics Sharapova employed against Li Na and was widely applauded for her wisdom then :lol:

n1_and_uh_noone
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:24 PM
the only way Radwanska forced erorrs in the final was that she tried to send all balls back

For Sharapova it is was enough due to her inconsistent play and plenty of real UE (like drive volleys sent in the net) , for Azarenka it will never be enough
Anyway head to head Sharapova vs Radwanska is 7-2 and Aga gained this 2 win only on the slowest courts in the tour , much slower than RG or any clay court

:eek: The USO is slower than clay now?

doomsday
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:26 PM
Pretty much the sound tactics Sharapova employed against Li Na and was widely applauded for her wisdom then :lol:

Not even comparable but whatever.:rolleyes:

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:28 PM
:eek: The USO is slower than clay now?
i mean second win , not two wins

Anyway USO can be called medium speed court

check this article ,

http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html


Let's do a quick run down of other, significant tournaments to show how the hard court-clay court paradigm no longer holds up: Miami is one of the slowest playing sites on the ATP Tour playing, as Fed describes it, "like a clay-court you without the sliding", while Madrid is on clay, but because of the 2,000 foot altitude plays pretty fast. Witness the near rebellion by the Spanish Davis Cup team forcing organizers to move Davis Cup matches out of Madrid to a site that favored the "clay court players".

n1_and_uh_noone
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:30 PM
This has been explained here dozens of times and sometimes very eloquently (OsloErik used to be among the most eloquent ones, by the way) -- there is no need for me to attempt it again.


Regarding yesterday's match I will only say that watching it for me was like observing an aggresive bull against a lightly armed torreador: the roaring bull is charging head-on all the time, of course -- the torreador would be stupid if he responded for example by trying to roar even louder, or by charging at the bull head-on himself -- he has a better use for his own head and, instead, employs all his skills to outmanoeuvre the bull, so that the bull misses more often than not. With proper skills and some luck, the roaring bull is defeated in the end.

This is what happened yesterday.

I suppose you prefer watching two roaring bulls charge at each other. I may be currently in minority at this forum but I do not associate this kind of entertainment with tennis, especially with women's tennis.

I like this analogy.

The torreador lands his jabs too, but they are subtle, they don't kill the bull instantly, more like bleed it to death, while the bull tries to go for a sensational, encounter-ending blow (usually a fail). Of course, we are talking of torreadors who win Miami, not scrubs. :lol:

Irute
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:30 PM
the only way Radwanska forced erorrs in the final was that she tried to send all balls back

For Sharapova it is was enough due to her inconsistent play and plenty of real UE (like drive volleys sent in the net , for Azarenka it will never be enough
Anyway head to head Sharapova vs Radwanska is 7-2 and Aga gained this 2 win only on the slowest courts in the tour , much slower than RG or any clay court

I am going to comment once because I suspect you are a child and are upset about Maria's loss, so reason may not help. If anyone who objectively watched the match saw that Aga was in control of this match the entire time and she did not give it up for a moment even during a few breakpoints against her. If she was doing nothing this would not be possible. Now if you ever played tennis or perhaps even watched enough of it you would exactly see what she was doing. Big number of her shots (80% let's say) were deliberate and with purpose, if you have not seen it be excited because there is an entire world of tennis you have not noticed yet and maybe one day you will get to see it.

doomsday
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:31 PM
check this article

http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

Back in 2007 it really wasn't that slow, Maria lost that match simply because of the wind and her 25DF. Its safe to say that Aga isn't going to beat Maria on clay or fast courts but IW and Miami remain her best chances and she took it yesterday.
So glad now we're done with those stupid slow courts.

n1_and_uh_noone
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:32 PM
check this article

http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html

Maybe you should, as well. The conclusion there is the USO is the only fast surface major left. :happy:

BH both wings
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:38 PM
the only way Radwanska forced erorrs in the final was that she tried to send all balls back

For Sharapova it is was enough due to her inconsistent play and plenty of real UE (like drive volleys sent in the net) , for Azarenka it will never be enough
Anyway head to head Sharapova vs Radwanska is 7-2 and Aga gained this 2 win only on the slowest courts in the tour , much slower than RG or any clay court

You sound like Sharapova hit tons of drive volleys into the net. Instead, her drive volleys and overheads were, like her serve, pretty accurate. That way Radwanska didn't win many points.

Most of Sharapova's UE came from returns of service and groundstrokes. Her footwork towards her forehand was terrible, and Radwanska did well to expose that, e.g. by flattening out her own forehand deep into the middle. In this case, the courts weren't too slow for Sharapova, but too fast (well, not really). She hadn't enough time to sort out her legs, but she still tried to hit hard and flat from these positions. (Actually, flattening out her shots cost Radwanska some easy points in the first set where she hit her forehand down the line into the net.)

sammy01
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:41 PM
Please don't compare Tsonga to Sharapova without a massive disclaimer like 'I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT NET SKILLS, JUST GENERAL AGGRESSION'

of course, but they both should have the same approach to beating the baseline grinders. looking to kill points at net whenever possible. tsonga understands this, he took nadal apart with net play at the oz open one year. sharapova however after years and years on tour still just let aga reset rallies time and again.

if women's tennis is to progress now away from aga, caro and vika winning most matches with single figure winners then girls have got to learn how to come and kill points at net.

the absolute worst example is li na. just simply refuses to come to net, then gets annoyed when her shots keep floating back and the point has to be won 3 or 4 times. how much better players would sharapova and li na be if they killed points at net.

venus and serena have always scored heavily by knocking volleys off at net. neither has that great volley technique, but when it is a case of just killing an easy volley you don't need great volleys just the ability to see what damage your ground stroke has done and to be in quick.

BH both wings
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:42 PM
Back in 2007 it really wasn't that slow, Maria lost that match simply because of the wind and her 25DF. Its safe to say that Aga isn't going to beat Maria on clay or fast courts but IW and Miami remain her best chances and she took it yesterday.
So glad now we're done with those stupid slow courts.

I wholeheartedly agree. I am also glad that you are done with that Crapova signature ...

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:48 PM
You sound like Sharapova hit tons of drive volleys into the net. Instead, her drive volleys and overheads were, like her serve, pretty accurate. That way Radwanska didn't win many points.

Most of Sharapova's UE came from returns of service and groundstrokes. Her footwork towards her forehand was terrible, and Radwanska did well to expose that, e.g. by flattening out her own forehand deep into the middle. In this case, the courts weren't too slow for Sharapova, but too fast (well, not really). She hadn't enough time to sort out her legs, but she still tried to hit hard and flat from these positions. (Actually, flattening out her shots cost Radwanska some easy points in the first set where she hit her forehand down the line into the net.)

Try to remember that service games which Sharapova lost , there were plenty absolutely unforced errors
On break points which Sharapova gained she also played inaccurate , sending outs from easy positions.
In key moments Sharapova played without due concentration

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 02:04 PM
Maybe you should, as well. The conclusion there is the USO is the only fast surface major left. :happy:

do you feel difference between "Aga gained this 2 win" (as i wrote) and "Aga gained this 2 wins"

I just underlined that Radwanska managed to use all advantages extremely slow courts im Miami provides her espesially against attacking opponents

longtin23
Apr 1st, 2012, 03:29 PM
Really shocking??
Not really, how many forced errors from Maria then??

bandabou
Apr 1st, 2012, 03:31 PM
But people are missing the larger point: Sharapova herself has won matches when she barely hits winners herself as well.

doomsday
Apr 1st, 2012, 03:36 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. I am also glad that you are done with that Crapova signature ...

:lol: I was possessed, I feel good now :lol:

Kworb
Apr 1st, 2012, 03:37 PM
Many of Maria's "unforced" errors were also due to Aga changing the pace all the time. There were many times when she suddenly hit it a lot slower, and Maria would try and attack and miss. Aga didn't allow her to get into a rhythm.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 1st, 2012, 03:53 PM
Try to remember that service games which Sharapova lost , there were plenty absolutely unforced errors
On break points which Sharapova gained she also played inaccurate , sending outs from easy positions.
In key moments Sharapova played without due concentration

Whereas Aga was concentrated and focused throughout. Hmmmm....sounds like Aga deserved to win the match then.

Kworb
Apr 1st, 2012, 04:31 PM
Q. I know with the style of play that you have that you don't hit a lot of winners, but were you still surprised with just one winner you still won the first set?
AGNIESZKA RADWANSKA: I didn't really look at the statistics, to be honest. But, well, Maria start to play, she play very aggressive tennis, so it's really hard to make any winners from her style of the game.
So she make for sure more winners in this match, for sure. I don't even need to look at the statistics. Yeah.

Critique
Apr 2nd, 2012, 01:10 PM
Honestly, in a Miami final a player is going to do what they need to do to win. In Aga's case, that was constant retrieving to reset the point (although I don't think she can really do much else, apart from the odd spectacular dropshot + lob).. even though that is boring to watch, one must question Maria's inability to kill points off better by coming forward or the continuous slowing down of courts by WTA/ATP.

n1_and_uh_noone
Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:14 PM
Funny thing is, with 1 winner, she gave up 5 games to Sharpie in set 1, with 5, she gave up 4 games. With 10 winners, it would have been 6-3, with 15 winners, 6-1 or 6-2 and with 20 winners in a set, a nice warm bagel :spit:

Nice of Radwanska not to humiliate Sharpie any more than she already has been in finals.

JCTennisFan
Apr 2nd, 2012, 10:43 PM
Honestly, in a Miami final a player is going to do what they need to do to win. In Aga's case, that was constant retrieving to reset the point (although I don't think she can really do much else, apart from the odd spectacular dropshot + lob).. even though that is boring to watch, one must question Maria's inability to kill points off better by coming forward or the continuous slowing down of courts by WTA/ATP.

Not even just that but also varying up spins as well as making the serve more unpredictable. Ive said for some time now that Sharapova is far too rigid in her gameplan... she almost has no plan B whatsoever. This "live by the sword, die by the sword" mentality just does not work against certain players.. such as Radwanska, Azarenka, and Wozniacki. Maria would be wise to start trying new tactics against players of this gamestyle type.

Malva
Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:09 AM
Many of Maria's "unforced" errors were also due to Aga changing the pace all the time. There were many times when she suddenly hit it a lot slower, and Maria would try and attack and miss. Aga didn't allow her to get into a rhythm.

I watched the match while listening to the Russian Eurosport commentators (Likhovtseva and Kalivod). Numerous times throughout the match they were saying that a good portion of Sharapova's errors resulted from Radwanska's constant changes of pace, rotation, and placement, which were confounding Sharapova. It was Likhovtseva who said, I think, at some point that being herself a former professional player she knew how difficult was what Radwanska was doing in full run covering the court under barrage from Sharapova. As a result the latter was making shots often un-prepared, ill-placed, or wrong-footed, applying too much force no matter what shot she was making due to uncertainty of what ball she was receiving. I personally think that this somehow explains the increasingly kamikaze-like tactics of Sharapova as the match progressed.

Corswandt
Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:57 AM
So basically: someone plays a whole match in which she does nothing but retrieving with the same dinky, paceless, spinless shots over and over again. But self-appointed experts claim that in said dinky and evidently identical shots there were actually huge variations in spin, depth and pace - it's just that it was all so subtle it's near impossible to detect! They were all so cunningly disguised as dinky puffballs landing around the service line!

Tendency is to :hah: at anyone who expects us to believe something quite this outrageously untrue, but I really have to :hatoff: to such creativity. :lol:

Utterchaos
Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:02 AM
So basically: someone plays a whole match in which she does nothing but retrieving with the same dinky, paceless, spinless shots over and over again. But self-appointed experts claim that in said dinky and evidently identical shots there were actually huge variations in spin, depth and pace - it's just that it was all so subtle it's near impossible to detect! They were all so cunningly disguised as dinky puffballs landing around the service line!

Tendency is to :hah: at anyone who expects us to believe something quite this outrageously untrue, but I really have to :hatoff: to such creativity. :lol:

This. It's ridiculous.

Kworb
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:21 AM
Likhovtseva is a self-appointed expert?

Irute
Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:08 PM
Likhovtseva is a self-appointed expert?

There are those who play tennis and those who critique it. The ones that critique it often tried the sport for themselves, it looked so easy, but then ... well critiquing worked better. They seem to see stuff, but still don't understand why it did not work for them when they tried it, they did "exactly" the same. Well, it really depends what you see and what you don't. If you don't see well you can make big mistakes:
X_9-QERcFu0

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:08 PM
So basically: someone plays a whole match in which she does nothing but retrieving with the same dinky, paceless, spinless shots over and over again. But self-appointed experts claim that in said dinky and evidently identical shots there were actually huge variations in spin, depth and pace - it's just that it was all so subtle it's near impossible to detect! They were all so cunningly disguised as dinky puffballs landing around the service line!

Tendency is to :hah: at anyone who expects us to believe something quite this outrageously untrue, but I really have to :hatoff: to such creativity. :lol:

Ok then. If you would prefer to believe that Sharapova made approx 50 errors off exactly the same ball be my guest. That said, if that was the case, and for the record I personally do not believe for a second it was, it was still pretty sensible to keep producing the same groundstroke if it was having such a calamitous effect on Sharapova's game. Clearly whatever Radwanska was doing with her groundies, Sharapova was unable to hit enough winners off them to overcome the huge amount of errors she was making off them, something that didn't happen to her in previous rounds.

Sharapova was pretty much able to tee off of Wozniacki's groundstrokes during their match, but the fact that she was unable to do so against Radwanska does suggest there was something very different happening in this match.

Additionally this a match in which Radwanska won 55% percent of the points vs 45% for Sharapova. Total points won was 74 to 60. You should know very well by tennis standards winning a match by 14 points and 55% of the points scored is pretty conclusive. To suggest this match was decided by one or two points is ridiculous. If you can claim this match could have gone either way then you could make the same claim about roughly 40% of the matches that are played on the tour.

Sharapova vs Makarova was won by a score of 6-4 7-6(3). Sharapova won this match with 52% of the points won and just 7 more actual points. Makarova had 15 bps compared to Sharapova's 8. Do you suggest this match could have gone either way too?

Malva
Apr 3rd, 2012, 12:10 PM
Likhovtseva is a self-appointed expert?

Not just Likhovtseva -- Sharapova herself:

Q. So do you think when there are that many errors, how much is it you and how much is the way that she's playing is making you make more errors? I know you don't have an exact percentage, but if you could kind of explain.

MARIA SHARAPOVA: Yeah, it's obviously a combination. You want to put pressure on her to go for a little bit more maybe when she's, you know, moving, but she moved extremely well.
She hit a lot of good balls on the run and they were deep. She didn't just bring them back; she had something on them.

JCTennisFan
Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:45 PM
There are those who play tennis and those who critique it. The ones that critique it often tried the sport for themselves, it looked so easy, but then ... well critiquing worked better. They seem to see stuff, but still don't understand why it did not work for them when they tried it, they did "exactly" the same. Well, it really depends what you see and what you don't. If you don't see well you can make big mistakes:
X_9-QERcFu0

Lol, thats completely not true. Tennis is one of the hardest sports to be good at and usually requires the person to have started playing before 10 or so... which is insane when you think about it. Many people (myself included) got into tennis in their teens, dont have the money or time to play every day, etc etc. There have been many coaches who where were great but not the best players themselves. Not to mention someone can have the mind for tennis but maybe not the body to back that up.

JCTennisFan
Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:48 PM
Not just Likhovtseva -- Sharapova herself:

I personally think that Radwanska is just getting better at redirecting the pace of her opponents. If Sharapova had given her deep but slowly paced shots id like to see how well Radwanska could do at producing her own power... I would venture to guess not well.

Charlatan
Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:56 PM
So basically: someone plays a whole match in which she does nothing but retrieving with the same dinky, paceless, spinless shots over and over again. But self-appointed experts claim that in said dinky and evidently identical shots there were actually huge variations in spin, depth and pace - it's just that it was all so subtle it's near impossible to detect! They were all so cunningly disguised as dinky puffballs landing around the service line!

Tendency is to :hah: at anyone who expects us to believe something quite this outrageously untrue, but I really have to :hatoff: to such creativity. :lol:

PREACH!!!

Kworb
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:04 PM
I personally think that Radwanska is just getting better at redirecting the pace of her opponents. If Sharapova had given her deep but slowly paced shots id like to see how well Radwanska could do at producing her own power... I would venture to guess not well.
But Sharapova can't play like Azarenka. It would be useless for her to rally back and forth endlessly, because she will eventually make the error, unlike Azarenka who is just as consistent as Radwanska.

Irute
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:12 PM
Lol, thats completely not true. Tennis is one of the hardest sports to be good at and usually requires the person to have started playing before 10 or so... which is insane when you think about it. Many people (myself included) got into tennis in their teens, dont have the money or time to play every day, etc etc. There have been many coaches who where were great but not the best players themselves. Not to mention someone can have the mind for tennis but maybe not the body to back that up.

Agree with you. You SEE IT; some don't.

JCTennisFan
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:13 PM
But Sharapova can't play like Azarenka. It would be useless for her to rally back and forth endlessly, because she will eventually make the error, unlike Azarenka who is just as consistent as Radwanska.

Of course she can... who said she couldnt? Most of the reason why she misses or dumps into the net are because she is hitting high paced, flat, low percentage shots. If she were to keep the depth but with a safer level of pace and more clearance over the net it would require Radwanska to produce her own power (or atleast more of it) which she would have a hard time with.

Then once Sharapova got a blatant sitter with little pace or depth she can step in, crank up the power, and flatten it out to end the point.... she can go further by holding off until she has seen which direction Radwanska is going to cover and then hitting to the open court.

Malva
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:24 PM
I personally think that Radwanska is just getting better at redirecting the pace of her opponents. If Sharapova had given her deep but slowly paced shots id like to see how well Radwanska could do at producing her own power... I would venture to guess not well.

Aside from the fact that Sharapova is unlikely to be able to do what you are proposing, the answer is: that would be an entirely different match and, my guess is, Radwańska would readjust her game appropriately within the span of a few points. Three different matches, three very different opponents (Venus Williams, Bartoli, Sharapoova), and in all three she was able to adjust her game to what the opponent was currently doing very well. She seems to be extremely good now at reading the situation on the court and acting appropriately. I don't see any other player who can do that as well as she does.

JCTennisFan
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:26 PM
The problem that alot of power hitters are beginning to run into is that counterpunching grinders like the pace and consistency they are given... they feed off of it. In order to beat them on a consistent basis, a power hitter needs to damper the pace along with keeping depth and net clearance and rally the counterpuncher until the time is right.

At first this seems counter-intuitive... why would the power hitter want to give up their strength? (which is hitting hard shots) The reason is because the counterpuncher cannot produce enough of their own power to be hitting winners if they do not have enough pace being given to them to redirect. However, the power hitter can crank up the pace and flatten the shot out at will. The power hitter just has to wait for the right opportunity to unleash their power hitting... instead of using it stroke in and out.

Wiggly
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:39 PM
Power hitters usually don't have the fitness/stamina of counter punchers.

If they always add 4-5 shots to every rally, they'll ran out of gas in the end.
Sharapova would destroys Wozniacki and Radwanska on fast, low-bouncing courts.

JCTennisFan
Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:58 PM
Power hitters usually don't have the fitness/stamina of counter punchers.

If they always add 4-5 shots to every rally, they'll ran out of gas in the end.
Sharapova would destroys Wozniacki and Radwanska on fast, low-bouncing courts.

They would not necessarily have to do it every time... thats the beauty of it. They have the ability to turn up the power anytime they choose and if they did it unpredictably it would leave the counterpuncher constantly second-guessing themselves.

One thing is for sure though, counterpunchers love consistent pace and power. Find a way to take that from them as much as possible without ruining your own game (by taking your weapons away totally) and it should work quite well. Dont forget that if you arent putting as much effort into your shots... you expend less energy. On the flip side though you would use more energy by running around more often.. but it wouldnt be a lose-lose situation as you are suggesting.

The main problem is that most of the power hitters arent smart enough or clever enough (not to mention not patient enough) to pull off this sort of strategy... afterall hitting hard and flat has gotten them to where they are.. they havent had to do something different.

Malva
Apr 4th, 2012, 12:11 AM
They would not necessarily have have to do it every time... thats the beauty of it. They have the ability to turn up the power anytime they choose and if they did it unpredictably it would leave the counterpuncher constantly second-guessing themselves.

One thing is for sure though, counterpunchers love consistent pace and power. Find a way to take that from them as much as possible without ruining your own game (by taking your weapons away totally) and it should work quite well. Dont forget that if you arent putting as much effort into your shots... you expend less energy. Indeed you would also expend more by running around more often.. but it wouldnt be a lose-lose situation as you are suggesting.

The main problem is that most of the power hitters arent smart enough or clever enough to pull off this sort of strategy... afterall hitting hard and flat has gotten them to where they are.. they havent had to do something different.

I think in the last paragraph you found your own answer to the question why the power hitters are incapabable to do what you are asking them to do. Also, putting on the same ground all the so called counterpunchers is not really helpful, just look at this random quote from Steve Tignor about Radwańska:

If you prefer slam-bam tennis, you may not appreciate Radwanska's subtle skill set, but when she's on, she's one of the more entertaining players to watch. The Pole possesses shrewd court sense, exquisite touch, and is a highly-accurate player adept at taking the ball early and creating space for her shots.

While being one of the key characteristics of her game -- one of the reasons I love her game -- do you think this applies to counterpunchers as a whole? You probably do not.

Rest Maria!
Apr 4th, 2012, 12:18 AM
The problem that alot of power hitters are beginning to run into is that counterpunching grinders like the pace and consistency they are given... they feed off of it. In order to beat them on a consistent basis, a power hitter needs to damper the pace along with keeping depth and net clearance and rally the counterpuncher until the time is right.

At first this seems counter-intuitive... why would the power hitter want to give up their strength? (which is hitting hard shots) The reason is because the counterpuncher cannot produce enough of their own power to be hitting winners if they do not have enough pace being given to them to redirect. However, the power hitter can crank up the pace and flatten the shot out at will. The power hitter just has to wait for the right opportunity to unleash their power hitting... instead of using it stroke in and out.
Yes, but they have to use variety match in match out in order to use it efficiently, otherwise they'll just make plethora of UEs trying to adjusting to the opponent.

I've seen 3 players this year dismantling Agnieszka - Azarenka, Mattek-Sands and Hampton.
Azarenka herself is no stranger to pushing/counterpunching/grinding (see her Miami matches against Cibulkova and Bartoli), so she can stay long in the rallies, puts her balls very deep in the court and being able to use much more pace she effectively dictates the points against Agnieszka.

Match against Mattek-Sands was peculiar in that it was very windy on that day and Radwanska always put the ball back into middle of the court in windy conditions, so perhaps it would look completely differently on a calmer day. Regardless, BMS was hitting deep and powerful strokes that put Agnieszka far behind the baseline, then used dropshots or some nice angles. She hit ~80 winners in that match, but ultimately lost (mostly due to inferior fitness).

Sharapova's ground strokes on the other hand hit on/near the service, and while most players have troubles consistently putting them back on court, great retrievers like Radwanska and Azarenka have no problems with them AND placing them where they want, most of the time much deeper in the court. Thus Sharapova fails to open the court which forces her to use more aggressive (in terms of depth and angle) shots and she often makes an error in such situation - see the match point against Radwanska as an example.

JCTennisFan
Apr 4th, 2012, 12:34 AM
Radwanska hit one winner (in the first set)... so we obviously know that she didnt win that set due to Sharapova not being able to A.) get to the ball or B.) Being overwhelmed on the baseline. In a situation like this Sharapova needs to realize it and pull back on her strokes and go for depth and consistency. She should let the counterpuncher try to come up with shots on their own and also give them the opportunity to self-destruct. Kim did it at the AO this year against Li, did she not?

Irute
Apr 4th, 2012, 01:07 AM
Radwanska hit one winner (in the first set)... so we obviously know that she didnt win that set due to Sharapova not being able to A.) get to the ball or B.) Being overwhelmed on the baseline. In a situation like this Sharapova needs to realize it and pull back on her strokes and go for depth and consistency. She should let the counterpuncher try to come up with shots on their own and also give them the opportunity to self-destruct. Kim did it at the AO this year against Li, did she not?

Maria would have to have the ability to do that, then we'd have to say what Aga's answer would be. Probably more winners which she shown she is capable of hitting in other matches. In case of Kim vs. Li, well since when Li is a counterpuncher?

JCTennisFan
Apr 4th, 2012, 01:16 AM
Maria would have to have the ability to do that, then we'd have to say what Aga's answer would be. Probably more winners which she shown she is capable of hitting in other matches. In case of Kim vs. Li, well since when Li is a counterpuncher?

Li is a peculular case in that she is a sort of Power hitter/counterpuncher/grinder hybrid of sorts. She always seems to hit a good deal harder when against someone who can produce their own pace and at the same time seems to struggle producing her own pace when against fluff hitters. She proved to me last year at the AO F as well as against Maria at the FO that consistent power is usually not a good way to beat her... just like a counterpuncher.

I do admit Li is not in the same vein of Radwanska, Azarenka, and Wozniacki but her weakness is the same as them... varied pace/spins with good margin over the net while keeping depth. Not really necessarily going for the lines but waiting for the counterpuncher to get stretched too far out of the court (largely by being pushed far behind the baseline.. requiring them to really have to cover some serious court from side to side. This is why depth in shot is critical... while pace takes a back seat) or waiting for a sitter/short ball to step in and pounce on.

Malva
Apr 4th, 2012, 02:10 AM
Radwanska hit one winner (in the first set)... so we obviously know that she didnt win that set due to Sharapova not being able to A.) get to the ball or B.) Being overwhelmed on the baseline.

To call it "overwhelmed" would be certainly too much yet something of the sort was occurring nevertheless: Sharapova was, to use Steve Tignor's own words -- "bamboozled" by Radwańska's game.

Utterchaos
Apr 4th, 2012, 02:19 AM
To call it "overwhelmed" would be certainly too much yet something of the sort was occurring nevertheless: Sharapova was, to use Steve Tignor's own words -- "bamboozled" by Radwańska's game.

:rolleyes: More likely Sharapova got pushed to death on a slow ass court by an opponent too cowardly to go for actual winners. There is absolutely nothing special about Radwanska's game. She is a very good pusher, but the whole "intelligent game" bullshit, is a myth. Whenever her opponent doesn't feed her endless UE, she is as helpless as Wozniacki. She admitted as much in YEC 2011, when Kvitova started destroying her 1-5 down. Every match she plays is on her opponent's racquet.

égalité
Apr 4th, 2012, 02:52 AM
What was her winner/UE differential. That's a more telling stat, isn't it? She probably made a similar number of UEs. :shrug:

Corswandt
Apr 4th, 2012, 11:34 AM
Aside from the fact that Sharapova is unlikely to be able to do what you are proposing, the answer is: that would be an entirely different match and, my guess is, Radwańska would readjust her game appropriately within the span of a few points. Three different matches, three very different opponents (Venus Williams, Bartoli, Sharapoova), and in all three she was able to adjust her game to what the opponent was currently doing very well. She seems to be extremely good now at reading the situation on the court and acting appropriately. I don't see any other player who can do that as well as she does.

No.

Agatha played the same in all three matches - retrieving from the baseline (which is remarkable considering how her game plan against Bartoli in previous matches was mostly to lure her into the net, where her hands of stone could be exposed) and prolonging the rallies.

If the matches went differently, if the points were played differently, it was almost exclusively due to Agatha's opponents playing differently. Bartoli was hitting big from the baseline for her post 2010 standards, and was very successful in attacking Agatha's serve, so she broke her at will while Martha couldn't do so later on. But then couldn't hold due to her own shoulder injury. Venus was running on fumes and her stamina wasn't enough even for midlength baseline rallies, so took to rushing the net to keep points as short as possible - with a measure of success, much like VIP when she plays Agatha, because Agatha can't hit passing shots with enough pace in them to prevent her opponent at the net from at least having a chance to play the volley. Martha looked tired, her footwork was considerably worse than it had been in the SF, her focus suffered as a result, and she was reluctant to go for her shots (and when she did Agatha most often tracked them down), so she was forced to play a lot of neutral rallies, few of which she won because she was up against a much faster and more consistent opponent.

Throughout, Agatha kept playing the same.

Kworb
Apr 4th, 2012, 11:45 AM
People are just pressed that Aga has been making their faves play so badly. But they will have their revenge soon on the red clay.

JustPetko
Sep 25th, 2012, 07:10 AM
Watson just won first set against Sharapova in TB with one winner :oh:

Brad[le]y.
Sep 25th, 2012, 07:12 AM
Wozniacki hit one winner in the second set of her 2009 USO QF vs. Melanie Oudin.

And that winner was a net cord :spit:

Sabinator.
Sep 25th, 2012, 08:40 AM
y.;22239464']Wozniacki hit one winner in the second set of her 2009 USO QF vs. Melanie Oudin.

And that winner was a net cord :spit:

:sobbing:

Mr.Sharapova
Sep 25th, 2012, 09:37 AM
Didn't Woz win a set with 0 winners 2 years ago in Beijing or Tokyo? :oh::spit:

This :yeah:.

saul1333
Sep 25th, 2012, 11:09 AM
Just happened again.

Curcubeu
Feb 19th, 2013, 09:59 AM
Errani just won the first set against Goerges hitting 0 winners

Adrian.
Feb 19th, 2013, 10:07 AM
Errani just won the first set against Goerges hitting 0 winners

:haha:

Jule :o

Sam L
Feb 19th, 2013, 10:08 AM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m66t0z8PJ11rzapx4o1_500.gif

Juju Nostalgique
Feb 19th, 2013, 11:58 AM
Let Pushwanska alone, she saved tennis last week FFS! :armed:

Carlsbadwanska
Feb 22nd, 2013, 07:24 PM
Azarenka won a second set against Petra in Wimbledon SF with one winner too.

fouc
Feb 22nd, 2013, 07:27 PM
Azarenka won a second set against Petra in Wimbledon SF with one winner too.

:oh:

Jose.
Feb 22nd, 2013, 07:33 PM
So weak, Errani can do much better than this, I'm dissapointed at you Radwanska...

Carlsbadwanska
Feb 22nd, 2013, 07:38 PM
So weak, Errani can do much better than this, I'm dissapointed at you Radwanska...

Jose, unfortunatelly Sara is a peak of pushing. :wavey:

Jose.
Feb 22nd, 2013, 07:53 PM
Jose, unfortunatelly Sara is a peak of pushing. :wavey:

I was being ironic :lol: (Errani hit 0 winners in 2 sets against Goerges) :p

Letigre
Feb 22nd, 2013, 08:00 PM
So now La Errani has the doubtful privilege of being probably the only player ever in winning two sets with zero winners and losing a set without making a point. Pity it didn't happen in the same match. I worship the ground you push upon Sara :worship::worship:

JustPetko
Apr 21st, 2013, 02:57 PM
Sara just had a SP to win a set 6-0 with 1 winner :oh: