PDA

View Full Version : Radwanska will have better career than Wozniacki


mistymore
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:21 PM
Even if neither ever win a slam I think Radwanska will end up having a better career than Wozniacki. She will end up winning more titles, more Premier titles, and possibly making as many or more career slam semis and finals. Right now for instance it seems only Azarenka can beat her.

NashaMasha
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:25 PM
she will not be №1 for a longer time than Woz , for sure
As for tournaments , She has more chances to win Slam in US Open or AO
Right now for instance it seems only Azarenka can beat her.
only on slow hard courts , on clay and on grass it is not going to be the same

Tenis Srbija
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:29 PM
No. If the tennis ends tomorrow for both of them the world will remember Wozniacki for being No1 for quite some time and no one will remember Radwanska for winning Miami. Fact... It has always been like that. When Radwanska gets No1 position or wins a slam...well than you can start this thread :)

Jorn
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:32 PM
At younger or same age Caro > Kim+Venus+MashaS+Vika+Aga at total weeks at No 1. :)

goldenlox
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:04 PM
I dont know. They're both still early in their careers. Its up to them to play their best in week 2 of majors, and to keep winning titles, and we'll see who does it better.

I'll think they'll both make tens of millions, but majors, it takes clutch serving under pressure, and neither have done it yet. But still have plenty of time

Dan_Doe
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:12 PM
At younger or same age Caro > Kim+Venus+MashaS+Vika+Aga at total weeks at No 1. :)

But Venus(7) - Kim(4) - Masha(3) - Vika(1) - Aga(0) = -1 , so Caro is one point better than them at winning Grand Slams too :oh:

RenaSlam.
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:22 PM
It's all a nightmare.

Kworb
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:26 PM
They already have the same number of mandatory titles. :oh:

Sammo
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:32 PM
It's all a nightmare.

This

doomsday
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:33 PM
It's all a nightmare.

:lol:

chingching
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:42 PM
Inevitable. She is wozniacki but she is creative and can hit winners

Charlatan
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:47 PM
It's all a nightmare.

i love the way you posts on here :lol: always a short post with not more than two sentences

Novichok
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:58 PM
It's all a nightmare.

:awww:

Charlatan
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:59 PM
Shows educational ability :hatoff:

SwingVolley :facepalm:

Mary Cherry.
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:01 AM
Ha, April fools.

SwingVolley93
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:01 AM
SwingVolley :facepalm:

My apologies I deleted the post that was really mean
:oh:
sorry huns! :wavey:

Novichok
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:04 AM
i love the way you posts on here :lol: always a short post with not more than two sentences

I don't. It's disgusting. *pukes*

treufreund
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:05 AM
Wozniacki has a lot of potential if she changes her mindset and improves that forehand. In fact, that is what Aga has done. She has a more confident, aggressive mindset, a better forehand and a better serve than before.

mistymore
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:06 AM
she will not be №1 for a longer time than Woz , for sure
As for tournaments , She has more chances to win Slam in US Open or AO


The #1 ranking has lost all value, 200 weeks at #1 in the era of Wozniacki/Safina/Ivanovic/Jankovic/Azarenka all reaching #1 maybe equals a Berlin title in importance, LOL! So who cares about #1 stats. Everything else is all that matters. Probably neither will win a slam so I guess that means the stats Premier and other tournaments, where I expect Radwanska will surpass Wozniacki. I do think of the two Radwanska has more chance to win a slam someday than Wozniacki though,.

Charlatan
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:07 AM
I don't. It's disgusting. *pukes*

leave Renaslam alone. he/she seems cool :angel: :D

Novichok
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:08 AM
The #1 ranking has lost all value, 200 weeks at #1 in the era of Wozniacki/Safina/Ivanovic/Jankovic/Azarenka all reaching #1 maybe equals a Berlin title in importance, LOL! So who cares about #1 stats. Everything else is all that matters. Probably neither will win a slam so I guess that means the stats Premier and other tournaments, where I expect Radwanska will surpass Wozniacki. I do think of the two Radwanska has more chance to win a slam someday than Wozniacki though,.

If #1 doesn't mean anything then why do "Premier and other tournaments" mean something? And "reaching #1 maybe equals a Berlin title in importance?" How did you come to that conclusion? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Novichok
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:09 AM
leave Renaslam alone. he/she seems cool :angel: :D

The world isn't always as it seems. :angel:

mistymore
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:12 AM
If #1 doesn't mean anything then why do "Premier and other tournaments" mean something? And "reaching #1 maybe equals a Berlin title in importance?" How did you come to that conclusion? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Actually I was probably too generous. Reaching #1 around the same time Safina and the Serbs did is a badge of shame and humiliation, so actually nothing > being ranked as computer #1 for awhile in this era. Thanks for the correction. Anything is more value than being #1 in this era, of course winning tournaments, especialy good sized ones (which both Wozniacki and Radwanska have done, but not a slam, both are far too untalented for that although Radwanska is barely good enough she might sneak in 1 or 2 with some luck), is worth more than the embarassing computer #1 ranking of this era.

Now that Azarenka is the first real #1 since Henin in 2007 who both plays enough and consistently enough (aka not Serena of 2008-2010, and not Wozniacki for the consistent part) and wins big events and beats the best players (aka not Wozniacki or Safina) the #1 ranking might regain some mild value again. So if either Wozniacki or Radwanska reaches #1 anytime in the future it might be worth noting. Being computer #1 anytime from 2008-2011 is nothing though.

Novichok
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:16 AM
Actually I was probably too generous. Reaching #1 around the same time Safina and the Serbs did is a badge of shame and humiliation, so actually nothing > being ranked as computer #1 for awhile in this era. Thanks for the correction. Anything is more value than being #1 in this era, of course winning tournaments, especialy good sized ones (which both Wozniacki and Radwanska have done, but not a slam, both are far too untalented for that although Radwanska is barely good enough she might sneak in 1 or 2 with some luck), is worth more than the embarassing computer #1 ranking of this era.

Thank you for your explanation. Very thoughtful and well-reasoned response. :yeah:

Direwolf
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:25 AM
As long as Aza is alive! She will prevent that from happenin!!

marineblue
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:26 AM
Good topic for April fools day:worship:
Radwanska won't have a better career than Caro. I don't see her being able to hold no.1 for so long. Even several players who won a slam weren't able to hold it for that long as mentioned earlier. Also, Caro won twice as many events already so Radwanska will have to work hard to match that current number.

marineblue
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:30 AM
The #1 ranking has lost all value, 200 weeks at #1 in the era of Wozniacki/Safina/Ivanovic/Jankovic/Azarenka all reaching #1 maybe equals a Berlin title in importance, LOL! So who cares about #1 stats. Everything else is all that matters. Probably neither will win a slam so I guess that means the stats Premier and other tournaments, where I expect Radwanska will surpass Wozniacki. I do think of the two Radwanska has more chance to win a slam someday than Wozniacki though,.

It has not lost any value. It's probably just that your fave has failed to get there.;)

aselto
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:40 AM
Wozniacki has 18 career titles, Radwanska has 10. So there's a significant gap, but momentum's definitely on Radwanska's side. But I think one of them has to win a slam to be considered significantly greater than the other, without them they'll be historically irrelevant. :shrug:

marineblue
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:49 AM
Historical relevance is a bogus argument similar to the one about 'real no.1'. Every player will once be forgotten by majority and remembered only by their fanbase. Also, speaking from the experience those who say how irrelevant Wozniacki is were usually the same people who were commenting on her every move so go figure...
As for Aga,she'd have to have a tremendous year to come close to Caroline in terms of titles.

aselto
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:22 AM
How is winning a slam not important? All top tennis players schedule their season around peaking at slam and winning them is their main goal. It's like claiming an athlete in any other individual sport can be called the greatest of his/her generation without winning an Olympic gold medal. If Radwanska or Wozniacki won a slam this year, she'd be considered significantly ahead in terms of career achievements than the other because she managed to win the ultimate goal in this sport and the other didn't.

Not to mention majors champions get a lot more media attention than champions of any other tournament.

Six Feet Under
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:33 AM
We'll see after clay/grass season. Caro managed to remain respectable.

marineblue
Apr 1st, 2012, 11:52 AM
How is winning a slam not important? All top tennis players schedule their season around peaking at slam and winning them is their main goal. It's like claiming an athlete in any other individual sport can be called the greatest of his/her generation without winning an Olympic gold medal. If Radwanska or Wozniacki won a slam this year, she'd be considered significantly ahead in terms of career achievements than the other because she managed to win the ultimate goal in this sport and the other didn't.

Not to mention majors champions get a lot more media attention than champions of any other tournament.

It's not that important as people put it. How do you know how players plan their schedules? :rolleyes:
If Radwanska or Wozniacki won a slam that doesn't mean they'd be celebrated as you naively think. Ivanovic also won a slam,so did Schiavone but after that they struggled and there were no more celebrations and media attention was gone (especially in Schiavone's case).
In tennis,athlete can be called the best without the slam. The best is the one with no.1 next to their name not the one who won the biggest event.

aselto
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:32 PM
Objectively determining the best player is moot, it's not the point of the rankings anyway (it's to determine tournament seeds). Grand Slams are the biggest tournaments in tennis and winning them is the ultimate achievement.

And yes, if someone starts sucking after winning GS then they obviously waste all the media attention they managed to gather, but it doesn't deny their past achievement(s).

NeKo
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:39 PM
At younger or same age Caro > Kim+Venus+MashaS+Vika+Aga at total weeks at No 1. :)

It doesn't matter.

Queenpova
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:44 PM
Hopefully. I like her.

Carsten
Apr 1st, 2012, 01:48 PM
Hard to say, I would definitely agree that Aga is more talented at least. She has more variety, is a better couterpuncher which means she is better at using her opponents pace and she is less predictable. If she keeps playing consistently I can definitely see her having the better career (apart from weeks at No. 1 which she won't reach most likely).

Excelscior
Apr 1st, 2012, 02:02 PM
It's not that important as people put it. How do you know how players plan their schedules? :rolleyes:
If Radwanska or Wozniacki won a slam that doesn't mean they'd be celebrated as you naively think. Ivanovic also won a slam,so did Schiavone but after that they struggled and there were no more celebrations and media attention was gone (especially in Schiavone's case).
In tennis,athlete can be called the best without the slam. The best is the one with no.1 next to their name not the one who won the biggest event.

Your delusional.

If a player is ranked number one (no matter how long) with out any slams, they will not be respected or taken seriously as an all time great player. That's not even a question. They'll be lucky if they're even remembered (outside of their Slam futility).

Now if a high ranked player has 3 slams, and was never number one vs a player that's been number one, with no slams, the player with the slams is going to be more remembered. Fair or not!

Does anyone really care or look at first, Roger Federer and Steffi Graf's weeks as number one to justify their Goatness (or number one at all), or is it their Career 16 and 22 Grand Slams!? Think about it?

And using Schiavone and Ivanovic as examples, are no different or better than using any random #1 that was there for a cup of coffee.

Slams count; whether we like it or not. Of course it's not the only thing, but it's what the tennis world revolves around and from, when you judge players careers; particularly their greatness. They start from Slam success, then work their way down.

As far as the OP's question. We'll see?

Radwanska has a lot to make up for, to catch or surpass Wozniaki's achievements (barring a Grand Slam title of course).

The one great thing she has in her favor though, is that her game seems to be improving, while Caro's is stagnating or going down hill. Let's see if Caro's game improves, and/or she gets rid of her father as well, with what results?

Hopefully, they both have a lot of years in front of them, so we'll see?

It should be fun watching both.

goldenlox
Apr 1st, 2012, 02:02 PM
I prefer 'who's better' to the old threads where supposedly, both of them are awful.
Now they won IW, Miami, almost 30 titles, probably around $20 million in prizemoney.
And they are just getting started

fouc
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:37 PM
She already has a bigger title :p

marineblue
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:40 PM
Caroline won Indian Wells last year and has almost twice as many titles.:lol:

marineblue
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:00 PM
Objectively determining the best player is moot, it's not the point of the rankings anyway (it's to determine tournament seeds). Grand Slams are the biggest tournaments in tennis and winning them is the ultimate achievement.

And yes, if someone starts sucking after winning GS then they obviously waste all the media attention they managed to gather, but it doesn't deny their past achievement(s).

Oh my, this 'argument' is all wrong:help:. Rankings are not some random numbers which WTA picks out of the hat and places next to players' name. They are determined by the points that players gain during the season, haven't you noticed? Therefore inevitably, rankings are tied to performance. Of course,they are used in an oganizational part of things to determine seedings. However,they also serve as a league table. The term 'top player' is based on their position in the rankings,for example.

WTA rulebook might not specifically define that ranking system is a league table because it's common sense,people. I mean, if someone is a top seed it's not just any random mug on a tour but an accomplished player:rolleyes:
But well, perhaps, the it's time for WTA to put down a rule about using a common sense while reading the rulebook...

NeKo
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:23 PM
Wozniacki was trained badly. Her forehand was used by Ilie Nastase in '70. And that's about how she was taught by the trainer who was the first to put her the racket in her hands. I think that's a big reason for being so limited, not the talent, but the way she was taught to play, now it's almost impossible to change and I know that...

Lulu.
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:25 PM
Hope so. Time will tell.

Patrick345
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:46 PM
Even if neither ever win a slam I think Radwanska will end up having a better career than Wozniacki. She will end up winning more titles, more Premier titles, and possibly making as many or more career slam semis and finals. Right now for instance it seems only Azarenka can beat her.

No way. Although the quality of opposition Wozniacki has beaten during her reign as world #1 and in most of her title wins was average, she has put together a quality non-Slam resume, that Radwanska will only surpass by winning Slams. Her 67 weeks at #1 alone. It´s almost impossible to achieve more, while going virtually nothing at the Slams. Even for somebody, who used smart scheduling, she was lucky to avoid all the top players due to injuries, aged related inconsistencies, while the younger players´ games hadn´t fully matured yet.

As it currently stands one Slam would do the trick for Radwanska in my eyes, because as long as Wozniacki stays Slam-less her many weeks at #1 work against her from a historical standpoint. Her time at the top will simply be seen as a weak transitional period between the old and new generation. On the other hand, if Wozniacki wins three Slams her many weeks at #1 will look great.

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 08:53 PM
Wozniacki is much more pretty, so her career in Turkish Airlines will be much better :bigclap::rocker:

Queenpova
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:00 PM
Wozniacki is much more pretty, so her career in Turkish Airlines will be much better :bigclap::rocker:

I think Aga is more attractive.

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:11 PM
I think Aga is more attractive.

you can open a beauty contest thread Aga vs Woz ,

i will win it for sure and by a big margin ;)

aselto
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:22 PM
Oh my, this 'argument' is all wrong:help:. Rankings are not some random numbers which WTA picks out of the hat and places next to players' name. They are determined by the points that players gain during the season, haven't you noticed? Therefore inevitably, rankings are tied to performance. Of course,they are used in an oganizational part of things to determine seedings. However,they also serve as a league table. The term 'top player' is based on their position in the rankings,for example.

WTA rulebook might not specifically define that ranking system is a league table because it's common sense,people. I mean, if someone is a top seed it's not just any random mug on a tour but an accomplished player:rolleyes:
But well, perhaps, the it's time for WTA to put down a rule about using a common sense while reading the rulebook...
This point has been discussed a hundred time already. Let's be reasonable about it. Most team sports play in leagues and if a team has big enough talent pool/budget to compete at highest level, they want be the season ending champion. WTA ranking is sorta league-like but there aren't comparable incentives to be a year end #1. The main difference however is that in a league each match is equal and you necessarily clash with every opponent (usually twice in a year), whereas in tennis each match and each tournament weighs differently and you can avoid meeting some top players for ages and meet others 4 times in 3 months.

Obviously, a person from #1-#4 bracket has achieved in the past 12 months much more than a person from #9-#12 bracket and can likely be classified as the better player, however qualifying #1 and #3 can be very tricky. WTA ranking is some benchmark for players and I'm sure many use it as a goal ("I want to be #20 this year" or whatever), but at the very top it's not that important, eg. I think "Wimbledon and Year End champion" next to Petra's name has a lot more weight in the public view than "ranked number 3 in the world".

Si_Hi
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:24 PM
Who cares which one of them will have a better career. Both ones suck.
Radwanska is 23; Wozniacki is 21 and Azarenka is 22. All of them have lost more matches than serena who has been on tour since 1995.(W/L Rad315-138 Woz311-113 Aza305-123 Rena506-106).
If rena is too good for them to reach, they are nowhere near Justine(W/L 525-115) or Venus(602-148) either.

Sp!ffy
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:31 PM
I don't. It's disgusting. *pukes*

Ikr. That poster probably isn't even capable of writing more than 2 sentences.

NashaMasha
Apr 1st, 2012, 09:31 PM
Sharapova is 425 to 107, also far from Generation Suck statistics