PDA

View Full Version : Angelique Kerber: "I've proven that I'm a great player." Do you agree with her?


Julian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:40 AM
"I've beaten almost all the great players this year, but I think I've proven that I'm a great player myself," said Kerber.

As of now, do you agree or disagree with her? :D

Valanga
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:43 AM
I am impressed with her play in Paris. And her subsequent success proves that she IS a great player (but of course she still has a lot to improve)

StoneRose
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:45 AM
Agree. She's one of the best in the world right now.

Barktra
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:45 AM
She is a great player. She is a machine and she has beaten all the top players other than Azarenka

Jimmie48
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:46 AM
She sure likes to talk about herself....

Blu€
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:47 AM
She's a good player, we can leave "great" for when she wins a couple of big tournaments.

RenaSlam.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:47 AM
She's right. She's playing extremely smart tennis right now. And she's one of the best competitors/fighters on the tour other than Serena and Maria.

Wiggly
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:47 AM
She's had solid top ten results but she could disappear next week and no one would notice.
Flying under the radar as Goerges and Lisicki have more hype yet show rather poor results.

I can see her being a top ten player for another year or two but she doesn't have that X factor to be a real force to be reckon with for years to come.

The day she lose a step, she's toast.

M.P
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:48 AM
good player...great? not much, moe like a machine

Shvedbarilescu
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:50 AM
Absolutely she's a great player. I would say that is a no-brainer.

Feyd
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:51 AM
She is a good player, but gurl win a couple of biggies first to claim greatness. :o

StoneRose
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:52 AM
She's had solid top ten results but she could disappear next week and no one would notice.
Flying under the radar as Goerges and Lisicki have more hype yet show rather poor results.

I can see her being a top ten player for another year or two but she doesn't have that X factor to be a real force to be reckon with for years to come.

The day she lose a step, she's toast.That hype's a TF problem. Angie is significantly better than Lisicki and light years ahead of Gorges. No comparison really.

Julian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:52 AM
I think she is a good player as of now, not a great player yet as she hasn't won any big tournaments. But she might change it pretty soon I think :)

Matej
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:54 AM
Sheīs a very, very good player but she needs to win a few big titles to be considered a great player. :shrug:

In my view, if she substantially improves her serve, she may very well challenge or even beat the likes of Azarenka on a regular basis in coming years.

KarlyM*
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:58 AM
I think she has proven to be a good, consistent player, but I wouldn't use the word "great" quite yet. ;)

LoLex
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:58 AM
She sure likes to talk about herself....

Coming from a Wozniacki fan. Please :help:

Show some respect.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:00 AM
If you define greatness by winning majors (or other big titles) than no, but she can successfully compete against anybody in the tour, so she is a great player and definitely one of the best 6 this season.

Jimmie48
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:01 AM
Coming from a Wozniacki fan. Please :help:

Show some respect.

How is pointing the obvious out having anything to do with lacking respect?

Kerber is quite cocky for what she has archived, this isn't the first time she said stuff like this. She's not exactly a humble person, that's all I'm saying.

NashaMasha
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:04 AM
Even some single Slam winners are not great players..... Kerber definitely is among top players , but great is word used for really Great.

Doully
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:07 AM
How is pointing the obvious out having anything to do with lacking respect?

Kerber is quite cocky for what she has archived, this isn't the first time she said stuff like this. She's not exactly a humble person, that's all I'm saying.

And you haven't exactly kept your unprecedented hatred of Kerber a secret on GM :rolleyes:

I certainly think she is a great player and only continues to improve. Certainly the best German player of the current crop and the best in many many years.

Natash.
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:08 AM
That hype's a TF problem. Angie is significantly better than Lisicki and light years ahead of Gorges. No comparison really.

She's a lot more consistent and smarter than those two. That goes without saying.

And I think she is a great player. Very fun to watch her play.

Kairi
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:09 AM
*Good.. Slow your roll girl.

Wiggly
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:10 AM
How is pointing the obvious out having anything to do with lacking respect?

Kerber is quite cocky for what she has archived, this isn't the first time she said stuff like this. She's not exactly a humble person, that's all I'm saying.

Any example?

Rolling-Thunder
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:10 AM
She has improved a lot over the past year. And she has had some great results. But I do not recall a big title either in a Slam or Premier tournament.

Sorry dear, you are not a great player. She has not earned the moniker of greatness. Let's not overuse it; otherwise, Radwanzka or Errani or any other top 10 player could say the same thing. Few would apply that to any of them.

The only greats on the tour are SERENA, VENUS, Clijsters and Sharapova. Neither Azarenka, Na Li, Schiavone nor Stosur deserve to be called great. You cannot even be considered great without winning a slam. And winning one slam does not entitle you to be called great. Would anyone here think that Majoli or Roddick are/were great?

A very good player does not equal a great player. This sounds delusional.

Kunal
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:11 AM
this

She's a good player, we can leave "great" for when she wins a couple of big tournaments.

Jimmie48
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:12 AM
Any example?

The whole Brussels thing, the "I'm the best German tennis player" etc.

The bottom line is, there are things that are compliments when other people say them about you. If you say that about yourself you come off as cocky and arrogant and that is the case here.

She hasn't won a slam, she hasn't made the Top 3, she hasn't won a big tournament yet. Considering all this, labeling herself a great player is pretty...well...cocky.

LoLex
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:12 AM
How is pointing the obvious out having anything to do with lacking respect?

It has. Her personality is not the subject of this thread :rolleyes:

Kerber is quite cocky for what she has archived, this isn't the first time she said stuff like this. She's not exactly a humble person, that's all I'm saying.

Well, she was asked about this. Good to know you would have answered differently.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:13 AM
How is pointing the obvious out having anything to do with lacking respect?

Kerber is quite cocky for what she has archived, this isn't the first time she said stuff like this. She's not exactly a humble person, that's all I'm saying.

lol
She was a #92 ranked player this time last year, now she's #6. It's extremely rare for a player of such age to show such a huge improvement. Fans and press take a while to adjust that someone is not a terrible journeywoman she once was, so they naturally ask her if she also has doubts about belonging to the elite. In which case Kerber responds that she feels she belongs among the best.

Her attitude is not only honest but expected of a professional player, if she won't believe in herself than who will?

Kunal
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:16 AM
i wouldnt have expected her to say something like that. she seems like a pretty grounded person. one cant throw around words like 'great' so easily. i mean clisjters is a great player and she has the record to prove it.

right now kerber is on the ascendency but we havent seen how far it will take her.

Doully
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:18 AM
People interpreting her use of the word 'great' in terms of actual tennis greats. :spit:

Over-analysing much? It's a pretty generic term.

Pump-it-UP
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:20 AM
Um, she hasn't even won a Tier I / Premier 5. :tape:

She's good.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:21 AM
People interpreting her use of the word 'great' in terms of actual tennis greats. :spit:

Over-analysing much? It's a pretty generic term.

Exactly. Given that she spent majority of her career ranked between #50 and #150, she must have looked up to top 10 players and thought any of them were great, whether they won a slam or not.

Craig.
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:21 AM
And you haven't exactly kept your unprecedented hatred of Kerber a secret on GM :rolleyes:

I certainly think she is a great player and only continues to improve. Certainly the best German player of the current crop and the best in many many years.

People interpreting her use of the word 'great' in terms of actual tennis greats. :spit:

Over-analysing much? It's a pretty generic term.

:yeah:

AcesHigh
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:23 AM
She's very good.

Rolling-Thunder
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:31 AM
I wonder if Vaidasova thought she was great also. One must never be baited into getting ahead of yourself. Greatness comes with time. Its does not happen in one year.
Its like thinking Serena in 1999, in winning her first slam, would definitely have been getting ahead of herself, if she had declared she was now great. No dear you're not. Sit down somewhere and just enjoy what you have achieved so far.

fluffyelloballz
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:33 AM
She's very good indeed.
But great, no.
Great means elite in my book.
Serena, Venus, Kim, Maria are all greats.
I would describe her more as excellent as she excels at her sport.

Lunaticalm
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:38 AM
Great yeah. Fantastic, only time will tell. Go Angie!

Direwolf
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:42 AM
Its like Radwanska/Caroline saying thay they are
Great players...

Soo soo wrong...
She is nowhere anything great!!

StoneRose
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:43 AM
Great is always in the definition of course. I play a lot of chess and i know the best players quite well. Top 10 in the world is certainly considered elite by me and all the chess players i know. Now tennis is certainly bigger world wide than chess so i don't see why players who reached top 10 shouldn't be considered great players, Angie did even more than just reaching top 10.

Just trying to give some perspective to this discussion, we all do a lot of whining about players around here. In reality all the players we're discussing and often ridiculing here are very good players, top 10 can certainly be called great imo.

harloo
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:47 AM
She believes her own hype., that's half the battle. However I think once players become familiar with her game and she`s expected to win it will be more difficult for her. Its different when nobody is expecting you to win. Kerber will be great only when the expectations are on her shoulders and she delivers at the big tournaments.

Kunal
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:54 AM
People interpreting her use of the word 'great' in terms of actual tennis greats. :spit:

Over-analysing much? It's a pretty generic term.



a word like great shouldnt really be a generic term. its thrown around like it means nothing.

nealcaffrey
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:01 AM
The whole Brussels thing, the "I'm the best German tennis player" etc.

The bottom line is, there are things that are compliments when other people say them about you. If you say that about yourself you come off as cocky and arrogant and that is the case here.

She hasn't won a slam, she hasn't made the Top 3, she hasn't won a big tournament yet. Considering all this, labeling herself a great player is pretty...well...cocky.

jajajajaa lol!!!
look if what if you are the no. 6 best in the world at your job. if you are a web designer or a writer and you are declared to be currently the 6th best at what you do! or even just belong in the top 10 best at what you're doing, wouldnt you say you are pretty damn great???
i don't think kerber is saying "yes i am great like steffi graf and serena williams" but just gr8 in context of how well she is playing amongst her peers. which she is!

i wud be more concerned if she says she's not great. more worrisome to not believe in yourself.
look at berdych of atp giving this weird interview about how slams are not for everyone,they are only for the top 3 guys...! i mean that is ridiculous! that is why no one in atp win slams except for roger,nadal and novak anymore! u need to have self belief to win.if she dont think she is great,she never win anything

Infiniti2001
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:03 AM
People interpreting her use of the word 'great' in terms of actual tennis greats. :spit:

Over-analysing much? It's a pretty generic term.

Bullshit!! The word great should not come out of her mouth.

The End :rolleyes:

RogerKvitova
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:06 AM
Good but not great

Deestruction
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:08 AM
Shes good but not great. Its as simple as pie.

TS
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:11 AM
She is rated number 6 in the world in her chosen profession. She is a great player, yes.

it-girl
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:19 AM
I think she has proven to be a good, consistent player, but I wouldn't use the word "great" quite yet. ;)This. Greatness is earned over time and if she continues to play the way she is now, one day she may indeed be considered a great player.

Chaosm21
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:24 AM
Does anyone know where this quote comes from and what the question was?

Julian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:29 AM
Does anyone know where this quote comes from and what the question was?

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/match_reports/2012-08-28/201208281346183398145.html

sxeraserhead
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:42 AM
She will be a great player if she manages to start winning tier Is and slams or keeps up this level of play consistently for years. The former is possible if she improves her serve among other things, and I doubt the latter will be true as her style of play is very taxing.

moby
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:45 AM
She's not a great player, but her attitude is what's keeping her in touch, so good for her.

Keadz
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:46 AM
She isn't calling herself a tennis great or comparing her achievements to anyone. She just thinks she is alright at tennis...which she is.

Calm down sheeple.

simonsaystennis
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:46 AM
I don't know how you could argue against what she's saying. SF at USO, SF at Wimbledon, QF at French, W at Paris Indoors, MM win at Copenhagen over Woz, and two big finals at Eastbourne and Cincy.

ranfurly
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:58 AM
She is a good player,

Being a great player incorporates longevity, statistics and what not, something which is a Work in Progress

tamwilltan
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:33 AM
very confused how she defined "great" . my answer is of course not

stromatolite
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:48 AM
I think she is in the sense she probably intended, but I don't like to see the word "great" bandied about too loosely. I think you should reserve that word for players who have already won slams, topped the rankings, or similar.

But English is not her first language, so I think what she meant is that she firmly belongs in the current top group of players. No doubt that that's true.

Rex59
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:02 AM
She's a good player, but not great. Further, I don't think she's the most talented of the Germans either. The one I think is the most talented is falling flat on her face, lately, and disappointing the heck out of me after showing promise early to mid-point of the season. Now, I'm going to have to wait 'til next year to get a clue.

edificio
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:15 AM
She's very good but not yet great, though I think she's using "great" in the casual sense (i.e., I played really great). Even though she's good, sometimes her game is so boring.

Beat
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:23 AM
depends upon one's definition of great ... she's certainly had a fantastic year!

tennisfan146
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:30 AM
I agree with her. She's proved to everyone that she is a great player, and can beat anyone on a good day. I'd love to see her lose to Venus though.

JRena
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:43 AM
Just tell her never to reach number one if she wants to stay 'great' ;)

zigga
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:43 AM
I think she has proven to be a good, consistent player, but I wouldn't use the word "great" quite yet. ;)

+1 :)

TeamUla
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:46 AM
The girl has a big EGO. I remember her grandfather talking she already told him to book the plane ticket for the Wimbledon final before her loss to Aga in semi. :spit:

Gilas.
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:02 AM
She's not nicknamed Kerber Machine for nothing.

Petkovic
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:31 AM
Her year has been great, but she still has to proof that she is a great player I think. She's definately good ofcourse.

wateva
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:51 AM
she's good but you can argue that she's great to. look at her victories over the so called 'greats' of the current tour. just this year alone, she has beaten serena, venus, masha and kim, the undoubtably greats of the game. so i wouldn't call her cocky for saying that. she has the wins to back her claims.

TS
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:57 AM
You're all getting hung up on semantics. Move on.

pav
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:59 AM
I am really hoping Angie continues on her journey to become a great player.

shrOOf
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:02 AM
What a senseless discussion...

chingching
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:09 AM
Definately

supermod
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:11 AM
:lol: This thread.

She is just saying that she is a GOOD player right now, and she beat other GOOD players.

That's it.

bandabou
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:13 AM
She's good...although to me she's a lil too much like a lefty Wozniacki (oddly enough both have beaten Serena on HC and by the same scoreline..:eek: ). Great? Time will tell if she can become one.

crazillo
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:19 AM
People should be careful. Kerber's English is pretty bad and I don't think she knows the implications of words such as "great" and "good" that well. She is just saying she belongs where she is ranked now, and I fully agree with that.

Kasey
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:44 AM
No.

Sammo
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:21 AM
Good, yes. Great, my ass :lol:

TeraByte
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:55 AM
People should be careful. Kerber's English is pretty bad and I don't think she knows the implications of words such as "great" and "good" that well. She is just saying she belongs where she is ranked now, and I fully agree with that.

This.
Anyway it is way too early to use great words.

NashaMasha
Aug 29th, 2012, 11:32 AM
She is rated number 6 in the world in her chosen profession. She is a great player, yes.

Errani should be called great either in that case.....

Really great players in the tour are
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Maria Sharapova
Kim Clijsters
Vika Azarenka
Petra Kvitova
Sveta Kuznetsova

Ivanovic, Na, Stosur, Schiavone may be considered great by their fans as well as Wozniacki, Jankovic, Radwanska.... But to my mind they are just very good players

Aravanecaravan
Aug 29th, 2012, 11:38 AM
Stevenson, Kournikova, Dokic, Kerber...

flareon
Aug 29th, 2012, 11:55 AM
Yes.

young_gunner913
Aug 29th, 2012, 12:01 PM
No.

0 slams.
No IW/Miami.
No Rome/Madird.
No Montreal/Cinci.
Couldn't even pull off Eastbourne.

She's a good player atm. But great is reserved for the ones who win the big titles repeatedly.

Darop.
Aug 29th, 2012, 12:28 PM
I always have this weird feeling about Kerber, that she's overplaying now and will just collapse in a while... Her game just seems so "breakdown-able" :shrug:

Anyways, hope it doesn't happen soon, keep it up :yeah:

basset
Aug 29th, 2012, 12:47 PM
she is a very good player not a great player. maybe in the future after a gs win etc....

Vikapower
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:07 PM
Kerber used this not in the sense of "great" self (achievements) but in the sense of she's proven herself to be part of the the elite players of the tour which is pretty much an irrefutable fact IMO.

I'm not her fan and dislike her game for most but she's the best of the rest by far --

Good for her if she has this kind of thinking basically the same that the other better top players of the tour use to win big titles and dominate the tour consistently ; they do not say it or would be careful choosing the words well etc. but they don't think any less behind the closed doors.

Imperfect Angel
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:09 PM
She's smart girl, she said "..I'm a great player myself", implying she thinks she's already achieved beyond her standards.:oh: But true, no one would expect her reach top 10 exactly one year ago and beating almost all top 10 players.:lol:

misty1
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:11 PM
people here are reading this the wrong way

is kerber a great player? yes, is she one of the greats? definately not

but there is a difference and all kerber is saying is that she is a great player and proven she deserves to be where she is. By no means is she calling herself a great player in the sense that so many of you seem to think

NaNaSlam
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:11 PM
This chick is sooo conceited. she has said many quotes like this already. What a joke, wasnt she like 150 a year ago? she hasnt archieved anything yet

laurie
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:12 PM
I assume when Kerber made this comment (source?) she didn't mean great as one the great players of the last few years, but in a current context. Of course, if Kerber can win a big tournament then that will help to her being called a great player. She is not far off but yes I think she can get more out of her serve which will help her considerably.

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:44 PM
She sure likes to talk about herself....

but not as much as Vuvurenka and Miss Sunset :bigwave:

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:46 PM
The whole Brussels thing, the "I'm the best German tennis player" etc.

The bottom line is, there are things that are compliments when other people say them about you. If you say that about yourself you come off as cocky and arrogant and that is the case here.

She hasn't won a slam, she hasn't made the Top 3, she hasn't won a big tournament yet. Considering all this, labeling herself a great player is pretty...well...cocky.

she is the best German player, and she is near top 3 and was near winning a big tournament, so STFU and go back to your little, nasty corner...:facepalm:

Sammo
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:48 PM
she is the best German player, and she is near top 3 and was near winning a big tournament, so STFU and go back to your little, nasty corner...:facepalm:

Near the top 3? She's number 6 and she's defending semifinals at the US Open

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Near the top 3? She's number 6 and she's defending semifinals at the US Open

from 6 to 3 it's only 3 places
from 92 (last year) to 3 it's 89 places

I think it's quite near :p

Let her pull a Radwanska'11 Asian swing and she will be #3 :p

Jimmie48
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:50 PM
she is the best German player, and she is near top 3 and was near winning a big tournament, so STFU and go back to your little, nasty corner...:facepalm:

"near the top 3"... well, you have a very generous definition of near then. She has a ton of points to defend in the next 12 months, that will be a tall order as it is so she can be very happy if she even manages to consolidate her position..which I doubt as people are getting better responding to her game, the surprise moment is pretty much gone.

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:51 PM
"near the top 3"... well, you have a very generous definition of near then. She has a ton of points to defend in the next 12 months, that will be a tall order as it is.

she had enough tournaments this year already where she lost too early, no problems with that...she might book her place in top 3 at YEC already :bigwave:

Jimmie48
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Sure, if 2-3 of the top players somehow get injured maybe, otherwise no chance in hell. She simply isn't on the same level as Sharapova, Vika or Kvitova.

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:55 PM
Sure, if 2-3 of the top players somehow get injured maybe, otherwise no chance in hell. She simply isn't on the same level as Sharapova, Vika or Kvitova.

yeah, that's why she beat Petra already twice this year and Maria once...:facepalm::bigwave:

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:56 PM
she might book her place in top 3 at YEC already :bigwave:




I think it's quite near :p

Let her pull a Radwanska'11 Asian swing and she will be #3 :p

Top 3? And who is she going to be ahead of? Azarenka? Serena? or Sharapova?

Jimmie48
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:57 PM
yeah, that's why she beat Petra already twice this year and Maria once...:facepalm::bigwave:

Kvitova played like shit until the USO swing and even Sabine beat Sharapova.

The match against Vika at Wimbledon is a good indicator at where she stands. She played her best tennis, had all the luck in the world with the net cords and still wasn't even close to take a set from Vika, let alone the match.

She simply dosen't belong in the top 3 as long as the top players are healthy and playing well.

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 01:59 PM
Top 3? And who is she going to be ahead of? Azarenka? Serena? or Sharapova?

Is Rena going to play Tokyo and Beijing? :unsure:
anyway, I said she is near, of course she first has to win against Venus tomorrow and then have great results in Asia+YEC to come near the Top 3 spot, but if Aga is able to be even #2, Angie can do the same :rocker2:

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:01 PM
Kvitova played like shit until the USO swing and even Sabine beat Sharapova.

The match against Vika at Wimbledon is a good indicator at where she stands. She played her best tennis, had all the luck in the world with the net cords and still wasn't even close to take a set from Vika, let alone the match.

She simply dosen't belong in the top 3 as long as the top players are healthy and playing well.

yeah, she was playing her best...my ass :haha:
of course she was lucky with the netcords but not as lucky Vika was with the lines(calls) from the first till the last point, it was rather Vika playing her best and being lucky in the right moments...anyway, senseless discussion, she is near Top 3 but still has to prove it that she belongs there (with winning a big tournament f.e.)

ExXotikal
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:04 PM
Is Rena going to play Tokyo and Beijing? :unsure:
anyway, I said she is near, of course she first has to win against Venus tomorrow and then have great results in Asia+YEC to come near the Top 3 spot, but if Aga is able to be even #2, Angie can do the same :rocker2:

Girl, go to bed.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:05 PM
but not as much as Vuvurenka and Miss Sunset :bigwave:
:spit:


Let her pull a Radwanska'11 Asian swing and she will be #3 :p
Easier said than done. :p
The match against Vika at Wimbledon is a good indicator at where she stands. She played her best tennis, had all the luck in the world with the net cords and still wasn't even close to take a set from Vika, let alone the match.
Vuvurenka is not a convenient opponent for many top players (Stosur, Radwanska, Sharapova etc.). This means nothing.

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:06 PM
Girl, go to bed.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-lX7u4zcXUQ4/ThivZ4hR3UI/AAAAAAAABHE/kHjF9C4B_nU/ny-brushemoff.gif

zigga
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:08 PM
Top 3? And who is she going to be ahead of? Azarenka? Serena? or Sharapova?

Exactly what I was thinking :)

I don't think she deserves top 3 yet, players listed above are much better than her. I would also add Kvitova, Na (if she keeps up Cincy form) and Radwanska, she at least has GS final.
She is having a great year and I don't want to take anything away from her, but when she defeated Sharapova, Serena and Kvitova they were playing very badly.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:09 PM
Is Rena going to play Tokyo and Beijing? :unsure:


So you are implying Kerber will over take Serena and Radwanska(?) and be the world number 3 at the end of this year? She is a very good player, but I dont see how she could be ranked ahead of any of Serena/Azarenka/Sharapova by the end of this year given the year they have had an the form they are in right now.

Even if Serena might not play the Asian HC season, she is still considerably ahead of Kerber and there are players like Azarenka/Radwanska/Sharapova who can handily stop Kerber from winning a p5 and a PM back to back.

I said she is near, of course she first has to win against Venus tomorrow and then have great results in Asia+YEC to come near the Top 3 spot,

No, you said she WILL BE #3 at the end of this year if she pulls a Radwanska.

JeMa
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:11 PM
She is not a great player yet. She has had a lot of good results but she is not great in any way.

Adrian.
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:13 PM
So you are implying Kerber will over take Serena and Radwanska(?) and be the world number 3 at the end of this year? She is a very good player, but I dont see how she could be ranked ahead of any of Serena/Azarenka/Sharapova by the end of this year given the year they have had an the form they are in right now.



No, you said she WILL BE #3 at the end of this year if she pulls a Radwanska.

you know what WILL BE knows, you are American, aren't you? :unsure:
(possible, but not certain...)

anyway, let us not discuss about this now and focus on how great she is ;) :lol: :hug:

NashaMasha
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:15 PM
Kerber beat Serena which didn't care much about it and beat ill Sharapova ...... and when it really mattered didn't manage to be compeitive with Aga even playing her best tennis the whole tournament

Yes she has very good results, but she is not a favourite , she still has much to prove, especially next season

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:16 PM
you know what WILL BE knows, you are American, aren't you? :unsure:
(possible, but not certain...)

Erm no :lol:.... For example, when you tell someone 'I will be at the USO tomorrow' it doesn't mean 'I will possibly be at the USO tomorrow'.

Sean.
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:21 PM
OMG Kerber's having success, but hasn't picked up many haters. BOMBSHELL! :speakles:

18majors
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:23 PM
Yes, she is the only player to beat both Maria and Serena this year.

momo_rama
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:25 PM
I think she is a good player that is playing extremely well at the moment. Hard to sum her game up. She's basic, yet plays very smart tennis. She's a bit like radwanska with more power but less imagination. But those legs of hers. Boy are they strong things, that's the secret to her success the last year or so. They motor her along the court and enable her to stay nice and low on her groundies. Something players like Vika, Masha and Petra will always struggle with.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:28 PM
I think she is a good player that is playing extremely well at the moment. Hard to sum her game up. She's basic, yet plays very smart tennis. She's a bit like radwanska with more power but less imagination. But those legs of hers. Boy are they strong things, that's the secret to her success the last year or so. They motor her along the court and enable her to stay nice and low on her groundies. Something players like Vika, Masha and Petra will always struggle with.

Serena summed her up pretty well

Q. Was there anything that Kerber did that threw you off? I know this was your first time playing her.

SERENA WILLIAMS: Apparently I played her before, I guess. No, she didn't do too much that threw me off. Her game is pretty straightforward. You know what to expect. She's getting a lot of balls back. She played really well today. I think she served more up the T than I expected.
I really hope to play her again in New York and be ready for that one.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:31 PM
Serena summed her up pretty well

Q. Was there anything that Kerber did that threw you off? I know this was your first time playing her.

SERENA WILLIAMS: Apparently I played her before, I guess. No, she didn't do too much that threw me off. Her game is pretty straightforward. You know what to expect. She's getting a lot of balls back. She played really well today. I think she served more up the T than I expected.
I really hope to play her again in New York and be ready for that one.

You can do that with any player, except replace 'getting balls back' with 'being very aggressive' for players who aren't counterpunchers.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:34 PM
You can do that with any player.

Nope, not everyone's game is that straightforward. Dementieva's was though.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:36 PM
Whose game would you describe as nuanced and could you further explain your choices?

SilverSlam
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:40 PM
She's a great player compared to most of us, so I said yes.

Compared to the likes of Serena and the true greats, no.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

justineheninfan
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:41 PM
It depends what ones definition of great is. I usually consider great in the context of the professional game to be only be multiple slam winners, or ones who were major forces for a long time and had real chances to win multiple majors (Sabatini or Novotna). So for me no.

Vikapower
Aug 29th, 2012, 02:55 PM
You can do that with any player, except replace 'getting balls back' with 'being very aggressive' for players who aren't counterpunchers.

:lol: True plus this isn't an in depth analyzes either -- just quick tips like you'll find in most pros interviews in PR when they're asked to talk about a player they do not know too well about. The answers are generally pretty 'straightforward'.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:01 PM
:lol: True plus this isn't an in depth analyzes either -- just quick tips like you'll find in most pros interviews in PR when they're asked to talk about a player they do not know too well about. The answers are generally pretty 'straightforward'.


Well obviously Serena should have made little bar graphs and pie charts to explain Kerber :lol:

Miss Atomic Bomb
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:02 PM
Whose game would you describe as nuanced and could you further explain your choices?

Apart from Azarenka and Kerber, almost all the rest of the top 10 have more facets to their games. Its not a bad thing ofcourse, if you can just do one thing super well then why not do that. With Azarenka its her one-pace deep grinding (which she is best in the world at) and with Kerber its her one-pace cross-court counter punching. Their games are pretty straightforward as you know exactly what you are going to get,which doesnt imply they are easy to mean.

Players like Serena/Kvitova/Sharapova/Radwanska/Li Na have more complicated playing styles (not just with ground strokes), its not always straightforward with them.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Of course she's not a "great" player yet.

People fling that word around to easily. Yes, she's had some good victories, but to call them great...? That's just foolish.

Great players are defined by the TIMING of their triumph as much as the quality of their opponent.

Kerber COULD be great, but her moment hasn't arrived yet to prove it. Right now, she's a very good player having a good season.

Greatness might be waiting in the wings, but Kerber have to deliver the moment arrives.

Tenis Srbija
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:25 PM
Oh c'mon! Not even one year of top ten tennis and she already thinks she is GREAT? Beating Serena doesn't mean you are great. Get down on the planet Earth ASAP! She could be great, although I personally don't think so, but she is still to prove herself on so many levels. What GREAT titles have you won? None. So keep playing and let the results speak for you... :facepalm:

2Black
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:35 PM
Of course she's not a "great" player yet.

People fling that word around to easily. Yes, she's had some good victories, but to call them great...? That's just foolish.

Great players are defined by the TIMING of their triumph as much as the quality of their opponent.

Kerber COULD be great, but her moment hasn't arrived yet to prove it. Right now, she's a very good player having a good season.

Greatness might be waiting in the wings, but Kerber have to deliver the moment arrives.

This is it!

laurie
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:41 PM
Lot of arguing going on here but we need a source to see what she actually said or what was said. It could be a misquote who knows.

Sent from my GT-S5360 using VerticalSports.Com App

kyk710
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:45 PM
I think she will be great. But greatness refers to more than just great wins. Great titles - and more longevity than just one breakthrough year - are necessary to be truly great in an individual sport like tennis.

Matt01
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:55 PM
I don't even like her that much but she is a "great player" depending on your definition but I wouldn't call her like that.


she had enough tournaments this year already where she lost too early, no problems with that...she might book her place in top 3 at YEC already :bigwave:


Wow, you're delusional :lol:

Vikapower
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:00 PM
Well obviously Serena should have made little bar graphs and pie charts to explain Kerber :lol:

:lol: Well I'm not saying she should have made a Phd research presentation (like I did for fun :oh:) but I don't think you can use either these short PRs as an effective source to determine what Kerber's style of play is really about --

I've seen/heard Serena made some much better (technical or else) analyses on players though than these simple basic quick little tips for the journalists that you'll also find in most pro's PR interviews.

pov
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:01 PM
IMO "Great"? No. "Very good"? Yes.

kyk710
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:02 PM
:lol: Well I'm not saying she should have made a Phd research presentation (like I did for fun :oh:) but I don't think you can use either these short PRs as an effective source to determine what Kerber's style of play is really about --

I've seen/heard Serena made some much better (technical or else) analyses on players though than these simple basic quick little tips for the journalists that you'll also find in most pro's interviews.

:help:

Natural Joe
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:08 PM
Apart from Azarenka and Kerber, almost all the rest of the top 10 have more facets to their games. Its not a bad thing ofcourse, if you can just do one thing super well then why not do that. With Azarenka its her one-pace deep grinding (which she is best in the world at) and with Kerber its her one-pace cross-court counter punching. Their games are pretty straightforward as you know exactly what you are going to get,which doesnt imply they are easy to mean.

Players like Serena/Kvitova/Sharapova/Radwanska/Li Na have more complicated playing styles (not just with ground strokes), its not always straightforward with them.

I really can't see how some of the mentioned players, especially Sharapova and Kvitova, are supposed to have more facets to their game than Azarenka. Vika's good at the net (she's a great doubles player obviously) and has a good touch when it comes to playing drop shots and volleys. Maria's and Petra's games depend as much (if not even more) on hitting hard from the back of the court as Vika's game does and both don't show much other than that in their games. Because, and that's the point I agree with you on, they are great at doing that so why shouldn't they be doing that. I just think it's a bit questionable to put these two players above Vika in terms of facets they have to their games.

Sorry for being off topic here.

marineblue
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:25 PM
She's good, she can be called great when she scores more big wins.

Vikapower
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:45 PM
Apart from Azarenka and Kerber, almost all the rest of the top 10 have more facets to their games. Its not a bad thing ofcourse, if you can just do one thing super well then why not do that. With Azarenka its her one-pace deep grinding (which she is best in the world at) and with Kerber its her one-pace cross-court counter punching. Their games are pretty straightforward as you know exactly what you are going to get,which doesnt imply they are easy to mean.

Obviously you're speaking like someone who only watches a couple matches of Victoria once in a blue to say that her game doesn't have multiple facets. The dominance of her game is offensive rallying but she adapts to her opponents (which are mainly hard hitters) and it's obvious that in today's game she's not going to play finesse in and out even if obviously she can do it as illustrated in some of her matches.

As for Kerber, I'm not a fan of her game but to say she's a one-dimensional cross-court rallying aggressive counter-puncher is far fetch really :lol: -- her game is extremely limited to my opinion but that's just an opinion afterwards, ex-Radwanska > Kerber > Wozniacki ; Kerber ~ today's Radwanska > Wozniacki.

Players like Serena/Kvitova/Sharapova/Radwanska/Li Na have more complicated playing styles (not just with ground strokes), its not always straightforward with them.

Li Na's game is pretty straight-forward and one-dimensional aggressive base-line tennis, she does have some aggressive counter-punching skills but that's about it, her game is not complex ; as for Maria's game(-style) being 'complicated' we'll pass lol.

Petra does have an all-court sense and grouping her and Maria/Li Na in the same phrase is just plain misreading of their games overall -- the dominant note of Petra's game is hard hitting too, 80-85% -- everyone's good at doing one thing better.

I have no idea what you call 'complicated' game-styles but most player's game on the regular tour ARE straight-forward, every girl you expect to play aggressive base-line tennis (or at the very least aggressive counter-punching) with some variety here and there to different degrees, that's the common lot.

cowsonice
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:46 PM
The only reason why Angie is saying this is because she does not get enough credit for her amazing year. If she'd be on the radar more in terms of US and international press, this statement wouldn't have been an issue.

Of course, her game looks very scrappy, her technique is wonky, and there really isn't anything defining in her strokes. So she's easily overlooked. It's not her fault though. She writes with her right hand, plays with her left.

Shvedbarilescu
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:55 PM
To some of these err...posters who think for some reason that it is inappropiate to refer to Kerber as a great player, I would just love to see their list of current players who they do consider to be great. :lol:

n1_and_uh_noone
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:17 PM
I guess posters here would rather prefer someone with better credentials than 'insert-player-fanatic-5678' to ratify greatness. Serena Williams herself considers Ursula Radwanska a 'great player' (http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=82471) so I guess Kerber has to at least get to be as good as her :oh:

edificio
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:24 PM
The only reason why Angie is saying this is because she does not get enough credit for her amazing year. If she'd be on the radar more in terms of US and international press, this statement wouldn't have been an issue.

Of course, her game looks very scrappy, her technique is wonky, and there really isn't anything defining in her strokes. So she's easily overlooked. It's not her fault though. She writes with her right hand, plays with her left.

Serious? Every tennis commentator I've heard (on ESPN, ES, Tennis Channel, etc.) talks about her coming out at last year's USO and how her ranking has skyrocketed. She gets credit. But one year does not make you a GREAT player, no, it means you had a GREAT year. She can become a GREAT player, but now she's had a great year and expects to have more. But, really, I don't think she means it in the sense of great like Graf and Evert, even if she did trumpet how she beat so many top players.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:42 PM
Apart from Azarenka and Kerber, almost all the rest of the top 10 have more facets to their games. Its not a bad thing ofcourse, if you can just do one thing super well then why not do that. With Azarenka its her one-pace deep grinding (which she is best in the world at) and with Kerber its her one-pace cross-court counter punching. Their games are pretty straightforward as you know exactly what you are going to get,which doesnt imply they are easy to mean.

Players like Serena/Kvitova/Sharapova/Radwanska/Li Na have more complicated playing styles (not just with ground strokes), its not always straightforward with them.
Kerber has more to offer than you're suggesting - she's also good at redirecting balls, she can successfully employ dropshots.

I think of the current top 10, Sharapova and Li offer the least variety both in their regular rallies as well as when it comes to switching things up when they're down a break or a set. Azarenka can rethink her strategy during the match, her match against Li in Madrid is the prime example I think.

laurie
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:49 PM
The only reason why Angie is saying this is because she does not get enough credit for her amazing year. If she'd be on the radar more in terms of US and international press, this statement wouldn't have been an issue.

Of course, her game looks very scrappy, her technique is wonky, and there really isn't anything defining in her strokes. So she's easily overlooked. It's not her fault though. She writes with her right hand, plays with her left.

Yes this was something I noticed. I've been thinking and saying for some time that her left hand serve on the ad court doesn't go wide enough at all, very similar to Nadal in fact. I thought she might be right handed and that is the case.

It's quite normal in cricket to have left handed batsmen who write righthanded or bowl righthanded, I would imagine there are similar scenarios in baseball, never noticed as much in tennis until now.

NashaMasha
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:37 PM
To some of these err...posters who think for some reason that it is inappropiate to refer to Kerber as a great player, I would just love to see their list of current players who they do consider to be great. :lol:

Really great players in the tour are
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Maria Sharapova
Kim Clijsters
Vika Azarenka
Petra Kvitova
Sveta Kuznetsova

Tenis Srbija
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:43 PM
Really great players in the tour are
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Maria Sharapova
Kim Clijsters
Vika Azarenka
Petra Kvitova
Sveta Kuznetsova

Still not even close.

J4m3ka
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:44 PM
So many drama queens in this thread :spit: Obviously Kerber didn't mean great as in all time great :lol: The context is "very good player", in the sense that she can hang with the best in the world, which is correct.

Shvedbarilescu
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:50 PM
Really great players in the tour are
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Maria Sharapova
Kim Clijsters
Vika Azarenka
Petra Kvitova
Sveta Kuznetsova

And Kerber has beaten 5 of the those 7 players this year and has a 7-4 record against them.

crazillo
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:50 PM
I will post it again because some people go like crazy about her but neglect an important fact: Kerber's English is pretty bad and I don't think she knows the implications of words such as "great" and "good" that well. She is just saying she belongs where she is ranked now, and I fully agree with that.

NashaMasha
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:16 PM
Still not even close.

probably yes , but still these 2 players are favourites before each of GS tournaments, not Kerber, not Radwanska and not Wozniacki

And Kerber has beaten 5 of the those 7 players this year and has a 7-4 record against them.

AO lost to Sharapova 1-6, 2-6
Indian Wells lost to Azarenka 4-6, 3-6
Stuttgart lost to Kvitova 4-6, 4-6
Rome lost to Sharapova 3-6, 4-6
Wimbledon , lost to Radwanska 3-6, 4-6
Olympics lost to Azarenka 4-6, 5-7

At tournaments in which these players atually cared about result and were in from and fighting for a trophy she didn't have much chances

Yes , she won a number of matches vs top players, but i don't think that matches vs ill Sharapova in Paris or recovering Venus in Madrid or exhausted Rena in Cincinatti really are expository...

When we start to call players with just 2 WTa titles , not including mandatory,Slams or Olympics, Great , it's more than weird

laurie
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:23 PM
I will post it again because some people go like crazy about her but neglect an important fact: Kerber's English is pretty bad and I don't think she knows the implications of words such as "great" and "good" that well. She is just saying she belongs where she is ranked now, and I fully agree with that.

I think Kerber's english is not bad at all. I agree with your interpretation of her thinking, she deserves her top 10 status.

aselto
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:25 PM
I will post it again because some people go like crazy about her but neglect an important fact: Kerber's English is pretty bad and I don't think she knows the implications of words such as "great" and "good" that well. She is just saying she belongs where she is ranked now, and I fully agree with that.

"the implications of words such as "great" and "good""? I hope you realize you sound like a typical TF drama queen.:lol:

Wiggly
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:32 PM
I don't think she'll ever have another year like 2012 but to be able to tell your kids that you made the SFs of both Wimbledon and the US Open is quite nice.

laurie
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:38 PM
I don't think she'll ever have another year like 2012 but to be able to tell your kids that you made the SFs of both Wimbledon and the US Open is quite nice.

I don't see why she can't continue to improve, there is no reason for her to drop out of sight, she has the hunger and willpower to stay up there for a few years I think.

I can think of players who matured late and get to the top 10 around the age of 24 and stay there for a few years, Tim Henman and Patrick Rafter come to mind immediately. Then in the womens game there is Na Li, Sam Stosur and Francesca Schiavone who improved even later in life.

crazillo
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:44 PM
I think Kerber's english is not bad at all. I agree with your interpretation of her thinking, she deserves her top 10 status.

Better than Sanchez Vicario's German used to be. :haha: :D
Yeah but some people on here interpret "great" in a way that she would put herself in one league with Serena, Sharapova etc. She has never said that anything like that.

ACEof DIAMONDS
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:44 PM
Kerber is a sex pot. I think she could really have a break through at the Australian Open if not here. I'm talking making a Semi or Final.

cowsonice
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:37 PM
Serious? Every tennis commentator I've heard (on ESPN, ES, Tennis Channel, etc.) talks about her coming out at last year's USO and how her ranking has skyrocketed. She gets credit.

Yes, I'm serious. Any tennis commentator can read off of notes and say, "Wow she's really skyrocketed."

Something I've noticed is that they don't really mention the quality of play or the grit Kerber has

arthurussell
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:42 PM
Well, she is a great player, that's why she's ranked 6th in the world (I do have to say there's a huge gap between her and the players ahead of her though, tennis-wise).

But her big wins against a bored Maria in Paris and Lethargicrena in Ohio should be taken with a grain of salt.

But she's been beating everyone below her and she could improve in the future, mainly in what comes to her serve.

I still expect her to make the final here, taking out both sisters en route.

Julian.
Aug 31st, 2012, 04:48 AM
What do you think after tonight? :lol:

cellophane
Aug 31st, 2012, 04:50 AM
Depends on what you think a great player is. Since I think a "great player" is one who has won a slam at least or a big event, I still don't think she is one. A very good player for sure though/

aselto
Aug 31st, 2012, 04:51 AM
What do you think after tonight? :lol:

Well it wasn't a great match by any means.:lol: She got the job done, that's all.

ranfurly
Aug 31st, 2012, 04:56 AM
She is defintly not as great as Emmanuelle Gagliardi

ezone
Aug 31st, 2012, 05:00 AM
My biggest knock on Kerber was reading that. I gather Federer said the same thing. You measure greatness by winning grand slams. Nothing else needs to be said.

M.S.F
Aug 31st, 2012, 05:02 AM
Angie can reach the rankings top spot during the first half of 2013 with this form and consistency.

Si_Hi
Aug 31st, 2012, 05:02 AM
Kerber is a sex pot. I think she could really have a break through at the Australian Open if not here. I'm talking making a Semi or Final.

She made it to semi-final last year at usopen:rolleyes:

young_gunner913
Aug 31st, 2012, 05:25 AM
Not at all. Tonight's match reflected more on the fight of a proven champion rather than Kerber. There's no reason to go this far and hard in a match when your opponent is hitting a fuck tons of UE's and double digit DF's. Venus started playing really well in the third set and completely choked multiple chances away. I'm not seeing what separates Kerber from some of the other vultures on tour.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 31st, 2012, 05:36 AM
How can any player be great and have yet to make a slam final? :crazy:

Shivank17
Aug 31st, 2012, 05:39 AM
If by great she means someone who deserves to be in the Top 10, then definitely yes.

Wins over Serena, Sharapova(albeit both were tanking), twice over Venus, Caro, Kvitova, Li Na, plus two Slam semis + 55 wins already this year. Kerber is like an aggressive version of Wozniacki, she can move as well, but she can also attack and even create some great angles.

colt13
Aug 31st, 2012, 01:04 PM
Yes, I'm serious. Any tennis commentator can read off of notes and say, "Wow she's really skyrocketed."

Something I've noticed is that they don't really mention the quality of play or the grit Kerber has

Probably because she's hard to classify. Not a power lefty like Kvitova or a finesse one like Schnyder. Also, she does something like Kvitova in the fact that of the top 10, she manages to get broken more, and then break back. Sort of like how the old Venus could win a first set 6-1, then suddenly be down 1-4, then win 5 straight games.

Doully
Aug 31st, 2012, 01:11 PM
And the over-analysis of a likely harmless comment continues.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8rn6dLlVu1rr9wdw.gif

Israel
Aug 31st, 2012, 01:44 PM
She's a good player, to be great you have to either win a slam or be no. 1.

@danieln1
Aug 31st, 2012, 01:56 PM
For sure she's one of the mentally tough players, and that's great to see.

If she keeps this level she will win a slam or be number 1

Libertango
Aug 31st, 2012, 02:03 PM
There's a difference between saying "I'm a great player", and saying "I'm A great...."

Travod
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:12 PM
Errani do this.

LOL.

Roookie
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:36 PM
Better than peak JJ my ass :haha:

evana
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:38 PM
Better than peak JJ my ass :haha:

Peak JJ would beat Errani 61 61 :lol:

RenaSlam.
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:38 PM
Bye, bitch.

Kairi
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:39 PM
:oh:

Jimmie48
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:41 PM
Somebody just said she never even beat a Top 10 player at a GS, is that true?

Julian.
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:45 PM
Somebody just said she never even beat a Top 10 player at a GS, is that true?

Yes. She beat Radwanska last year at USO but Radwanska was ranke outside the Top 10 at that time. She beat Clijsters and Venus on slams but they were not Top 10 either.

guichard
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:45 PM
Somebody just said she never even beat a Top 10 player at a GS, is that true?
Yes, closest (13)Radwanska at last year US0

tennisbum79
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:54 PM
I can't wait for our Europeans friends to call her arrogant, egotistical, classless.

other players with more credentials have been called on the carpet for comments like this

Rolling-Thunder
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:56 PM
That was greatness on display today from Kerber. At least she can enjoy the consolation of knowing she won this poll attesting to her greatness.

Again when she wins a Slam or a Premier tournament, then she can start talking in a realistic manner. One tournament does not a resume make. Bye!

She needs a break 'cause her attitude is real funky. Brought back to reality!

http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/337024-32214-22.jpg

LightWarrior
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:58 PM
To start with a great player doesn't "tank" the last 2 games of a match in a GS like she did against Errani.

hablo
Sep 3rd, 2012, 07:58 PM
"great" is pushing it; good, yes. :tape:

Specter
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:05 PM
Maybe if she'd stop losing to fucking Errani. :facepalm:

Mrs. Peel
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:05 PM
She needed to come back to earth.

vuhvuh
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:07 PM
She needed to come back to earth.
reffering to today? oh please lol

Kampi
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:08 PM
Until she wins a couple of more tournies including at least premier events the answer must be NO. As much as I like Angie, but currently just NO.

cehowardrx7
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:11 PM
To be considered a great player, you must have at least ONE SLAM, under your belt. There is no such thing as SLAMLESS GREAT PLAYERS. Pure and simple!!

Get a grip you all. :)

Mrs. Peel
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:31 PM
reffering to today? oh please lol

Of course I am referring to today. She has been talking about herself like she is some tennis goddess.

Patrick345
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:39 PM
Every top player needs to have a high opinion of themselves or they canīt be successful. Itīs called self-confidence. One of the reasons Kerber lost today was that she didnīt believe in herself or acted like a top player. She obviously hates the way Errani plays. It showed in Paris and it showed today from the first point on. Instead of being positive, she was very negative. It was not necessary to lose the first set. Errani made a lot of UEs in that first set.

Marcoo
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:41 PM
She is definitely a great player and i hope she will do some even better things in tennis ;)

Jimmie48
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:43 PM
Every top player needs to have a high opinion of themselves or they canīt be successful. Itīs called self-confidence. One of the reasons Kerber lost today was that she didnīt believe in herself or acted like a top player. She obviously hates the way Errani plays. It showed in Paris and it showed today from the first point on. Instead of being positive, she was very negative. It was not necessary to lose the first set. Errani made a lot of UEs in that first set.

You can be self-confident and still know your place, those two aren't mutually exclusive.

Patrick345
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:45 PM
You can be self-confident and still know your place, those two aren't mutually exclusive.

If Wozniacki knew her place, sheīd never made it to the top 10. :p

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:46 PM
Every top player needs to have a high opinion of themselves or they canīt be successful. Itīs called self-confidence.

don't know your posting history, so I trust that is your consistent, across the board, opinion with EVERY player. ;-)

anyway, Kerber is clearly not a great player yet. She plays great at times but not a great player.

laurie
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:50 PM
Every top player needs to have a high opinion of themselves or they canīt be successful. Itīs called self-confidence. One of the reasons Kerber lost today was that she didnīt believe in herself or acted like a top player. She obviously hates the way Errani plays. It showed in Paris and it showed today from the first point on. Instead of being positive, she was very negative. It was not necessary to lose the first set. Errani made a lot of UEs in that first set.

Something she needs to discuss with her coach, she will meet Errani again. Errani is her nemesis, she needs to come up with another plan.

Excelscior
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:50 PM
You can be self-confident and still know your place, those two aren't mutually exclusive.

You finally said something that made sense for a change. :eek:

Of course it had to be non Wozniaki related for that to be.

You're right about Kerber.

She's got the same problem all under powered players have (and no, that's not a swipe at Woz, I swear).

She appears self conscious about her game and status, since she was ranked so low a year ago, and the fact that at her best and the others best she'll get blown off the court.

Otherwise, I can't see her making such bold, public pronouncements with out the accompanying hardware to back it up.

She appears Self Concious indeed.

Emmit Smith of the NFL Dallas Cowboys was similar. He always tried to break every record in the book, cause he knew that most people felt that he wasn't nearly as good as his contemporary Barry Sanders and many other past greats (due to his relative lack of talent, and the great team he played on that assisted his numbers) he would be compared to.

So he let the record books to the talking for him instead.

Patrick345
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:54 PM
don't know your posting history, so I trust that is your consistent, across the board, opinion with EVERY player. ;-)

anyway, Kerber is clearly not a great player yet. She plays great at times but not a great player.

Iīm not saying Kerber is a great player. Iīm saying that her belief that she belongs at the elite level, because she managed to beat other top players (which is what she really meant by that comment, because she has repeated it many times) in turn has allowed her to beat exactly those top players regularly, often from losing positions.

brickhousesupporter
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:55 PM
To be considered a great player, you must have at least ONE SLAM, under your belt. There is no such thing as SLAMLESS GREAT PLAYERS. Pure and simple!!

Get a grip you all. :)
Have you never hear of Elena Dementieva?

laurie
Sep 3rd, 2012, 08:59 PM
You finally said something that made sense for a change. :eek:

You're right about Kerber.

She's got the same problem all under powered players have (and no, that's not a swipe at Woz, I swear).

She appears self conscious about her game and status, since she was ranked so low a year ago, and the fact that at her best and the others best she'll get blown off the court.

Otherwise, I can't see her making such bold pronouncement, with out the accompanying hardware to back it up.

Well Kerber has beaten a lot of good players this year, I saw her beat Sharapova and Bartoli in the indoor event in Paris.

Like all players, she needs to make a few progressions to take her game to the next level:

1. Improve her serve still further
2. Be prepared to come to net more often
3. Be prepared to pull the trigger slightly earlier against fellow counterpunchers.

I would say just one thing in Kerber's defence today. I've seen her twice in Paris and Eastbourne, she is not much taller than Errani. She clearly has difficulty dealing with topspin shots that kick abover her shoulder, she cannot lean on the ball like the taller players. To be fair, some taller players also hate high kicking balls, Clijsters often had problems with Mauresmo's deep topspin backhands. This is why Kerber hates playing Errani so needs to come up with a different way of approaching Errani's style of play (style of play??)

Anyway, you know what I mean ;)

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:02 PM
Iīm not saying Kerber is a great player. Iīm saying that her belief that she belongs at the elite level, because she managed to beat other top players (which is what she really meant by that comment, because she has repeated it many times) in turn has allowed her to beat exactly those top players regularly, often from losing positions.

I wasn't assigning the idea of thinking Kerber was a great player to you. I didn't really know what your position was about that. So I didn't comment on it. I was pretty much addressing that notion in general.

What I was addressing directly to you was questioning the consistency of your opinion about players expressing selfconfidence and whether you apply it across-the-board for EVERY player.

Ziva
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:05 PM
NO Angelique YOU ARE NOT A GREAT PLAYER !!! :kiss:

Sombrerero loco
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:08 PM
she is right^^

Patrick345
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:14 PM
I wasn't assigning the idea of thinking Kerber was a great player to you. I didn't really know what your position was about that. So I didn't comment on it. I was pretty much addressing that notion in general.

What I was addressing directly to you was questioning the consistency of your opinion about players expressing selfconfidence and whether you apply it across-the-board for EVERY player.

Of course. Unless you are so full of yourself that you donīt work hard on your game/fitness anymore or you try things that you simply cannot do on the court. Overconfidence can be a problem, but a healthy dose of self-confidence is necessary.

Matej
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:30 PM
Well, itīs clear to me that nobody deserves to be called a great player, if she loses to Errani on hard court.

So yes, Angie is a very good player and I like her a lot, but as yet, sheīs not a great player.

colt13
Sep 3rd, 2012, 09:50 PM
I think Kerber is very good. Now that she has had a solid 12 months, it is time for her to schedule like a champ. She has only played 7 doubles tournaments(4 slams, olympics and 2 others), but she looked kind of tired yesterday playing with Paszek. Maybe it is time to do what Azarenka did and cut back on the doubles. In Azarenka's case, she played 10 last year and only 1 this year, but hasn't played doubles at a major since the 2011 French.

Patrick345
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:00 PM
I think Kerber is very good. Now that she has had a solid 12 months, it is time for her to schedule like a champ. She has only played 7 doubles tournaments(4 slams, olympics and 2 others), but she looked kind of tired yesterday playing with Paszek. Maybe it is time to do what Azarenka did and cut back on the doubles. In Azarenka's case, she played 10 last year and only 1 this year, but hasn't played doubles at a major since the 2011 French.

If Azarenka starts playing less I might think she is retired. French Open, Wimbledon, Olympics, US Open. Nothing else. Guess weīll see her at the YEC again. :lol: But of course you are right. The more you win the less you should play, as confusing as that sounds at first glance.

Excelscior
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:14 PM
Well Kerber has beaten a lot of good players this year, I saw her beat Sharapova and Bartoli in the indoor event in Paris.

Like all players, she needs to make a few progressions to take her game to the next level:

1. Improve her serve still further
2. Be prepared to come to net more often
3. Be prepared to pull the trigger slightly earlier against fellow counterpunchers.

I would say just one thing in Kerber's defence today. I've seen her twice in Paris and Eastbourne, she is not much taller than Errani. She clearly has difficulty dealing with topspin shots that kick abover her shoulder, she cannot lean on the ball like the taller players. To be fair, some taller players also hate high kicking balls, Clijsters often had problems with Mauresmo's deep topspin backhands. This is why Kerber hates playing Errani so needs to come up with a different way of approaching Errani's style of play (style of play??)

Anyway, you know what I mean ;)

You're right Laurie. Kerber has an awful serve (and an even more awful 2nd serve). Sorry, there's no other way for me to put it.

Most of the taller players with better serves, would give Errani problems. Kerber doesn't. That's the first problem.

Kerber also lacks the natural power (at least today) to back off Errani. Sara's flat CC forehands, seemed to have more zip than any of Kerbers forehands. Angie appeared to struggle (with fugly form) to really hit the ball hard today (with no pace from the opponent).

The other thing is, Angie seems lost sometimes when she appears dragged around the court at the OTHER players discretion. Would you agree?

And I can agree with your other 2 suggestions as well.

As far as what she said (being a "great player") the other day. Angie appears very self conscious about her current standing, and is kinda cocky/defensive about it. That's my explanation.

What do you think about that?

dencod16
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:36 PM
I think she is not great she is only good. I am starting to get annoyed by her, she has this snarky face like it's getting offensive. I hope she puts her attitude in check as she hasn't achieved much yet.

sweetpeas
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:42 PM
She will be one day.I like Kerber.

kenjai7373
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:58 PM
dunno y people she she is great, only won 2 titles so far. still have a away to go. i would say she is great at temper tantrums and choking.:lol:

laurie
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:12 PM
You're right Laurie. Kerber has an awful serve (and an even more awful 2nd serve). Sorry, there's no other way for me to put it.

Most of the taller players with better serves, would give Errani problems. Kerber doesn't. That's the first problem.

Kerber also lacks the natural power (at least today) to back off Errani. Sara's flat CC forehands, seemed to have more zip than any of Kerbers forehands. Angie appeared to struggle (with fugly form) to really hit the ball hard today (with no pace from the opponent).

The other thing is, Angie seems lost sometimes when she appears dragged around the court at the OTHER players discretion. Would you agree?

And I can agree with your other 2 suggestions as well.

As far as what she said (being a "great player") the other day. Angie appears very self conscious about her current standing, and is kinda cocky/defensive about it. That's my explanation.

What do you think about that?

Ah Senor Excelsior, didn't realise you posed some questions to me.

For the record, I never said Kerber has an awful serve, those are your words. I don't think Kerber has an awful serve, it's not bad. I said her serve can be improved. For instance, I think Kvitova has a damn good serve, but I think Kvitova's serve can be improved substantially. Kerber can increase the pace and placement.

Now, every match, Kerber comes out with the old Hingis one long arm, one short arm top, she must be protecting her arm or shoulder so that could be why she is not getting the power she should.

Kerber had a similar problem in the Wimbledon semifinal against Radwanska, in that matchup she was the one who needed to make the play (unfortunately for her) and Radwanska was able to capitalise on that day. Or maybe Kerber was knackered from the Lisicki quarterfinal.

As for your last point. My take is this, had Kerber won the Cincinnati final, she may well have won yesterday's match, a big title like Cincinnati may have given her more self belief. We cannot underestimate the confidence winning titles gives to players, makes them feel they belong. Kerber will get other chances to win titles if she keeps going in the same direction.

Final question, if you think Kerber's serve isn't that good, how would you describe Errani's? ;)

Grigorpova
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:18 PM
Flopping to Errani doesn't support this statement.

Excelscior
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:52 PM
Ah Senor Excelsior, didn't realise you posed some questions to me.

For the record, I never said Kerber has an awful serve, those are your words. I don't think Kerber has an awful serve, it's not bad. I said her serve can be improved. For instance, I think Kvitova has a damn good serve, but I think Kvitova's serve can be improved substantially. Kerber can increase the pace and placement.

Now, every match, Kerber comes out with the old Hingis one long arm, one short arm top, she must be protecting her arm or shoulder so that could be why she is not getting the power she should.

Kerber had a similar problem in the Wimbledon semifinal against Radwanska, in that matchup she was the one who needed to make the play (unfortunately for her) and Radwanska was able to capitalise on that day. Or maybe Kerber was knackered from the Lisicki quarterfinal.

As for your last point. My take is this, had Kerber won the Cincinnati final, she may well have won yesterday's match, a big title like Cincinnati may have given her more self belief. We cannot underestimate the confidence winning titles gives to players, makes them feel they belong. Kerber will get other chances to win titles if she keeps going in the same direction.

Final question, if you think Kerber's serve isn't that good, how would you describe Errani's? ;)

Hey Laurie.

Just came on the site and saw your response.

Yes! I was the one that called Kerber's serve "awful". Absolutely I did. :lol:

I said that for two reasons. 1) There are times when others in the top 5 can tee off of her second serve (I know there are times they make mistakes and can't as well), for winners and/or immediately put Angie on the defensive for the rally.

2) At times her first serve can hover around 90, and it appears she just flippantly throws it in, relying on her legs to get her out of the point, with out any thought. And at times her second serve is in the 70's (with out much spin or action like her first). That's not going to cut it, if she wants to stay in the top 10 1-2 yrs from now. I'm afraid she may burn herself out. Those are my words not yours.

As far as Errani, I hold her to a different standard than Kerber.

Come on Laurie. Erran's is (shall we say) slightly compromised on court. :lol:

Kerber's 5'10", and kinda chunky; while Errani is kinda Smurf-like. I can't knock her for not having a top 10 serve. Can you?:lol:

I think Kerber's serve is below average under pressure or duress. I understand her legs and Savvy will get her out of most problems (if her serve is not creamed in tense filled moments of matches vs big ROS hitters). And yes, we hope it improves.

And I would agree with Kvitova. She has a very good serve and motion. But Kvitty can get more consistent through out a match, more often, due to mental lapses. And she can serve even faster, flatter and at wider angles more often as well (cause she can make every kinda serve and hit every spot in both boxes).

Petra can particularly go for it on 1st serves more often (as I've hear you mention in the past), cause her 2nd serve is so good. Many times when she's tired or lacks control on her first, Petra will serve quite well and drama free in the high 80's, 90's (and low 100's) as her first serve through an entire match. I'm like "Damn, that should be your second serve all the time!" :lol:

Nonetheless, sorry for Kerber's loss yesterday. And let's hope for a good Asia Swing from all these players. :)

laurie
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:25 PM
Excelsior, this is a case of beware the bios of players on official websites. I sopke to Kerber in Paris, I saw her play in Eastbourne. I can guarantee you Kerber is not 5 ft 10. Kerber is around 5 ft 7, 5ft 8 at the very most. She is not much taller than Errani.

Having said that, she can get more out of her serve, no question.

Excelscior
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:31 PM
Excelsior, this is a case of beware the bios of players on official websites. I sopke to Kerber in Paris, I saw her play in Eastbourne. I can guarantee you Kerber is not 5 ft 10. Kerber is around 5 ft 7, 5ft 8 at the very most. She is not much taller than Errani.

Having said that, she can get more out of her serve, no question.

OK. Kool.

Good Ole WTA Bio's again. :lol:

I'm usually good with heights (I'm 6'4" myself), but never really payed attention to Kerber's enough to notice. Thanks.

Speaking about WTA bio's, since I think you've may of seen Kvitova up close, answer this question for me please. How tall do you think she is?

I've heard a lot of people say she's really 6'1"- 6'2" (and she certainly looks that way to me many times). What do you think?

Thanks.

laurie
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:13 PM
OK. Kool.

Good Ole WTA Bio's again. :lol:

I'm usually good with heights (I'm 6'4" myself), but never really payed attention to Kerber's enough to notice. Thanks.

Speaking about WTA bio's, since I think you've may of seen Kvitova up close, answer this question for me please. How tall do you think she is?

I've heard a lot of people say she's really 6'1"- 6'2" (and she certainly looks that way to me many times). What do you think?

Thanks.

I would say Petra is no more than 6 ft 1. But she is very tall compared to the other players, but not quite as tall as Sharapova.

Unfortunately in all sports, when a player or athlete is "short", they tend to add a couple of inches or a few centimetres on bios. Personally I think it is wrong to do that.

And if I can go back to my point yesterday, that is why I feel Kerber has problems with Errani's topspin, those groundstrokes were kicking up very high on Kerber, and she was unable to find an answer, she cannot lean on the ball consistently for obvious reasons. Hence you saw, moonballs counteracted by moonballs. Similar to what Sloane Stevens had to go through in the 2nd rd against the German player (Stevens appears a similar height to Kerber). Errani is an extremely bad matchup for Kerber at present.

Excelscior
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:36 PM
I would say Petra is no more than 6 ft 1. But she is very tall compared to the other players, but not quite as tall as Sharapova.

Unfortunately in all sports, when a player or athlete is "short", they tend to add a couple of inches or a few centimetres on bios. Personally I think it is wrong to do that.

And if I can go back to my point yesterday, that is why I feel Kerber has problems with Errani's topspin, those groundstrokes were kicking up very high on Kerber, and she was unable to find an answer, she cannot lean on the ball consistently for obvious reasons. Hence you saw, moonballs counteracted by moonballs. Similar to what Sloane Stevens had to go through in the 2nd rd against the German player (Stevens appears a similar height to Kerber). Errani is an extremely bad matchup for Kerber at present.

That's funny.

Cause Luke Jensen (the latest person to say that Petra was 6'1" or 6'2", said Sharapova was really about 6'3"). :lol: So what you said makes sense.

It's funny, cause many times truly tall people want to be shorter (like Kevin Garnett and Bill Walton of the NBA, listing themselves as 6'11", when both were well over 7 ft), or even Petra as a woman, wanting to be 6' even.

And of course many times shorter players want to be taller, in cases too numerous to mention. Lol.

Okay, well if Kerber is really 5'7"-5'8", that would explain why Errani's top spin would give her trouble. But it also appeared to me Errani moved Kerber around the court with Topspinny, floaty shots, then we she had her opportunity, Errani flattened out many of cross court for winners or forced errors; while Kerber couldn't hit with as much pace, while Errani's speed and fitness ran down those balls anyway.

Thanks.

It's all kinda funny, that someone 5'2" or 3", could hit the ball out of the comfort zone of someone 5'7" or 8" on a hard court. :lol:

tennisbear7
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:45 PM
Kerber wins against my Queen and then decides to lose to Errani. NID. :hysteric:

justineheninfan
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:59 PM
The funny thing is Venus would have crushed Errani probably. Tennis is all about matchups sometimes.

tennisbum79
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:03 PM
The funny thing is Venus would have crushed Errani probably. Tennis is all about matchups sometimes.
Right.

It pains me just thinking about that.

Venus had her chances and blew them one after another.

But I've got to give credit to Kerber for keeping her cool and staying in the match.

laurie
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:34 PM
Hi guys and Excelsior. Let us also consider style of play, because Bartoli is a similar height to Kerber but loves to take the ball early or on the rise on the baseline to take time away from her opponents.

I haven't seen Bartoli play Errani, has anyone got a report on that particular matchup?

Sent from my GT-S5360 using VerticalSports.Com App

Excelscior
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:37 PM
The funny thing is Venus would have crushed Errani probably. Tennis is all about matchups sometimes.

This is so true. And I was thinking the same thing. But didn't want to take away from Errani's luster or victory.

Excelscior
Sep 4th, 2012, 04:39 PM
@Laurie.

No. I have not seen them play each other.

JCTennisFan
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:19 PM
If She keeps it up for a few more seasons then yes, she will have proven she is a great player.

The major problem I have with Kerber has not changed in over a year now.... That serve is simply ineffective.

Martina Hingis was kept from winning slams over a decade ago because of her 2nd serve being often in the 70s. Kerber's is no better in the speed department, and that is alarming.

Until she manages to beef her serve up she will always fall to someone who can tee off on that serve. The rest of her game has significant promise but that serve will no doubt hold her back from being a true elite.

Thankfully for Kerber she still has alot of time. Whether or not she tries to bring her serve to another level or allow it to continue as lackluster is up to her own determination and will.