PDA

View Full Version : Is Radwanska the weakest №2 ?


NashaMasha
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:36 PM
AO - QF
FO - 3R
W - F
Ol - 1R
USO- 4R

even Zvonareva in 2010 had 2 Slam Finals

LoLex
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:45 PM
AO - QF
FO - 3R
W - F
Ol - 1R
USO- 4R


She was already #2 this year having 2R of USO in her rankings points.. so it was even worse.

LCS
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:45 PM
yes.

NashaMasha
Sep 3rd, 2012, 10:49 PM
She was already #2 this year having 2R of USO in her rankings points.. so it was even worse.

yes , but now we are close to the end of the year and all Slams are already finished for Aga

ElusiveChanteuse
Sep 3rd, 2012, 11:16 PM
I think she'll not be YE #2.:oh:

Marlene
Sep 3rd, 2012, 11:16 PM
GM/cliché-y bashing thread template:

Title: [PLAYER] is the worst no. [X] evah!!!1!!11!!! Proof inside, plz read.

Contents: [Slam stats] - blahblahblah - ergo, [PLAYER] sucks!!!1!!11!!!.

Note: Do not under any circumstances acknowledge an understanding of how the ranking system works; otherwise, the discussion may turn intellectual. This, in turn, will be like garlic vs vampires on the haterz&trolls demographics and negatively effect your reply count. (We know, sweetie, all you really wanted was a bit of attention, even if it had to come from a bunch of intangible internet people. It's OK!).

NashaMasha
Sep 3rd, 2012, 11:33 PM
Actually we have a so-called top player . Top , because her ranking is in 2-3-4 range, but her Slam results are quite average or even low. Yes , she reached one Final with a help of unbelievable cake draw , but was returned back to earth at Olympics on the same courts


Maybe it's time players got 2500 points per Slam victory? and Serena must have gained at least 1500 points for her Olympics Triumph

In The Zone
Sep 3rd, 2012, 11:39 PM
The points are not the issue. The distribution of points needs to be modified. 1400 for a final and 2000 for a win is not a big enough swing.

Pops Maellard
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:06 AM
Duh :lol:. Even Errani has better slam results this year :tape:.

jrm
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:38 AM
Even though i don't like her and i would like her to lose every match, why is everyone stomping player's results? She got there for a reason, if she is weak, what makes that others ranked below her? And Serena is the best player on tour but she isn't ranked number one, far from it!

Matej
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:59 AM
She´s going to be No. 4 in the Race after US Open, so this thread is kinda pointless: http://www.wtatennis.com/page/RaceToSECSingles/0,,12781~0~1~100,00.html

NashaMasha
Sep 4th, 2012, 01:12 AM
And Serena is the best player on tour but she isn't ranked number one, far from it

She has already told that other players had not been losing in the first round at Slams... That's why she's not Number 1 or 2

She´s going to be No. 4 in the Race after US Open, so this thread is kinda pointless:

she still has a number of MMs and China Opens to get back , while players who go deep at Slams will have to have a rest

RenaSlam.
Sep 4th, 2012, 01:15 AM
Yes.

Vespertine69
Sep 4th, 2012, 01:49 AM
I hate all these threads that basically come down to complaining about a player because someone doesn't like them and usually they've done well without stellar slam results... she's #2 in the world based on the system we have... if you hate the system then complain about that; but it isn't Radwanska's fault (or Wozniacki's or Safina's or Jankovic's, etc, etc, same old whining...) if the system doesn't reflect how someone feels about who should be ranked where.

I really have no idea why people are so antsy about the whole thing anyway, if someone feels the rankings are a joke and that players like Radwanska are way worse than others ranked below them, then just ignore the rankings altogether and wait for the results to happen.

Shonami Slam
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:09 AM
well *I* dont get the whining about eadwanska being a justified #2!
the op asked to put her in compaesion with sabatini, kuzzy, myskina, martinez etc.

what happened? hate having your fave at the bottom area of the list?

NashaMasha
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:10 AM
I really have no idea why people are so antsy about the whole thing anyway, if someone feels the rankings are a joke and that players like Radwanska are way worse than others ranked below them, then just ignore the rankings altogether and wait for the results to happen.

These junk ranking helps these average players get easy draws and as a result we have a half with Sam-Petra-Masha-Vika-Na and a half with a bunch of amateurs , slumpers and other victims for vulture (except Serena, but she could have met her only in SF)

the op asked to put her in compaesion with sabatini, kuzzy, myskina, martinez etc.

let's now continue on this topic

Virginia Wade
Andrea Jaeger
Jana Novotna
Conchita Martinez
Nastia Myskina
Sveta Kuznetsova
Petra Kvitova
Vera Zvonareva
\

Excelscior
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:13 AM
These junk ranking helps these average players get easy draws and as a result we have a half with Sam-Petra-Masha-Vika-Na and a half with a bunch of amateurs , slumpers and other victims for vulture (except Serena, but she could have met her only in SF)

:haha: :haha:

NashaMasha
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:26 AM
:haha: :haha:

I know it's funny but it's clear that only ranking helped the likes of Wozniacki and now Radwanska to stay in top 4

As soon as anyone of them drops to Number Five, They are becoming slumping very quickly as being beaten on earlier stages

Ranking 1-4 is a lifebuoy for some average players who somehow managed to get in top 4. (mostly by participating in more tournaments than top players)

eDonkey
Sep 4th, 2012, 07:26 AM
Is Radwanska a weakest №2 ?

NashaMasha, your English is just as damaged as your brain.:tape:

You all have to get a job different from just hating. Aga had a great year and deserved her no.2 ranking.

koyak
Sep 4th, 2012, 07:42 AM
NashaPasha :facepalm:

Brad[le]y.
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:14 AM
Who cares if she is? She's in that elusive group of people who got to no. 2 in the world :shrug:

Lin Lin
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:20 AM
The weakest #2?:lol:

remyremy
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:22 AM
Yes of course and it's a shame for WTA to have such a n°2.

Dexter
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:55 AM
NashaPasha :facepalm::haha:

Valanga
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:57 AM
Probably so.

Sombrerero loco
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:58 AM
she needs to rule again in the asian season...

améliemomo
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:59 AM
one of the worst for sure

Miracle Worker
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:11 AM
No. Caroline had similar results in Slams when she was #1.

koyak
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:12 AM
one of the worst for sure

Still better than tarzan. :wavey:

améliemomo
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:14 AM
Still better than tarzan. :wavey:

What this comment is supposed to mean?? Be more explicite.

NashaMasha
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:20 AM
one of the worst for sure

even Andrea Jaeger seems more legitimate N2 in 1981-1982 http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Player/Activity/0,,12781~3780,00.html

No. Caroline had similar results in Slams when she was #1.

she is the worst №1 , Aga had a chance to struggle for this title this year, but failed

jjlove
Sep 4th, 2012, 11:55 AM
even Andrea Jaeger seems more legitimate N2 in 1981-1982 http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Player/Activity/0,,12781~3780,00.html



she is the worst №1 , Aga had a chance to struggle for this title this year, but failed

:haha::rolls:

pwayne
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:20 PM
See this site went from Wozniacki being a weak number 1 to Radwanska being a weak number 2. What is going to be the next "weak ranking" question? Or, who is the best pusher in tennis?

Holdsworth
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:31 PM
And Sharapova is the worst #3 ever. This trash got two bagels in major finals :lol::lol:

GSMPrzysiezny
Sep 4th, 2012, 12:44 PM
Maybe it's time players got 2500 points per Slam victory? and Serena must have gained at least 1500 points for her Olympics Triumph

It won't happen. The very top players could be virtually slam only and they would care even less for non-slams than they care now. The tour is a year round business. So yes, players who very often win the 1000 point tournaments get their ranking kind of inflated if we think that the slams are the real measurement of how good the player is. But that is how the ranking and tour works :shrug:

Gilas.
Sep 4th, 2012, 02:52 PM
Yes.

Patrick345
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:00 PM
It won't happen. The very top players could be virtually slam only and they would care even less for non-slams than they care now. The tour is a year round business. So yes, players who very often win the 1000 point tournaments get their ranking kind of inflated if we think that the slams are the real measurement of how good the player is. But that is how the ranking and tour works :shrug:

The problems are the zero pointers. Radwanska and Wozniacki will always play the mandatory events for points, year end bonus money and stuff, while some others try to peak at the Slams, Olympics, YEC and base their whole schedule around it. Nevertheless most of these Slam focused players still play 16-20 events a year, but they are only able to use 12-13 of their best results. If Azarenka hadn´t used "trickery" to avoid zeropointers in Rome or Montreal Radwanska would have been #1 already.

Gilas.
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:03 PM
The problems are the zero pointers. Radwanska and Wozniacki will always play the mandatory events for points, year end bonus money and stuff, while some others try to peak at the Slams, Olympics, YEC and base their whole schedule around it. Nevertheless most of these Slam focused players still play 16-20 events a year, but they are only able to use 12-13 of their best results. If Azarenka hadn´t used "trickery" to avoid zeropointers in Rome or Montreal Radwanska would have been #1 already.

I agree with this. The whole point of zero pointers is to increase player participation in tournaments, but I think there are other ways to fine players. Just don't see the point of depriving players of points they earned fairly.

Volcana
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:10 PM
The literal answer to the question asked is: almost undoubtedly not.

Ranking isn't a measure of slam performance.

However, based on the body of the OP, the question seems to be, does Radwanska have the weakest slam record of any player ever ranked #2?

That's quite possible, but it also means she's doing VERY well in the other events.

Rest Maria!
Sep 4th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Well she's the only #2, if there was someone with equal amount of points then one could argue which one is better, atm she's the worst and the best #2. :shrug:

overrule
Sep 4th, 2012, 07:34 PM
If you weigh the ranking too heavily on the slams, none of the stars will care about the other events, and the WTA tour will come to a screeching halt. All the top players should be playing all the premier mandatories and premier 5s. These are the tournaments, in addition to the slams of course, which determine the rankings. There just aren't too many points to get from the other tournaments.

Question: If a player wins Indian Wells and Miami back to back, should the points be equal to, greater than, or less than a slam win? The current system says the two scenarios are equivalent (2000 pts).

BlueTrees
Sep 4th, 2012, 07:40 PM
I don't see how someone who was 4 games from being #1 is the worst #2 :shrug:

Morrissey
Sep 4th, 2012, 08:39 PM
I think Radwanska's problem is the point chasing caught up with her. She didn't need to play New Haven and dropped out early. If Radwanska really wants to win a slam she needs to get more power. Maybe Radwanska can light weights or something and fix that cheap second serve.

FORZA SARITA
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:03 PM
Duh :lol:. Even Errani has better slam results this year :tape:.

Errani is a top5 player according to slam results this year :lol: try harder :hug:

Marcoo
Sep 4th, 2012, 09:06 PM
Unfortunately yes :( she reached the wimbledon final, and that's all, what the hell ?

pav
Sep 5th, 2012, 12:43 AM
Just think of the hellova list of players who had never climbed to anywhere near #2

Temperenka
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:10 AM
Serena, Vika, and Maria (in some order) are the true top 3. Aga is just an illusion.

Stonerpova
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:15 AM
I actually think Radwanska was a better #2 than Zvonareva was. Radwanska has won several big titles in the last 12 months to go along with her slam final. I know Vera reached 2 in 2010, but her only title that season was Pattaya City IIRC.

justineheninfan
Sep 5th, 2012, 02:41 AM
I actually think Radwanska was a better #2 than Zvonareva was. Radwanska has won several big titles in the last 12 months to go along with her slam final. I know Vera reached 2 in 2010, but her only title that season was Pattaya City IIRC.

I agree. That doesnt mean she isnt a really bad #2, just a better one than Vera was, and a better #2 than Woz was a #1 for that matter. :lol:

Navratil
Sep 5th, 2012, 07:01 AM
No doubt about it! Yes!

And she was the weakest # 3 and # 4 - without a Grand-Slam-semi before Wimbledon!

DonnaT
Sep 8th, 2012, 03:20 PM
yes

cinek92
Sep 8th, 2012, 06:23 PM
I am true Aga's fan, but honestly she shouldn't be #2 right now. I think
she deserves to be #4.

1. Serena
2. Azarenka
3. Maria
4. Aga

doomsday
Sep 8th, 2012, 06:43 PM
Serena, Vika, and Maria (in some order) are the true top 3. Aga is just an illusion.

:lol:

Kasey
Sep 8th, 2012, 07:23 PM
Serena, Vika, and Maria (in some order) are the true top 3. Aga is just an illusion.

If only Martha could win more games than an Illusion while playing Rena:angel:
Also, someone has suffered a defeat by the hands of that Illusion this year:angel:

We can all agree that Aga sucks these days, but she did well enough in most of tournaments to get to that #2 spot.
Besides, what's the point of calling someone a either true, the best or the worst #3 player:o?
That might work only in case of a player being a slamless WTA #1, but not when concerning others. I mean, If we go that way we should establish a definition of a true #23, or #24. True #24 has MM victories, whereas #24 hasn't?:lol:......We all know that would sound retarded.

garwe
Sep 8th, 2012, 11:25 PM
I am true Aga's fan, but honestly she shouldn't be #2 right now. I think
she deserves to be #4.

1. Serena
2. Azarenka
3. Maria
4. Aga


If we are talking about the currently best players I agree with this list, to continue...

5. Kerber
6. Kvitova
7. V.Williams
8. Stosur
9. Bartoli
10. Li Na

..perhaps i forgot someone

Jerem
Sep 8th, 2012, 11:56 PM
AO - QF
FO - 3R
W - F
Ol - 1R
USO- 4R

Again, you say that focusing on Slam results only (which are not that bad this year by the way, with this Wimbledon final), but including the Olympics (for an obscure reason - maybe just because of this early loss?) although there wasn't so many points to earn in London so no significant influence on the ranking.

What you 'mysteriously' don't show:

Tokyo 2011 (P5): Winner
Beijing 2011 (PM): Winner
Doha 2012 (P5): SF
Indian Wells 2012 (PM): QF
Miami 2012 (PM): Winner
Madrid 2012 (PM): SF
Rome 2012 (P5): R2
Montréal 2012 (P5): QF
Cincinnati 2012 (P5): QF

rockbottom
Sep 8th, 2012, 11:59 PM
+1 Her game is like watching Jr girl tennis. Very nice personality off court, got great sense of humor but tennis game boring as hell. She and Woz are really nice gals but bad for the game as their tennis will put most people to sleep. What can you do...can't change a zebra's stripes and make them do something they're not accustom to which is crush the balls so guess they'll just be floor mats for the top 3 big babe tennis.

young_gunner913
Sep 8th, 2012, 11:59 PM
I actually think Radwanska was a better #2 than Zvonareva was. Radwanska has won several big titles in the last 12 months to go along with her slam final. I know Vera reached 2 in 2010, but her only title that season was Pattaya City IIRC.

Completely agree. I was just about to ask if people have forgotten about Zvonareva? :lol: After winning Pattaya City she lost in 5 straight finals.

Jerem
Sep 9th, 2012, 12:03 AM
+1 Her game is like watching Jr girl tennis. Very nice personality off court, got great sense of humor but tennis game boring as hell. She and Woz are really nice gals but bad for the game as their tennis will put most people to sleep. What can you do...can't change a zebra's stripes and make them do something they're not accustom to which is crush the balls so guess they'll just be floor mats for the top 3 big babe tennis.

Don't think Radwanska's game is boring for everyone, many people find it interesting even if she doesn't hit the ball as hard as Kvitova... You have to be able to appreciate tennis also for the variety of the games ;)

T-rex
Sep 9th, 2012, 12:24 AM
The points are not the issue. The distribution of points needs to be modified. 1400 for a final and 2000 for a win is not a big enough swing.


Agreed.

pav
Sep 9th, 2012, 12:50 AM
Completely agree. I was just about to ask if people have forgotten about Zvonareva? :lol: After winning Pattaya City she lost in 5 straight finals.
No matter how you twist it she still shapes up so far as a better #2 than Rad.

goldenlox
Sep 9th, 2012, 03:03 AM
Vera went to 2 slam finals in a row, but she had a hard time winning important finals. Not just slam finals, Vera lost YEC final & lot of Tier I finals
Aga beat Sharapova in a Miami final, then went to a Wimbledon final.
They're probably very close. I always thought Aga's game reminded me of Vera. Lots of angles, allcourt game, but not enough power.

Vera had a lot of problems staying healthy. Ankle, wrist, she was off the tour a lot, just like now. Could have been a great doubles specialist, she won mixed and doubles majors

Thirty All
Sep 9th, 2012, 03:29 AM
Even though Venus is one of my favorites, and know she is such a great champion, she got to the number two spot in 2010 after not doing much except Dubai and Acapulco, and the 2009 Wimbledon final which helped her clinch the no. 2 spot the following year at the French. She got there because of the unique circumstances:
-Safina falling
-Dementieva's early round losses to Henin at the AO and to Oudin at the USO
-Stosur being a head case
-Azarenka and Radwanksa still not fully devleoped in their game
-Sharapova still coming back
-Henin and Clijsters nabbing some good results
-Wozniacki not at her peak yet

In other words, Serena was the only person better at her, but at the same time, Venus could easily be upset at tournaments.

AnomyBC
Sep 9th, 2012, 05:34 AM
In a word, yes.