[Volcana]

Add in solid groundies and a basic competence at net and voila!

A lot of the solid top twenty players have all the skil they need to compete with a Venus, or a Serena, or a Justine Henin. Except they can run't fast enough, and they don't serve well enough. The footspeed is the greater deficiency.

The best of the new breed is turning out to be a bunch of Lindsay Davenport clones. Well, 2005 Davenport. Well, 2005 Davenport-lite.

They hit big off the ground, and they're slow. They lack Davenport's serve. (For a couple years, til Serena got it together, Davenport had the best serve in women's tennis.) And Davenport had good volleys, which you'd expect of a three time slam doubles champ.

Experientially, what they lack is Davenport's knowledge of which of her groundies were going to induce a short ball. Davenport was slow, but she eventually came to know early exactly where she was going so she got there in plenty of time.

Ivanovic, Sharpaova, Safina even Hantuchova and Dokic ... in a way, they're all the same player. If they dictate, relative lack of foot speed doesn't become an issue. But against fast players it's a whole new ball game.

Jankovic has a totally different problem. The best of the power players, even the slower ones, can catch up with her shots. Not enough pace. Of course, she can catch up with their shots, but the nature of the tour right now is such that in the secons week of a slam, she's going to face a lot of power players. Power players who happen to be playing well, or they wouldn be in the second week of a slam.

Where does the tour go when there are no fast power players? Hard to say cause it's been so long since we haven't had one.

 

[Dodoboy.]

Paris and Dubai couldn't come any sooner!

We need to move on from this bad stench !

 

[Lindsayfan32]

Age has slowed Lindsay down but on her day can still beat the top girls some of the time. Remember Ana Ivanovic Miami 3rd round last year, even though Ana is in a form slump she was five at the time. I'm realistic to know that Lindsay's days as a slam contender are over. Serena has the potiential to anything from the claandar year slam to not being heard of for the rest of at year but I highly doubt the latter will happen and she deserves to be number 1 at the moment.

 

[Tennisstar86]

well, if you've ever seen women play on any level they generally arent very good movers... It always amazes me to watch these girls who are seemingly in great shape who cant move for anything..... I've never understood it.

 

[DOUBLEFIST]

Add in solid groundies and a basic competence at net and voila!

A lot of the solid top twenty players have all the skil they need to compete with a Venus, or a Serena, or a Justine Henin. Except they can run't fast enough, and they don't serve well enough. The footspeed is the greater deficiency.

The best of the new breed is turning out to be a bunch of Lindsay Davenport clones. Well, 2005 Davenport. Well, 2005 Davenport-lite.

They hit big off the ground, and they're slow. They lack Davenport's serve. (For a couple years, til Serena got it together, Davenport had the best serve in women's tennis.) And Davenport had good volleys, which you'd expect of a three time slam doubles champ.

Experientially, what they lack is Davenport's knowledge of which of her groundies were going to induce a short ball. Davenport was slow, but she eventually came to know early exactly where she was going so she got there in plenty of time.

Ivanovic, Sharpaova, Safina even Hantuchova and Dokic ... in a way, they're all the same player. If they dictate, relative lack of foot speed doesn't become an issue. But against fast players it's a whole new ball game.

Jankovic has a totally different problem. The best of the power players, even the slower ones, can catch up with her shots. Not enough pace. Of course, she can catch up with their shots, but the nature of the tour right now is such that in the secons week of a slam, she's going to face a lot of power players. Power players who happen to be playing well, or they wouldn be in the second week of a slam.

Where does the tour go when there are no fast power players? Hard to say cause it's been so long since we haven't had one.

Nice post.

Yeah, Davey was slow left and right, but could move forward pretty quickly to pounce on a short ball.

The points above are the reason I've always said the best raw material for American tennis players (men or women) can be found on the basket ball court. There, you'll find athletes (irrespective of color) with the right combination of speed, strength, athleticism and stature to make for outstanding tennis players.

 

[miffedmax]

Serve, schmerve. You don't really need a serve. No, really! You don't. Well, okay, you need to serve well until the quarters, that's a given. But then when you start to feel the pressure of going for your first slam and you can't serve in the quarters and semis it's okay not to have one. Really.

I'm not convincing anyone, am I?

 

[Wannabeknowitall]

Add in solid groundies and a basic competence at net and voila!

A lot of the solid top twenty players have all the skil they need to compete with a Venus, or a Serena, or a Justine Henin. Except they can run't fast enough, and they don't serve well enough. The footspeed is the greater deficiency.

The best of the new breed is turning out to be a bunch of Lindsay Davenport clones. Well, 2005 Davenport. Well, 2005 Davenport-lite.

They hit big off the ground, and they're slow. They lack Davenport's serve. (For a couple years, til Serena got it together, Davenport had the best serve in women's tennis.) And Davenport had good volleys, which you'd expect of a three time slam doubles champ.

Experientially, what they lack is Davenport's knowledge of which of her groundies were going to induce a short ball. Davenport was slow, but she eventually came to know early exactly where she was going so she got there in plenty of time.

Ivanovic, Sharpaova, Safina even Hantuchova and Dokic ... in a way, they're all the same player. If they dictate, relative lack of foot speed doesn't become an issue. But against fast players it's a whole new ball game.

Jankovic has a totally different problem. The best of the power players, even the slower ones, can catch up with her shots. Not enough pace. Of course, she can catch up with their shots, but the nature of the tour right now is such that in the secons week of a slam, she's going to face a lot of power players. Power players who happen to be playing well, or they wouldn be in the second week of a slam.

Where does the tour go when there are no fast power players? Hard to say cause it's been so long since we haven't had one.

:bs:
Serena is not even the same player she is from 2005.
Do you really think she hits those forehand squash shots on the defensive for variety?

If you do, you haven't noticed that even Serena is a slight half step slower.
People have mentioned already on this board that Serena has had difficulty with her running crosscourt forehands.
It's a problem that even Sampras had to adjust with in his latter years.

Although Serena's volleys have been subpar as of late, she unlike these other players now has the ability to anticipate like a Davenport.

Let's say Serena does stick around until she's 32-34.
Surely she's going to be a step or two slower.
That ability becomes important for her to continue to be a top 10 player even at an age where you're considered a dinosaur in tennis.

All the players you've mentioned are going to have their spurts when it comes to growth.

I remember a time when Dokic had absolutely no defensive spirit.
This slam was one of the few times where I actually saw her loop some shots back to get herself back into a rally.

Patience, variety, and better movement was what got Daniela back into the top 10 last year.

I saw Jankovic lose to Tati Panova in 2004 in Phildelphia.
It was not a pretty sight.
To go from that level to the number one ranked player in the world at the end of 2008, is not something that should be taken lightly.

You mention these three players (Justine Henin, Serena, Venus), as if they will continue to show growth as well instead of the reality which is adjusting to the limitations in their game as they get older.

 

[Volcana]

I saw Jankovic lose to Tati Panova in 2004 in Phildelphia.
It was not a pretty sight.
To go from that level to the number one ranked player in the world at the end of 2008, is not something that should be taken lightly.

I don't. But unless Henin writes a book, Jankovic will always be underpowered compared to Ivanovic, Sharapova, Safina, et al, much less Venus, Serena, Justine.quote=Wannabeknowitall;14912477]You mention these three players (Justine Henin, Serena, Venus), as if they will continue to show growth as well instead of the reality which is adjusting to the limitations in their game as they get older.[/quote]Henin, of course, is gone. And given their age, Venus and Serena will be slower each year.

But the difference in footspeed, right now, is HUGE. It won't be gone next year. And Ivanovic and Safina both have pedestrian serves.

 

[rjd1111]

Add in solid groundies and a basic competence at net and voila!

A lot of the solid top twenty players have all the skil they need to compete with a Venus, or a Serena, or a Justine Henin. Except they can run't fast enough, and they don't serve well enough. The footspeed is the greater deficiency.

The best of the new breed is turning out to be a bunch of Lindsay Davenport clones. Well, 2005 Davenport. Well, 2005 Davenport-lite.

They hit big off the ground, and they're slow. They lack Davenport's serve. (For a couple years, til Serena got it together, Davenport had the best serve in women's tennis.) And Davenport had good volleys, which you'd expect of a three time slam doubles champ.

Experientially, what they lack is Davenport's knowledge of which of her groundies were going to induce a short ball. Davenport was slow, but she eventually came to know early exactly where she was going so she got there in plenty of time.

Ivanovic, Sharpaova, Safina even Hantuchova and Dokic ... in a way, they're all the same player. If they dictate, relative lack of foot speed doesn't become an issue. But against fast players it's a whole new ball game.

Jankovic has a totally different problem. The best of the power players, even the slower ones, can catch up with her shots. Not enough pace. Of course, she can catch up with their shots, but the nature of the tour right now is such that in the secons week of a slam, she's going to face a lot of power players. Power players who happen to be playing well, or they wouldn be in the second week of a slam.

Where does the tour go when there are no fast power players? Hard to say cause it's been so long since we haven't had one.

Or two.

and I agree.

 

[Dave.]

Why 2005 Davenport? As a weakness, Lindsay's poor movement was probably most insignificant in 2005. Her movement was definetely poorer when she came back from surgery in 02-03 or pre-98 when she was "fat".

Overall I agree that many players today are Davenport-mould (Sharapova, Ivanovic etc. aswell as lesser players too). But as you said, many lack a serve, and essentially are lesser versions of her. Personally I don't have a problem because that type of big hitting, being forced to make the first strike is the tennis I like the most (although I admit it can result in error fests too). Obviously we do need variety but I'm not sure it would be so bad if there were no quick players. Anyway, Wozniacki seems to get herself around quickly and is capable of hitting big, she just rarely does it. :shrug:

 

[In The Zone]

Davenport in 2005 was actually pretty fast. :lol: Lindsay moved incredibly well in that Wimbledon final. People do not give her enough credit for getting in the shape that she did. She was able to compete with the agile Williams Sisters.

To me, the biggest difference between the golden era of modern women's tennis (2000-2003; Hingis, Capriati, Seles, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Justine, Kim, Amelie) is the mind. These girls today just have NO MIND out there. They just hit the ball, scamper around, and have no belief, no knowledge of the game of tennis, no nothing.

Davenport was a GENIUS (is -- here is to a 2009 USO return!). The purest striker of the ball and one of the best thinkers out there (although not emotionally). Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Zvonareva, Azarenka are great examples. All have the tools and all have yips and breakdowns in their matches.

 

[V's a star]

Capriati, Hingis, Kim, n Justine. WHY!!!did u leave us so early :sobbing: Those were the days. Specially Jennifer i miss that bitch

 

[bandabou]

Good analysis..although the new generation chose the wrong player to mold their games after. Lindsay herself, already the better player, couldn't cope with Justine, Serena and Venus.

 

[Dave.]

Good analysis..although the new generation chose the wrong player to mold their games after. Lindsay herself, already the better player, couldn't cope with Justine, Serena and Venus.

You are something else :lol: She couldn't cope with Venus but she had a winning record over her? :haha: And she beat the other two several times aswell.

And I don't think these players "choose" to mould their games after Lindsay. It's just many of them do not move well so have no choice but to try and play like Lindsay.

 

[bandabou]

You are something else :lol: She couldn't cope with Venus but she had a winning record over her? :haha: And she beat the other two several times aswell.

And I don't think these players "choose" to mould their games after Lindsay. It's just many of them do not move well so have no choice but to try and play like Lindsay.

Has losing h2h against Juju and Serena, no?! It wasn't meant as a diss, but it's just facts. Lindsay barely has 4 wins against Serena in like 16 matches, so she obviously had issues no?!

 

[Nicolás89]

Ivanovic is fast but now she can't even hit a winner. :shrug:

 

[Temporary0369]

I think the game is changing and this thread would have been more relevent about 4 years ago. Look at the younger girls. Radwanska, Wozniacki, Cornet, Azarenka, Cirstea, Szavay et al. They're all good movers, they all have a desire to get to the net, they all try to play with more variety. The game is moving away from Davenport prototypes and girls are starting to become more rounded players. At least that's how it looks to me. Right now the tour is filled with 20 something headcases that tend to blast the ball, but I doubt it will look like this in 2 years time.

 

[Volcana]

I think the game is changing and this thread would have been more relevent about 4 years ago. Look at the younger girls. Radwanska, Wozniacki, Cornet, Azarenka, Cirstea, Szavay et al. They're all good movers, they all have a desire to get to the net, they all try to play with more variety.

That's a fair observation. The players you named are all in the 7'7" to 5'10" range, and they do move a bit better than the 6'1" to 6'3" types, (Venus excepted, obviously). The other side of that particular coin though, is that none of them have won anything big, and they are getting to the age where the big winners of the last couple generations (Williams 2x, Hingis, Henin) had already started winning slams.

The game is moving away from Davenport prototypes and girls are starting to become more rounded players. At least that's how it looks to me. Right now the tour is filled with 20 something headcases that tend to blast the ball, but I doubt it will look like this in 2 years time.

I think two years is a bit ambitious. Venus, Serena, Maria Sharapova will all still be around, and I expect Kuznetsova and Ivanovic will still be top ten players.

I haven't seen the dominant player among the newbies yet. Never mind the next Serena. Who's the next Sharapova in that group, or the next Sanchez-Vicario?

 

[Volcana]

Ivanovic is fast but now she can't even hit a winner. :shrug:

She's not in the Venus, Serena, Henin, Dementieva class of foot speed, laterally or going to net. She seems faster than Hantuchova or Safina, but if a fast player get her into a track meet, I don't see how she wins.

 

[Agape]

Davenport in 2005 was actually pretty fast. :lol: Lindsay moved incredibly well in that Wimbledon final. People do not give her enough credit for getting in the shape that she did. She was able to compete with the agile Williams Sisters.

To me, the biggest difference between the golden era of modern women's tennis (2000-2003; Hingis, Capriati, Seles, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Justine, Kim, Amelie) is the mind. These girls today just have NO MIND out there. They just hit the ball, scamper around, and have no belief, no knowledge of the game of tennis, no nothing.

Davenport was a GENIUS (is -- here is to a 2009 USO return!). The purest striker of the ball and one of the best thinkers out there (although not emotionally). Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Zvonareva, Azarenka are great examples. All have the tools and all have yips and breakdowns in their matches.

Agreed 40343980324843820%, which is why here's hoping for a speedy recovery for both Maria and Tati. :worship: