Tennis Forum banner

Who is the worse grass court player ?

  • Caroline Wozniacki

    Votes: 14 73.7%
  • Karolina Pliskova

    Votes: 5 26.3%

  • Total voters
    19
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Both never made it past R4 at Wimbledon and won Eastbourne 2x.
I would say Pliskova is better, but only barely.
Discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114,058 Posts
Wozniacki won Eastbourne twice and junior Wimbledon. Pliskova has a big serve and power strokes. They were close. Pliskova is still playing so she can do something big in the next few years
Wozniacki retired in her 20s so thats all we have to go by
I prefer when the great players leave it all out there over 20 years, but I can understand a very wealthy player stopping early, and Caroline was in 2 semis in her last 3 events, including a mandatory, and had already decided she was stopping in Mlbourne when she was in the Beijing semis a few months earlier
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,931 Posts
Wozniacki was better. It doesn't make a lot of sense since it seems like Pliskova's game should be ideal for grass, but Karolina has time to improve and will likely end up having the better grass career...I assume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Wozniacki was better. It doesn't make a lot of sense since it seems like Pliskova's game should be ideal for grass, but Karolina has time to improve and will likely end up having the better grass career...I assume.
Karolina's problem with grass is that while her strengths are sharper on the surface, so are her weaknesses. The result is that with the right draw, she can tear through it (Eastbourne 2019), but she's also more vulnerable to upsets if she runs into a game she doesn't like. There's a reason she's struggled so much with players like Martic and Radwanska who just happen to have grass as their favourite surface. Karo hates junk and hates having to bend her knees. She has to deal with both of those things more on grass than on any other surface so she's always going to be vulnerable on it.

Wozniacki's struggles I understand much less. She always seemed to like faster surfaces and I don't know if the other specifics of grass would have neutered her in any way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Wimbledon was one of the most mysterious thing for Wozniacki's career.
She always say that grass is one of her favorite surface. and I think she made a good result on this surface.
except R4 at Wimbledon, like a curse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,061 Posts
Karolina's problem with grass is that while her strengths are sharper on the surface, so are her weaknesses. The result is that with the right draw, she can tear through it (Eastbourne 2019), but she's also more vulnerable to upsets if she runs into a game she doesn't like. There's a reason she's struggled so much with players like Martic and Radwanska who just happen to have grass as their favourite surface. Karo hates junk and hates having to bend her knees. She has to deal with both of those things more on grass than on any other surface so she's always going to be vulnerable on it.
This is the spot-on element - she can be disrupted so much more readily on grass than any other surface, and because grass is the surface where matches can get away from you the quickest, it makes it much easier for her to be upset. Add into it she's not especially fast, so players without exceptional power can hit shots past her more readily. Her groundstrokes don't do well when rushed.

Wozniacki's struggles I understand much less. She always seemed to like faster surfaces and I don't know if the other specifics of grass would have neutered her in any way?
Wozniacki's defensive strength was returning side-to-side shots deep and without angle, which reset points. On grass, the playing patterns tend to be more up-and-down, so a player without huge power can get overwhelmed, and without the opened up angles, there was less scope for her to retrieve and reset.

But I'm actually curious about this now: I wonder if Wozniacki had a similar problem with low shots. She was of course a great mover, but she's also tall, so deep knee bending wouldn't seem to be her strong suit. Eastbourne, with the frequent wind, tends to require players to hit with more margin than Wimbledon (or Birmingham and Queens), and so preying on a player who dislikes knee bending would be less advantageous. Next time I come across a Wozniacki grass match I'll have to pay attention to that.

Wimbledon was one of the most mysterious thing for Wozniacki's career.
She always say that grass is one of her favorite surface.
Well, I mean, there are only three surfaces, and she's better on grass than on clay. She's just in the Azarenka camp of not being exceptional off of hard courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
This is the spot-on element - she can be disrupted so much more readily on grass than any other surface, and because grass is the surface where matches can get away from you the quickest, it makes it much easier for her to be upset. Add into it she's not especially fast, so players without exceptional power can hit shots past her more readily. Her groundstrokes don't do well when rushed.



Wozniacki's defensive strength was returning side-to-side shots deep and without angle, which reset points. On grass, the playing patterns tend to be more up-and-down, so a player without huge power can get overwhelmed, and without the opened up angles, there was less scope for her to retrieve and reset.

But I'm actually curious about this now: I wonder if Wozniacki had a similar problem with low shots. She was of course a great mover, but she's also tall, so deep knee bending wouldn't seem to be her strong suit. Eastbourne, with the frequent wind, tends to require players to hit with more margin than Wimbledon (or Birmingham and Queens), and so preying on a player who dislikes knee bending would be less advantageous. Next time I come across a Wozniacki grass match I'll have to pay attention to that.



Well, I mean, there are only three surfaces, and she's better on grass than on clay. She's just in the Azarenka camp of not being exceptional off of hard courts.
Well, at least achievments wise, Wozniacki is better on clay than grass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,964 Posts
Can't believe neither of them have ever been past R4 at Wimbledon. Pliskova seems to have the serve and flat strokes for grass but can't put it together. She managed to even beat Hsieh last year on grass yet lost to Muchova. She has 5 top 10 wins on grass as well.

Wozniacki also has some good wins on grass. I mean look at her 2018 Eastbourne run... she beat Giorgi, Konta, Barty, Kerber and Sabalenka. She reached R4 6 times in Wimbledon yet didn't make a QF. Weird she doesn't have the reached QF in all slams achievement.

Well, Bot still has time, hopefully she reaches a QF in Wimbledon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,061 Posts
Well, at least achievments wise, Wozniacki is better on clay than grass.
How so?

Two French Open quarterfinals (and one other R16) is not so much better than six Wimbledon R16s. Her biggest clay titles are a pair of Premier events, same as grass, but on grass a Premier is the 2nd biggest title, whereas on clay it's the 4th biggest title.

Her win % on grass 3.32 higher than on clay, and she won ~8% of all tournaments she played on grass vs. ~6% of all tournaments she played on clay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
How so?

Two French Open quarterfinals (and one other R16) is not so much better than six Wimbledon R16s. Her biggest clay titles are a pair of Premier events, same as grass, but on grass a Premier is the 2nd biggest title, whereas on clay it's the 4th biggest title.

Her win % on grass 3.32 higher than on clay, and she won ~8% of all tournaments she played on grass vs. ~6% of all tournaments she played on clay.
She also has a tier 1 final at Madrid. And yes, I take 2 QFs over 6 R4s. There are also more tournaments on clay than grass, so winning 8% of your grass tournaments vs 6% of your clay tournaments doesn't really mean anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,061 Posts
She also has a tier 1 final at Madrid. And yes, I take 2 QFs over 6 R4s. There are also more tournaments on clay than grass, so winning 8% of your grass tournaments vs 6% of your clay tournaments doesn't really mean anything.
Meh, I'd disagree on the relative difference between two QFs and a lot of R16s, but that's personal preference, so whatever.

I'd argue 8% vs 6% is significant, especially since she basically only played 'big' grass events (Premiers and Wimbledon) vs a host of tiny clay events that she failed to win.

She average ~5 clay events a year and only managed to win 4 titles in her career, (3 of them on green clay), and none after the age of 20. She played ~2 grass events a year and managed to win 2, both of them Premier events, and 9 years apart.

Or, put another way, her failure at Wimbledon is surprising, her failure at the French Open is not surprising.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top