Caroline W fails again

Tough headline on this article, considering the lovely Caro has just clinched the year-end number one spot. But her defeats at the women's yr-end champs (OK, she was feeling a little under the weather) rather sum up her year.
As soon as there is a big tourney, she flops. Not just no wins in the GS, but no finals either, and just two semis. Yes, remarkably consistent in the lesser tourneys, but how many times has she beaten another top player in a big event ? Not sure what her record is in 2011 against the other top 10 or top 5. Probably not very impressive. I know she, and others, get fed up with everyone banging on about her flimsy claim to number one, but, alas, the talk will go on if she continues to perform like this.

I blame Rory!!

I blame her lack of talent.

I blame it on the boogie.

I don't blame anyone. On the other hand I thank the tennis gods that this kind of tennis doesn't prevail.

She's got a lovely personality and I often will her to do well but she just doesn't have the weapons. An inform Serena or Henin would thump her EVERYTIME.

She's just a slightly more consistent version of Jankovic.

Extending the theme. Who would people like to see at number one ? Sharapova ? - too noisy and still, IMHO, not completely fit (in the tennis sense that is.) The Williams ? -(simply don't play enough. You can't just keep pitching up at GS and hope to be number one. Kim C - that would be good but she's unlikely to be playing for much longer. The rest - simply not good enough, so that leaves - Caroline (oh dear). Thoughts ?

Kvitova, if she can become a bit more consistent, will be #1. She's got every shot in the book.

Marcus wrote:Kvitova, if she can become a bit more consistent, will be #1. She's got every shot in the book.

She was fantastic to watch in the Wimbledon final - and quiet too in the face of the divine, but deafening, Maria! She would be good for the game as No 1.

I think Caro looks like a nice girl and while she sends me off to sleep very quickly, I do find myself rooting for her, not least because it must be so awful to be asked about being the third slamless No 1 in every press interview when you are working your socks off throughout the year. I desperately wanted JJ to land a slam too - her game doesn't enthral me either, but I love the fact that she is such a drama queen and emotional roller coaster, so she is hypnotic in her own way (it's that funny charisma thing again Tenez)

I do like Kvitova's clean hitting. Not sure she's ever gonna be consistent enough to be number one but she certainly has the talent and would be a good ambassador.

I'm sure Wozzy is a lovely, if a little boring person, but her tennis is interminable.

Her game reminds me of watching amateurs at my local tennis club, with their sole aim of keeping the ball in play. Granted, Wozzy is at a slightly higher standard, but her gameplan isn't too dissimilar to those you'd find down t'club.

It's an embarrassment to the rankings and to the game itself that someone like her is world #1. The fact that she hasn't won a slam (nor is ever likely to) isn't the issue. The issue is that she looks out of her depth whenever she plays someone half decent. How can you have a #1 where you can pretty much guarantee she's going to lose to someone before a ball has been hit? It's rickydiculous.

She should be ranked #7 at best.

poor Wozzy! Is Rory still the squeeze?

I blame the women's points system. Anyone clever enough to work out just where Caroline would be if the women had the same pts system as the men?

sirfredperry wrote:I blame the women's points system. Anyone clever enough to work out just where Caroline would be if the women had the same pts system as the men?

I think we did try a while ago sirfred, and she just about came out on top, albeit with a lower margin, but that was before the last slam. The women's points are much more heavily weighted for second place and the lesser tournaments are worth far more than the equivalent from the men - since the women's points system was changed, these anomalies seemed to have occurred with consistency rewarded over excellence. While consistency should obviously be rewarded, if the women's points were weighted slightly differently in the future, excellence might just make it to the top. I say in the future, because of course another contributory factor has been the unwillingness of the Williams sisters over the years to engage fully with the tour, and so the 'real' No 1 for many years - Serena - has been ranked behind the Safinas, Jankovics and Wozniackis.

Excellence and consistency don't seem to be two words that can be applied to any one of the women's players on the tour at present!

"Excellence and consistency don't seem to be two words that can be applied to any one of the women's players on the tour at present!"
In contrast with the top four in the men's game, anyone one of whom would be a good number one. So what would be the male equivalent of Caroline being number one - David Ferrer?

Wozniaky looks increasingly similar, althought younger and probably overall more successfull, to the famele double of Andy Murray: a player physically gifted, with an extraordinary willingness to excel, who nontheless struggles to make that big impression in the mayors, due to mainly a deficit in class and personality. The question is: has she found her limit yet? As well as for Murray, it is hard to give an answer.

Li Na looked good during FO 2011. Stosur looked really good during USO 2011.

If Stosur could be consistent, it would be nice, but she lost to Kvitova in Istanbul.

Stosur, Kvitova, Serena, Cljister and Sharapova are all there with big chances to make their mark in the next few years. Rarely the WTA has seen such a tough competitive environment at such a high standards imo

Hang on... is Wozniacki dating Rory McIlroy?

Oh, if Kvitova becomes consistent enough I think she'll boss the game for the next few years. I fear Shazza will never be the player she was until she can sort out that awful serve, which, due to her injury she may never do.

I don't think Wozniacki will ever be "there", she'll be "thereabouts" and if, for some reason, all the other top seeds tumble out of a slam early enough I think she'll win it. I don't think she lacks anything, she's just not good enough on the main stage.