Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
you know i was thinking about this in comparison with hingis......aga has done something that hingis never did as the game evolved nor when she returned to the game in 2005....and that is,improving her own game. her serve is better and her groundies are stronger. radwanska to me is a much better player than hingis ever would be in this generation which leads to be hypothesize the notion that if you took aga and put her in hingis' era,would she have been a better player...would she have been a more successful player?
|
That is a very interesting question and one which I'm hard pressed to answer.
We know that Hingis struggled towards the latter stages of her career with the new power game of the Williams sisters. Her comeback was relatively successful but only to a point and she still faced the same conundrum, which she was never able to satisfactorily solve.
I wouldn't say Aga has solved that problem either. But unlike Hingis she has played most of her career in a 'post-Williams' era where a lot of the girls hit harder than they ever did before. So perhaps she is more accustomed to dealing with it than Martina and would have had similar, if not greater, success.
I see a lot of talk about how Hingis was a much better thinker on court than Aga and that Aga gets too much credit for it. It's so hard to say. Her anticipation is fantastic which looks impressive when she able to counterpunch against the more one-note ballbashers. But maybe Serena doesn't get enough credit for being a good on-court thinker. Married with her power game it's unstoppable at times. She could have crumbled in that 3rd set against Aga but she figured out where it was going wrong and put an end to it.