Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY
I wonder how she will be judged if she does not defend her lone major in a few months? For example, Kvitova's disasterous failure to defend her Wimbledon title has many questioning her status as one of the "new forces" of the WTA. Azarenka may have enjoyed more "success" at the majors (by reaching the USO final in the same year she won the AO), but she too is a one-major wonder until she proves otherwise.
Will she be questioned if she does not defend next year?
I doubt it, because if she does go out, she will go deep in the tourney and fight till the end.
Azarenka (unlike Petra), had no letdown after winning, and has been rock solid all year apart from clay (and she reached 2 finals on clay, losing to Maria and Serena).
In fact, if not for Serena, Vika could have won 3 slams and Olympic gold this year.
She won me round this year. Still not a fan of some of her antics but she has been just what the game needed this year, along with Serena/Maria/Aga. These for could be the top 4 for a while.
Originally Posted by soyizgood
Azarenka has steadily improved the past several years. Kvitova has kind of stagnated despite having advanced further at the AO and French.
I don't think Azarenka has to defend the AO to prove anything. Even Sampras and Serena needed over two years to win their second major. Djokovic needed three years. She's been solid all year and has handled the pressure much better than Kvitova and Wozniacki. I still think she retires/withdraws a bit too much for my liking, but she actually enjoys hunting and being hunted.
Agreed, Azarenka is comfortable at the top, and enjoys the challenge of backing it up. Besides running into Vulturena (who is devouring top players for fun), she fully belives she is better than the rest.