Who wins more slams- Sharapova or Azarenka

Right now Sharapova has 4 slams and Azarenka has 2. However Azarenka is 2 years younger, and seemingly has much more of her prime ahead of her. Which will end up with more majors, or will they end up tied. Forced to guess I would say Sharapova ends up with 5 and Azarenka 6, so Azarenka barely comes out ahead.

NadalAgassi said:

Right now Sharapova has 4 slams and Azarenka has 2. However Azarenka is 2 years younger, and seemingly has much more of her prime ahead of her. Which will end up with more majors, or will they end up tied. Forced to guess I would say Sharapova ends up with 5 and Azarenka 6, so Azarenka barely comes out ahead.

Click to expand...

Vika and with a bigger margin than a lead of 1. Maria will burn out soon.

I see Azarenka winning about 7 to 9 majors. Once Serena fades by next year, Azarenka will average at least 1-2 for the next 3 years.

Vika....though I hope she wins the bare minimum of 4 or 5 total. Can't stand her....but at least she more palatable to the mind than Shriekpova.

Azarenka seems to enjoy the fight involved in winning--at least that's her on-court attitude, and as I noted during her great AO 2013 run, she's very hungry for majors, while trying to separate herself from the rest of the so-named "Generation Suck."

On the other hand, Sharapova would love to add a couple of majors, but serious competition, age, her body type & outside interests may combine to prevent her from earning more than 5 when all is said and done.

I think it is clear that outside of Serena and Azarenka, Sharapova disrespects much of the field, and feels she has a stronger shot at the majors than the likes of headcase/sloppy Kvitova, headcase Lisicki, angry Bartoli, weapons-challenged Radwanska & Wozniacki, overrated Stephens or any of the aging set (Venus, Stosur, Li Na, Schiavone, et al).

Unless Victoria becomes disinterested or suffered a major injury which permanently alters her game, there's not much to stop her at the majors...other than a completely healthy Serena.

Sharapova, because neither will win any more. Serena will routine them both easily in every GS, even when she's 40.

They will end up tied.

Azarenka has the potential to go further than Sharapova simply by the fact that, unlike Sharapova, she has shown she can beat Serena, the likeliest opponent for both in a GS final.

Whereas Sharapova routinely suffers beat-downs from Serena whenever they meet, Azarenka has just beaten her in a final and came close to beating her at last year's US Open where she served for the title but choked it away. She could easily have been on 3 Slams now rather than 2 and be even closer to overtaking her Russian rival.

So I would definitely go with Azarenka.

Right now I would say Sharapova mainly because she is more of an all surface contender than Azarenka. Vika is strong on hard courts but her game on grass and even more so on clay needs some work. I think Vika is stronger on hardcourts and will likely win at least 1 US Open at some point and probably at least 1 more Aussie..but assuming Masha stays healthy she could just as easily get another French and Wimbledon (she is only 25..she is not ancient). Serena likely will not stop her at the french, she hasn't been past the quarters in a decade now.

Plus with her serve she could still snag another hardcourt major in her career, Vika and Serena cannot win them all for the next 5 years.

I think as of now it will be close between them, but Vika needs to work on her grass and clay game to truly cement the odds in her favor.

5 years window for both players-20 +3=23
in the next 3 years they will win 3 between them(serena playing till rio)- 12 majors +3=15

1 aussie-vika
1 french,1 us-maria

3-vika, 6-sharapova

after serena retires-8 majors
1 us, 1 french-vika
, 1 wimbledon-maria

5-vika, 7-sharapova

after the 5 years maria retires-
vika wins 1 wimbledon, 1 us, 1 aussie

8-vika 7-maria

I'll go with Victoria. For Maria to reach +7 majors she needs to start winning slams in back to back years something obviously she's never done but there comes RG in a couple months so we'll see how that bodes out.

Sharapova's slam titles will be closely subordinated to whom she obviously faces in the SF/F. If it's Errani in all of them, then she's good for a CYGS, considering it'll either be Victoria or Serena (the two most consistent in majors) who thump her at will then her chances considerably decrease.

Victoria has made the F of 3 of the last 5 slams and could have already been at 3 had she effectively served out that US Open. Anyways doesn't really matter, she's also made the SF of the last 3 majors [...]

Considering Serena was the only player preventing Victoria from holding at least 2 majors in 2012, considering Victoria has shown she can win slams in back to back years, I say Victoria wins 2 slams/year from 2013 which will result in something like 8-10 slams.

Sharapova has a pretty small window at 25 and at the rate with which she wins slams, I see her winning 1 RG somewhere around 2014/2015 and maybe, just maybe an Australian Open somewhere around 2017 (she'd be 30) -- if she successfully defends her 2012 title I'll gracefully give her 1 major/ year. Sharapova ends with 5 or 6.

Azarenka is a far better mover and defender than Pova - I've got little doubt she'll finish above the Russian.

A better poll would be:

"Who's more annoying - Sharapova or Azarenka?"

boredone3456 said:

Right now I would say Sharapova mainly because she is more of an all surface contender than Azarenka. Vika is strong on hard courts but her game on grass and even more so on clay needs some work.

Click to expand...

I dont agree Maria currently is an all surface threat. Honestly her only real shot at a slam right now, and perhaps ever again, is Roland Garros. Unless something happens to both Serena and Azarenka she isnt winning any of the others, and now that they are ranked #1 and #2 it becomes much harder for her as they will be in opposite halves and she needs both to lose to have any shot to win. At Roland Garros Serena could easily go out, and perhaps she could beat Azarenka there, but at the other 3 forget it.

Furthermore Maria's game on grass has been sh1t for years now, she only made the final in 2011 due to a joke draw with mediocre play, and all her other results since 2006 there have been very poor, 4th round or worse. Maria ever winning another Wimbledon is hugely unlikely. At the U.S Open Maria has also done poorly every year since 2006 save last year, where she was lucky to eke past 2 matches to even make the semis. Her winning there again is also highly unlikely. She is really a slow court specialist so the Australian and French are her chances, but the Australian will be really hard as that is where both Azarenka and Serena are strongest (along with Serena at Wimbledon) and as already noted she isnt beating either of them in a slam apart from maybe Azarenka at RG. Meanwhile the clay court field cant stay as bad as it is now the last 5 years forever.

Azarenka actually isnt that bad on grass these days. Last year only Serena could stop her. The year before only Petra at her peak. I think she could easily win a Wimbledon if she avoids Serena, and can see that more easily than Maria winning another Wimbledon looking at her grass game the last 5 years. Heck if someone like Liscki doesnt choke (a big if of course) she will even beat Maria whenever they meet on grass in the future. Maria of 2004-2006 was probably better than Azarenka ever will be on grass, but Maria is clearly already well past her peak level of play on all except clay, where she has reached her highest ever level the last few years.

The one who just beat Serena

I would think Vika has the bigger chance to win more in the future. Azarenka has just shown she can beat Serena, at least on occasions, Maria is getting nowhere near and Serena is the biggest obstacle to them.
I agree Maria's best chance looks to be at the French, Serena and Vika are not as strong and other players come into the reckoning. They might finish level, 5-5, 6-6, I'd say.

Funny that Vika would have 4 slams right now if it wasn't for Serena.

Radwanska a walking bye in a Wimbledon final and she was 2 points away from beating Serena in the US Open final.

Kvitova's level was decent at Wimbledon. She might have been able to take Azarenka in the semis. But if Vika got past that, she definitely would have beat up Aga.

Obviously Azarenka.
i don't see Sharapova hanging on the WTA Tour for too long for now on.
And after Serenas retirement, Azarenka's competition will be weak ass.
I see the WTA Tour in an upcoming mess.

Azarenka. She's younger, she's better, and unlike Sharapova, she can actually beat everyone in the field. While she may be an underdog against Serena, she has proven that she can compete with her and beat her. Sharapova has no chance against Serena, and an uphill struggle to beat Vika.

I think there's a reasonable chance Sharapova has already reached her final total. If you're only going to win 4, she did it right though.

I see Vika winning at least one of the two hard court titles, if not both, for the next 2-3 years, with the possibility of sneaking another win in on the clay or grass in that span. That's the minimum. The max could be much higher.

Even if Azarenka wins 8 majors.
I'd rather have Sharapova's career, considering that she has a Career Grand Slam.
And some 50 milion more than Azarenka of course.

PSNELKE said:

Even if Azarenka wins 8 majors.
I'd rather have Sharapova's career, considering that she has a Career Grand Slam.
And some 50 milion more than Azarenka of course.

Click to expand...

It depends what way she wins those 8 majors. If she wins it the way Henin and Venus each won their 7 slams, dominating a surface, while also doing extremely well consistently on hard courts, and dominating the sport in general for a few years each, then no way in hell would I rather Sharapova's career. You wouldnt rather Sharapova's career than Venus's or Henin's despite their failure to win a career slam would you. Also if Azarenka wins 8 majors isnt there a good shot she too would win the Career Slam. The endorsements meanwhile will probably never happen to that extent, she just isnt that charming or marketable.

If she wins 8 without a career slam, that likely means a long career of high level tennis (like Agassi), or domination of one surface.

NadalAgassi said:

It depends what way she wins those 8 majors. If she wins it the way Henin and Venus each won their 7 slams, dominating a surface, while also doing extremely well consistently on hard courts, and dominating the sport in general for a few years each, then no way in hell would I rather Sharapova's career. You wouldnt rather Sharapova's career than Venus's or Henin's despite their failure to win a career slam would you. Also if Azarenka wins 8 majors isnt there a good shot she too would win the Career Slam. The endorsements meanwhile will probably never happen to that extent, she just isnt that charming or marketable.

Click to expand...

Well honestly I think Vika's going to win all her majors on HC. Let's say some 6-8
If that really happens to be the case, then I'd still choose Sharapova's CGS.
I mean just look at Vika's competition in 2-3 years, the WTA Tour is going to be even worse than it is already.

Sidenote: Is she really dating that LMFAO clown?