Why Azarenka is a better player than Sharapova.

[conjoshruk]

Upon comparing the two players, I believe that it can be argued that Azarenka is a better, all round player than Sharapova. Although, Sharapova may have more majors than Azarenka (5 v 2), a look at both of their careers, appears to say otherwise. For example, using Serena as a benchmark (don't ask why I'm using her lol), Azarenka has a better head to head with Serena, than Sharapova. Generally, Azarenka - Serena matches have been much more competitive, with many going to three sets, such as the 2012 and 2013 US open finals.
Therefore, I feel that Azarenka was a bit unlucky that her rise in form, began when Serena was at her peak, whereas Serena was not playing her best tennis when Sharapova won most her majors (in which she beat players such as Sara Errani & Ana Ivanovic). Its a shame really that such a talented player such as Azarenka only has 2 majors.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You haven't watched pre-shoulder surgery Sharapova. Her wins over Henin, Mauresmo and Ivanovic (who was close to peak herself) featured superb tennis. Add the epic AO 05 loss to SWilliams who had to perform a minor miracle of saving 3 MPs on return (though the actual tennis wasn't as good).

I still say Azarenka was a mildly better peak HC player since her streaks were immense and she played S close too, with some cool BO3 wins. However, on grass and clay peak MaSha is too much for her, with vastly different style at that - grass peak is pre-surgery with good serving, clay peak is late Maria with added topspin. So yeah, Martha is the better player and greater appropriately.

 

[conjoshruk]

I agree, Sharapova results are probably more consistent between surfaces, but TBH we'll never truly know how much that Meldonium she was taking actually impacted her game.

 

[CYGS]

Upon comparing the two players, I believe that it can be argued that Azarenka is a better, all round player than Sharapova. Although, Sharapova may have more majors than Azarenka (5 v 2), a look at both of their careers, appears to say otherwise. For example, using Serena as a benchmark (don't ask why I'm using her lol), Azarenka has a better head to head with Serena, than Sharapova. Generally, Azarenka - Serena matches have been much more competitive, with many going to three sets, such as the 2012 and 2013 US open finals.
Therefore, I feel that Azarenka was a bit unlucky that her rise in form, began when Serena was at her peak, whereas Serena was not playing her best tennis when Sharapova won most her majors (in which she beat players such as Sara Errani & Ana Ivanovic). Its a shame really that such a talented player such as Azarenka only has 2 majors.

No. And the number of threads new posters can start should be limited to two per month for the first months, or they should get banned.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I agree, Sharapova results are probably more consistent between surfaces, but TBH we'll never truly know how much that Meldonium she was taking actually impacted her game.

It was legal, end of story.
Every top player takes whatever legal stuff they need to perform best.
No retroactive application.

 

[conjoshruk]

Why? lol.

 

[conjoshruk]

Why?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Why? lol.

There's a reply button BTW, make sure to use it.

 

[conjoshruk]

No. And the number of threads new posters can start should be limited to two per month for the first months, or they should get banned.

Why? Just because you don't agree with what I am saying? haha

 

[CYGS]

Why?

To save us from all the spamming.

 

[AM75]

Because she's a mother?

 

[upchuck]

Sharapova having more slams than Clijsters is a travesty. Sharapova having more slams than Davenport and Azarneka is bad too.

 

[conjoshruk]

To save us from all the spamming.

"Us" ?
1. You can't speak on behalf of the entire community.
2. If you don't like what I'm saying then don't read it. No one is forcing you to read it haha, I'm entitled to express my opinion. There's no need to be nasty.
3. Just because I'm a new member, does not make my views any less valid than yours.

 

[beltsman]

Prime Sharapova would crush any version of Azarenka.

 

[Bartelby]

You first need to demonstrate that Meldonium is a PED because WADA certainly does not claim to possess any pharmacological evidence that it is.

WADA is itself now under massive attack because it has decided to return toward a more objective and non-partisan position on the regulation of doping.

If you suffer from the delusion that Meldonium is a PED then you should not have begun a thread comparing Azarenka and Sharapova's tennis careers.

I agree, Sharapova results are probably more consistent between surfaces, but TBH we'll never truly know how much that Meldonium she was taking actually impacted her game.

 

[redrover]

Prime Sharapova would crush any version of Azarenka.

LOL 2012 is one of Sharapova's best years ever and she still lost almost all her matches with Azarenka and was brutally destroyed in a couple of them.

 

[redrover]

You haven't watched pre-shoulder surgery Sharapova. Her wins over Henin, Mauresmo and Ivanovic (who was close to peak herself) featured superb tennis.

She has a decisive losing record vs Mauresmo (1-3) and Mauresmo is only a 2 slam winner who didnt finally win a slam until she was almost 30, yet owned eventual 5 slam winner Sharapova during Maria's probable all time peak period (2004-2006). That is hardly a pro mark for her.

And to laud her for beating Ivanovic is LOLworthy. She is supposed to be beating Ivanovic, an inferior player, most of the time. As it was her slam final win over Ivanovic was a tough match, and she got destroyed by Ivanovic in their other big match in the 2007 RG semis.

Your only valid point are her wins over Henin as those are big wins yes. And even then only really the 2006 U.S Open final as early 2008 Henin was total rubbish, and lost to non prime Safina, Schiavone, and lost a match to Serena 6-2, 6-0, so beating her at the Australian Open that year was really no big day for a 5 slam winner who was playing probably her best slam tournament ever.

 

[CYGS]

"Us" ?
1. You can't speak on behalf of the entire community.
2. If you don't like what I'm saying then don't read it. No one is forcing you to read it haha, I'm entitled to express my opinion. There's no need to be nasty.
3. Just because I'm a new member, does not make my views any less valid than yours.

Still spamming

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

She has a decisive losing record vs Mauresmo (1-3) and Mauresmo is only a 2 slam winner who didnt finally win a slam until she was almost 30, yet owned eventual 5 slam winner Sharapova during Maria's probable all time peak period (2004-2006). That is hardly a pro mark for her.

And to laud her for beating Ivanovic is LOLworthy. She is supposed to be beating Ivanovic, an inferior player, most of the time. As it was her slam final win over Ivanovic was a tough match, and she got destroyed by Ivanovic in their other big match in the 2007 RG semis.

Your only valid point are her wins over Henin as those are big wins yes. And even then only really the 2006 U.S Open final as early 2008 Henin was total rubbish, and lost to non prime Safina, Schiavone, and lost a match to Serena 6-2, 6-0, so beating her at the Australian Open that year was really no big day for a 5 slam winner who was playing probably her best slam tournament ever.

You're confusing achievements with peak play. Still making the same error despite it being discussed here multiple times, pretty daft tbh. Go watch a couple dozen of Maria's best matches with an unbiased eye if you can, then watch Vika's best matches and then we can talk, or not.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Okay lets see! 5 grand slam titles and career grand slam (which was previously achieved only by 7 women!) - against 2 grand slam titles on ONE particular grand slam tournament! LOL (credit to Azarenka though for being one of the few WTA players, who was able to come back and actually defend the title next season, instead of getting lost in first rounds after the victory...LOL) ...but thatsnot the point lets go further! 20 WTA titles against 36! 473–170 (73.56%) - career match win-loss record and the average percentage against Sharapova's 637–162 (79.72%)! I could probably dig up some more stats, but one can already draw a picture...If anything Sharapova has bragging rights to be compared to the likes of Hingis, Henin, Venus etc...you know those mid-tied ATG legends! But not to the likes of Azarenka, Kvitova, Kuznetsova etc...she is two heads and shoulders above them achievements wise!...

 

[abmk]

Because she's a mother?

This post FTW

 

[helixx]

 

[skaj]

Upon comparing the two players, I believe that it can be argued that Azarenka is a better, all round player than Sharapova. Although, Sharapova may have more majors than Azarenka (5 v 2), a look at both of their careers, appears to say otherwise. For example, using Serena as a benchmark (don't ask why I'm using her lol), Azarenka has a better head to head with Serena, than Sharapova. Generally, Azarenka - Serena matches have been much more competitive, with many going to three sets, such as the 2012 and 2013 US open finals.
Therefore, I feel that Azarenka was a bit unlucky that her rise in form, began when Serena was at her peak, whereas Serena was not playing her best tennis when Sharapova won most her majors (in which she beat players such as Sara Errani & Ana Ivanovic). Its a shame really that such a talented player such as Azarenka only has 2 majors.

First of all, if someone has more slams, better results in their career, it doesn't mean they have better game. There are many examples for this in tennis history.

In this case, if we are comparing the two ladies at their best, I think it's pretty tight. Not sure when was Azarenka's prime exactly, when she was winning her slams I guess, Sharapova played her best tennis in Melbourne 2008.
Azarenka is a better mover, that is her greatest advantage. Sharapova's(pre-surgery) serve was more dangerous, apart from the mental edge, that is her main advantage over the Belarusian. The rest of their game is more less equal - aggressive baseline game, fierce return, very solid, hard hit, penetrating groundstrokes.

Why Azarenka was better against Serena, I think the main reason is again her movement, it helps her to get more balls back and keep up with Williams in the exchanges from the baseline. Also, she is returning fast first serves better than Sharapova, who is specialized in punishing weak second serves. Of course, there is the "I will never lose to that little ***** again' factor".

Also, Azarenka being "unlucky" cause Serena was at her peak when she was, doesn't apply here. The same definitely goes for "Serena was not playing her best tennis when Sharapova won most her majors (in which she beat players such as Sara Errani & Ana Ivanovic)". Sharapova played against maybe the strongest field in WTA history when wining her first 3 slams(including a win over Serena in one of the finals).

 

[redrover]

You're confusing achievements with peak play. Still making the same error despite it being discussed here multiple times, pretty daft tbh. Go watch a couple dozen of Maria's best matches with an unbiased eye if you can, then watch Vika's best matches and then we can talk, or not.

Even that I am not sure favors Maria. Azarenka can go toe to toe with Serena at her best and proved it many times. Maria obviously a big no there.

 

[Soianka]

First of all, if someone has more slams, better results in their career, it doesn't mean they have better game. There are many examples for this in tennis history.

In this case, if we are comparing the two ladies at their best, I think it's pretty tight. Not sure when was Azarenka's prime exactly, when she was winning her slams I guess, Sharapova played her best tennis in Melbourne 2008.
Azarenka is a better mover, that is her greatest advantage. Sharapova's(pre-stabbing) serve was more dangerous, apart from the mental edge, that is her main advantage over the Belarusian. The rest of their game is more less equal - aggressive baseline game, fierce return, very solid, hard hit, penetrating groundstrokes.

Why Azarenka was better against Serena, I think the main reason is again her movement, it helps her to get more balls back and keep up with Williams in the exchanges from the baseline. Also, she is returning fast first serves better than Sharapova, who is specialized in punishing weak second serves. Of course, there is the "I will never lose to that little ***** again' factor".

Also, Azarenka being "unlucky" cause Serena was at her peak when she was, doesn't apply here. The same definitely goes for "Serena was not playing her best tennis when Sharapova won most her majors (in which she beat players such as Sara Errani & Ana Ivanovic)". Sharapova played against maybe the strongest field in WTA history when wining her first 3 slams(including a win over Serena in one of the finals).

Prestabbing serve?

 

[Sport]

Who is "Akarenka"? I have never heard about that player in my life.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Even that I am not sure favors Maria. Azarenka can go toe to toe with Serena at her best and proved it many times. Maria obviously a big no there.

Big lol if you think S was at her best there. True, Azarenka was more competitive, but only on hard court, where I agree her peak level is somewhat higher than Maria's. On grass and clay - no way.

 

[tacou]

when Sharapova won most her majors (in which she beat players such as Sara Errani & Ana Ivanovic).

@ 2004 Wimbledon def Davenport, S Williams
@ 2006 USO crushed Mauresmo, Henin
@ 2008 AO crushed Dementieva, Henin, Jankovic, Ivanovic
@ 2012 RG had a kind draw and dropped 1 set, dropped only 16 games from QF on
@ 2014 RG came through a series of tough matches with young, in form players (Muguruza, Bouchard, Halep)

You can discuss Az being a more well rounded player on court if you'd like, but there are no ifs/ands/buts about Maria's majors. She has 5 and they are all legit.

 

[lud]

4-17 >> 2-19

 

[AM75]

@ 2004 Wimbledon def Davenport, S Williams
@ 2006 USO crushed Mauresmo, Henin
@ 2008 AO crushed Dementieva, Henin, Jankovic, Ivanovic
@ 2012 RG had a kind draw and dropped 1 set, dropped only 16 games from QF on
@ 2014 RG came through a series of tough matches with young, in form players (Muguruza, Bouchard, Halep)

You can discuss Az being a more well rounded player on court if you'd like, but there are no ifs/ands/buts about Maria's majors. She has 5 and they are all legit.

It's also Azarenka's 4 GS finals (all on hard) vs Masha's 10 on all 4 surfaces. I think the answer who's better is quite clear.

 

[skaj]

Prestabbing serve?

pre-surgery, sorry. was writing about Seles just before the Sharapova post

 

[redrover]

Big lol if you think S was at her best there. True, Azarenka was more competitive, but only on hard court, where I agree her peak level is somewhat higher than Maria's. On grass and clay - no way.

First off the best surface of both players by far is hard courts, so your admitting Azarenka at her best is better than Maria at her best (in your opinion) on hard courts is huge, as that is the most important thing really.

Grass neither is that great, despite Maria's Wimbledon title. Maria 100 definitely wouldnt rank in the top 5 grass courters of the last last 15 years, as she is clearly behind both Williams, Davenport, Mauresmo, Kvitova, and it isnt even a question to anyone those are all better grass court players than she is. However for me she might even be out of the top 10 as I would personally rank her behind Kerber, Muguruza, Bartoli and Henin (despite Henin's lack of a Wimbedon title, her consistent level of play there from 2001-2007 is much higher than anything Maria showed for a sustained period on grass) as well. The only thing Maria is known for on grass is her 2004 Wimbledon performance vs Serena, but as a whole even her 2004 Wimbledon performance is overrated. Her match against Serena was amazing, by far her best ever on grass, but even that is a tad bit overrated as Serena was clearly subpar in that match (partly due to Maria's fabulous play, but not entirely). More importantly that was only her only even close to remarkable performance in the tournament, and for me even peak play has to extend beyond singular matches. She was getting killed by Davenport, down a set and nearly 2 breaks before a rain delay saved her behind. She struggled to get past Sugiyama and even an old Amy Frazier. And that was by far her best tournament ever on grass. Her second best showing ever on grass is probably Wimbedon 2006 (despite making the final with a pancake draw another year where Kvitova smoked her) and here she struggled hard to beat Pennetta en route to the semis, and Mauresmo was able to choke in the semis (had a big lead in the 2nd and should have won in straights) and still beat her anyway. I agree she is probably better than Azarenka on grass, but it isnt anywhere near as important as Azarenka being better on the surface both are actually great on grass.

Maria is obviously better on clay, but she is also overrated on clay by some people. She is lucky as heck to peak in the weakest clay era ever. Had she peaked when Henin was at her peak she likely never wins RG. Her RG wins were struggling to beat people like Halep, baby Muguruza, and Bouchard, and a final win over Errani, not exactly that impressive. She cant even beat Serena on clay, and Serena's worst surface by far is clay. In terms of playing level Maria on hard courts >>> Maria on clay no question IMO, and you have already conceded Azarenka at her best is better on hard courts.

Azarenka is the better player at her best on carpet/indoors as well IMO.

And for me surfaces like hard courts and indoors are far more important when evaluating their playing level since neither is a phenonemal player on grass/clay to begin with I feel.

 

[tacou]

First off the best surface of both players by far is hard courts, so your admitting Azarenka at her best is better than Maria at her best (in your opinion) on hard courts is huge, as that is the most important thing really.

Grass neither is that great, despite Maria's Wimbledon title. Maria 100 definitely wouldnt rank in the top 5 grass courters of the last last 15 years, as she is clearly behind both Williams, Davenport, Mauresmo, Kvitova, and it isnt even a question to anyone those are all better grass court players than she is. However for me she might even be out of the top 10 as I would personally rank her behind Kerber, Muguruza, Bartoli and Henin (despite Henin's lack of a Wimbedon title, her consistent level of play there from 2001-2007 is much higher than anything Maria showed for a sustained period on grass) as well. The only thing Maria is known for on grass is her 2004 Wimbledon performance vs Serena, but as a whole even her 2004 Wimbledon performance is overrated. Her match against Serena was amazing, by far her best ever on grass, but even that is a tad bit overrated as Serena was clearly subpar in that match (partly due to Maria's fabulous play, but not entirely). More importantly that was only her only even close to remarkable performance in the tournament, and for me even peak play has to extend beyond singular matches. She was getting killed by Davenport, down a set and nearly 2 breaks before a rain delay saved her behind. She struggled to get past Sugiyama and even an old Amy Frazier. And that was by far her best tournament ever on grass. Her second best showing ever on grass is probably Wimbedon 2006 (despite making the final with a pancake draw another year where Kvitova smoked her) and here she struggled hard to beat Pennetta en route to the semis, and Mauresmo was able to choke in the semis (had a big lead in the 2nd and should have won in straights) and still beat her anyway. I agree she is probably better than Azarenka on grass, but it isnt anywhere near as important as Azarenka being better on the surface both are actually great on grass.

Maria is obviously better on clay, but she is also overrated on clay by some people. She is lucky as heck to peak in the weakest clay era ever. Had she peaked when Henin was at her peak she likely never wins RG. Her RG wins were struggling to beat people like Halep, baby Muguruza, and Bouchard, and a final win over Errani, not exactly that impressive. She cant even beat Serena on clay, and Serena's worst surface by far is clay. In terms of playing level Maria on hard courts >>> Maria on clay no question IMO, and you have already conceded Azarenka at her best is better on hard courts.

Azarenka is the better player at her best on carpet/indoors as well IMO.

And for me surfaces like hard courts and indoors are far more important when evaluating their playing level since neither is a phenonemal player on grass/clay to begin with I feel.

I hope you stretched before performing all these mental gymnastics. Honestly, I am not even sure what you're driving at -- you constructed a huge wall of text trying to talk down Maria's grass game (6 Wimbledon SFs or better), and specifically her 2004 victory (as if a 17 year old winning Wimbledon with wins over Davenport and Serena could be anything other than a career-defining achievement), but then say both Maria and Azarenka are great on grass so it doesn't even matter. Thanks for the read, I suppose.

On clay, Maria was "lucky." Two majors on the surface. But they were "lucky" majors. Cool.

More to the point of this thread, determining which player is "better" or has more "talent" is completely subjective. Objectively, Maria's career is far, far superior to Azarenka's. The thread title states "Azarenka is a better player than Sharapova" and there really is nothing to prove that assertion, and plenty to suggest the opposite.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

First off the best surface of both players by far is hard courts, so your admitting Azarenka at her best is better than Maria at her best (in your opinion) on hard courts is huge, as that is the most important thing really.

Grass neither is that great, despite Maria's Wimbledon title. Maria 100 definitely wouldnt rank in the top 5 grass courters of the last last 15 years, as she is clearly behind both Williams, Davenport, Mauresmo, Kvitova, and it isnt even a question to anyone those are all better grass court players than she is. However for me she might even be out of the top 10 as I would personally rank her behind Kerber, Muguruza, Bartoli and Henin (despite Henin's lack of a Wimbedon title, her consistent level of play there from 2001-2007 is much higher than anything Maria showed for a sustained period on grass) as well. The only thing Maria is known for on grass is her 2004 Wimbledon performance vs Serena, but as a whole even her 2004 Wimbledon performance is overrated. Her match against Serena was amazing, by far her best ever on grass, but even that is a tad bit overrated as Serena was clearly subpar in that match (partly due to Maria's fabulous play, but not entirely). More importantly that was only her only even close to remarkable performance in the tournament, and for me even peak play has to extend beyond singular matches. She was getting killed by Davenport, down a set and nearly 2 breaks before a rain delay saved her behind. She struggled to get past Sugiyama and even an old Amy Frazier. And that was by far her best tournament ever on grass. Her second best showing ever on grass is probably Wimbedon 2006 (despite making the final with a pancake draw another year where Kvitova smoked her) and here she struggled hard to beat Pennetta en route to the semis, and Mauresmo was able to choke in the semis (had a big lead in the 2nd and should have won in straights) and still beat her anyway. I agree she is probably better than Azarenka on grass, but it isnt anywhere near as important as Azarenka being better on the surface both are actually great on grass.

Maria is obviously better on clay, but she is also overrated on clay by some people. She is lucky as heck to peak in the weakest clay era ever. Had she peaked when Henin was at her peak she likely never wins RG. Her RG wins were struggling to beat people like Halep, baby Muguruza, and Bouchard, and a final win over Errani, not exactly that impressive. She cant even beat Serena on clay, and Serena's worst surface by far is clay. In terms of playing level Maria on hard courts >>> Maria on clay no question IMO, and you have already conceded Azarenka at her best is better on hard courts.

Azarenka is the better player at her best on carpet/indoors as well IMO.

And for me surfaces like hard courts and indoors are far more important when evaluating their playing level since neither is a phenonemal player on grass/clay to begin with I feel.

Have fun with that narrative.

 

[redrover]

Have fun with that narrative.

So do you disagree their mutual best surface, as far as playing level and skill anyway, is CLEARLY hard courts? I think most would agree with that premise, and you are conceding Azarenka's peak level is higher on hard courts.

Neither would be among the best grass courters of their era, or even close to it, even with Maria's Wimbedon title.

Maria is probably the 4th best clay courter of the last 10 years behind Henin, Serena, Halep, but that is in the weakest clay court era in tennis history bar none, and she almost certainly wins 0 French Opens in Henin's prime. Ultimately I think 19 people out of 20 would still say Maria's best surface is hard courts.

I guess come to think of it Maria is more rounded due to being better on clay and a bit better on grass, but their mutual top surfaces like hard courts and carpet, Azarenka is superior on, both playing level wise, and even marginally results wise. Maria did well to vulture some non hard court slams in a weak time period for the game though, particularly her 2 French Opens which probably happen literally at no other time in tennis history, so ultimately came out with the better career and the Career Slam, but that isnt the discussion of this thread.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

So do you disagree their mutual best surface, as far as playing level and skill anyway, is CLEARLY hard courts? I think most would agree with that premise, and you are conceding Azarenka's peak level is higher on hard courts.

So if the actual question is, who played the higher level in her best ever match (which would be best form in best conditions), then it's probably Azarenka. If you think that automatically means being the better player - as I said, have fun with that narrative. You'd do well as a Nadal fan, then you could say Nadal's highest level in perferred conditions is the highest ever of all peak levels, therefore he's the best ever, QED.

Neither would be among the best grass courters of their era, or even close to it, even with Maria's Wimbedon title.

Maria is probably the 4th best clay courter of the last 10 years behind Henin, Serena, Halep, but that is in the weakest clay court era in tennis history bar none, and she almost certainly wins 0 French Opens in Henin's prime. Ultimately I think 19 people out of 20 would still say Maria's best surface is hard courts.

I guess come to think of it Maria is more rounded due to being better on clay and a bit better on grass, but their mutual top surfaces like hard courts and carpet, Azarenka is superior on, both playing level wise, and even marginally results wise. Maria did well to vulture some non hard court slams in a weak time period for the game though, particularly her 2 French Opens which probably happen literally at no other time in tennis history, so ultimately came out with the better career and the Career Slam, but that isnt the discussion of this thread.

Cheapening Slam wins via the weak era narrative is so ******. That alone makes you not worth to engage with.

 

[AM75]

So do you disagree their mutual best surface, as far as playing level and skill anyway, is CLEARLY hard courts? I think most would agree with that premise, and you are conceding Azarenka's peak level is higher on hard courts.

Neither would be among the best grass courters of their era, or even close to it, even with Maria's Wimbedon title.

Maria is probably the 4th best clay courter of the last 10 years behind Henin, Serena, Halep, but that is in the weakest clay court era in tennis history bar none, and she almost certainly wins 0 French Opens in Henin's prime. Ultimately I think 19 people out of 20 would still say Maria's best surface is hard courts.

I guess come to think of it Maria is more rounded due to being better on clay and a bit better on grass, but their mutual top surfaces like hard courts and carpet, Azarenka is superior on, both playing level wise, and even marginally results wise. Maria did well to vulture some non hard court slams in a weak time period for the game though, particularly her 2 French Opens which probably happen literally at no other time in tennis history, so ultimately came out with the better career and the Career Slam, but that isnt the discussion of this thread.

Halep is a better clay courter? Serena is good on clay? Serena has 1 Roland Garros more than Sharapova. Out of all her dozens of GS finals she played only 4 in Paris.

 

[skaj]

First off the best surface of both players by far is hard courts, so your admitting Azarenka at her best is better than Maria at her best (in your opinion) on hard courts is huge, as that is the most important thing really.

Grass neither is that great, despite Maria's Wimbledon title. Maria 100 definitely wouldnt rank in the top 5 grass courters of the last last 15 years, as she is clearly behind both Williams, Davenport, Mauresmo, Kvitova, and it isnt even a question to anyone those are all better grass court players than she is. However for me she might even be out of the top 10 as I would personally rank her behind Kerber, Muguruza, Bartoli and Henin (despite Henin's lack of a Wimbedon title, her consistent level of play there from 2001-2007 is much higher than anything Maria showed for a sustained period on grass) as well. The only thing Maria is known for on grass is her 2004 Wimbledon performance vs Serena, but as a whole even her 2004 Wimbledon performance is overrated. Her match against Serena was amazing, by far her best ever on grass, but even that is a tad bit overrated as Serena was clearly subpar in that match (partly due to Maria's fabulous play, but not entirely). More importantly that was only her only even close to remarkable performance in the tournament, and for me even peak play has to extend beyond singular matches. She was getting killed by Davenport, down a set and nearly 2 breaks before a rain delay saved her behind. She struggled to get past Sugiyama and even an old Amy Frazier. And that was by far her best tournament ever on grass. Her second best showing ever on grass is probably Wimbedon 2006 (despite making the final with a pancake draw another year where Kvitova smoked her) and here she struggled hard to beat Pennetta en route to the semis, and Mauresmo was able to choke in the semis (had a big lead in the 2nd and should have won in straights) and still beat her anyway. I agree she is probably better than Azarenka on grass, but it isnt anywhere near as important as Azarenka being better on the surface both are actually great on grass.

Maria is obviously better on clay, but she is also overrated on clay by some people. She is lucky as heck to peak in the weakest clay era ever. Had she peaked when Henin was at her peak she likely never wins RG. Her RG wins were struggling to beat people like Halep, baby Muguruza, and Bouchard, and a final win over Errani, not exactly that impressive. She cant even beat Serena on clay, and Serena's worst surface by far is clay. In terms of playing level Maria on hard courts >>> Maria on clay no question IMO, and you have already conceded Azarenka at her best is better on hard courts.

Azarenka is the better player at her best on carpet/indoors as well IMO.

And for me surfaces like hard courts and indoors are far more important when evaluating their playing level since neither is a phenonemal player on grass/clay to begin with I feel.

before surgery Sharapova was very good on grass, she was either winning in Wimbledon or losing to eventual champions. also she has a couple of smaller titles on grass from that period.
her hard-court record was great too back then, she was winning against some of the all time greats like the Williamses, Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Mauresmo, Davenport...

 

[conjoshruk]

Still spamming

Haha, whatever man.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I find her better looking for sure. I don't watch ladies Tennis anyway.

 

[canta_Brian]

You first need to demonstrate that Meldonium is a PED because WADA certainly does not claim to possess any pharmacological evidence that it is.

WADA is itself now under massive attack because it has decided to return toward a more objective and non-partisan position on the regulation of doping.

If you suffer from the delusion that Meldonium is a PED then you should not have begun a thread comparing Azarenka and Sharapova's tennis careers.

Still banging on defending meldonium and sharapova?

Proof of ped effect of meldonium? How is Sharapova’s ranking Looking these days? What has she won since having to play clean?

2 semi finals all year is the 2018 answer btw.

 

[AM75]

Still banging on defending meldonium and sharapova?

Proof of ped effect of meldonium? How is Sharapova’s ranking Looking these days? What has she won since having to play clean?

2 semi finals all year is the 2018 answer btw.

What about Azarenka? Where is she ranking wise now? It's not about meldonium, it's the long break from tennis and the absence of match practice what hurt pro players.

 

[raulram]

You haven't watched pre-shoulder surgery Sharapova. Her wins over Henin, Mauresmo and Ivanovic (who was close to peak herself) featured superb tennis. Add the epic AO 05 loss to SWilliams who had to perform a minor miracle of saving 3 MPs on return (though the actual tennis wasn't as good).

I still say Azarenka was a mildly better peak HC player since her streaks were immense and she played S close too, with some cool BO3 wins. However, on grass and clay peak MaSha is too much for her, with vastly different style at that - grass peak is pre-surgery with good serving, clay peak is late Maria with added topspin. So yeah, Martha is the better player and greater appropriately.

Neither is a particularly great grass courter. Not top 5 of their own era for sure, probably not even top 8. I agree Maria is better, but neither is good enough for it to matter much.

I agree Maria > Vika on clay and Vika > Maria on hard courts. Since hard courts is the best surface of both, and the one both reach their highest playing level, and the only one either would succeed in a field that wasnt utterly pitiful (Maria's 2 RG titles are only by default due to Henin retiring and the abysmal clay field today, she has never once beaten Henin or even Serena on clay btw) it is the most significant by far. Look at Maria's draws for her 2 RG titles, what a joke, they literally look like the draws to win a Tier 3 WTA event. If that were the draws Nadal or someone hated had we would never hear the end of it, but since it is Maria who is beloved it somehow escapes notice, but not by me. And we see by her head to heads with Henin and even Serena on clay what happens whenever she faces a real opponent, heck we even see that by her head to head vs freaking Safina on clay, or what happened when she faced prime Ivanovic in the French Open semis. And yes I know she owns Ivanovic on hard courts and beat her in the AO final, I am not discussing hard courts but clay, and RG 2007 showed she cant even remotedly handle people of Ivanovic's caliber on clay, never mind Henin or Serena . Of course it isnt her fault, and she still won them, and good for her atleast being a decent enough clay courter to capatilize on the worst clay field in tennis history and win RG, which Vika I guess isnt.

So based on that I would say Vika > Maria, atleast if you are stating Vika > Maria on hard courts which is by far the most important surface in evaluating them realistically as players. If you are willing to change your argument and make an argument that Maria > Vika on hard courts or atleast Maria = Vika on hard courts (in which case Vika wins for being better on grass and clay) then it might be different, but if you are conceding Vika > Maria on hard courts then that is the equivalent of Vika > Maria for me, as neither is in the top half dozen grass courters of their era, and any wins either had on clay were based on a totally abysmal post Henin clay field of nothingness, especialy when it is by far the worst surface of both girls. Your post speaks of the big wins Maria has that supposably set her over Vika moreso than the 5 slams to 2, yet you end it saying Vika > Maria on hard courts, when besides Wimbledon 2004 ALL the big career wins for Sharapova you speak of which are indeed impressive are on hard courts, none are on grass and clay. Beating Errani or a pre prime Halep or Bouchard to win RG is nothing as far as quality wins that would impress people for a multi slam winner go. The only good opponent Maria had in her return to the Wimbledon final was Kvitova who busted her easily. And you concede Azarenka > Sharapova on hard courts, and that really is the deciding factor between the two.

Oh yeah and Maria doped and cheated for her years of prime play, as we no know. And as we see today without her beloved meldonium she is pretty much useless. Would she even have 1 or 2 of her 5 slams without meldonium? Maybe, if we are generous. So that makes it even more clear Azarenka > Sharapova.

 

[BHud]

I'm team Masha on this one...longevity and diversity in body of work is a key factor for me.

 

[raulram]

I'm team Masha on this one...longevity and diversity in body of work is a key factor fro me.

With the aid of meldonium in her body for so many years. That taints her significantly for me, especialy how terrible her return from it has been, casting further doubts how much was really her and how much was her beloved meldonium she used constantly to cheat with.

Of course it is possible any of Federer, Serena, Nadal, Djokovic, Henin were cheating too, it wouldnt shock me. However in their cases it all speculation and guesswork, on Maria's it has been factually proven and her utterly pathetic comeback has all but confirmed it to the 10th degree, and just what a giganatic boost she gained from it.

 

[BHud]

With the aid of meldonium in her body for so many years. That taints her significantly for me, especialy how terrible her return from it has been, casting further doubts how much was really her and how much was her beloved meldonium she used constantly to cheat with.

Of course it is possible any of Federer, Serena, Nadal, Djokovic, Henin were cheating too, it wouldnt shock me. However in their cases it all speculation and guesswork, on Maria's it has been factually proven and her utterly pathetic comeback has all but confirmed it to the 10th degree, and just what a giganatic boost she gained from it.

It's not cheating if it was legal! You can't retroactively apply standards. What if they determine that caffeine is a performance enhancer...should all your results be in question because you drank coffee/cola?

 

[raulram]

It's not cheating if it was legal! You can't retroactively apply standards. What if they determine that caffeine is a performance enhancer...should all your results be in question because you drank coffee/cola?

Meldonium has been a banned substance for years. And it is clear Maria was always using it despite what she claims. Just look at her comeback, and how useless she is without Meldonium. If Federer or Nadal had a drug ban and came back useless, even at Federer's age, I would question the rest of their careers too.

And we know from the scandals of London and Sochi which caused half the Russian team to be barred from Rio and Pyeoncheng, how much Russians love their cheating.

 

[helixx]

How come some people can have double accounts?

 

[BHud]

Meldonium has been a banned substance for years.

For years? Proof? I was under the impression it was only banned several years back (well into Masha's career)...Masha continued to take it for two months afterwards (AO), and was subsequently banned....paid the price, and returned. Am I wrong here?

 

[raulram]

For years? Proof? I was under the impression it was only banned several years back (well into Masha's career)...Masha continued to take it for two months afterwards (AO), and was subsequently banned....paid the price, and returned. Am I wrong here?

I will try and look it up but i am pretty sure the ban started in 2012 or sooner. So that would cover her 2 RG titles minimum which are huge to her career, especialy since most like AnOctoberForDinner seem utterly cluess to how pathetically weak the fields and draws for her RG titles are, how clay is still her weakest surface by far in actuality, and how completely incapable she would be of winning a single RG title in a semi decent clay field or if Henin had not even retired so early.