I have seen this comparison on every idiotic Sharapova hate thread on this forum. What does Serena winning a slam as a teenager and slumping for a year have to do with Maria? How does that indicate the upper limits of maria's potential? They are two completely different players who failed to backup their initial splash for two different reasons.
Please explain rationally(none of that mindless crap from haters please)) .I fail to see the logic in this argument. Why not compare one slam wonders, Myskina,or Kuznetsova to Serena based on such arguments?Kuz is 20 and is slumping because of mental issues.She actually has a game complete enough to beat players as varied as Clijsters,and Mauresmo,and almost beat Justine the queen of clay at RG.Why is only Maria projected as the brightest talent of this generation?What does she have that no-one else does?Mental toughness can only take you so far( Hewitt ).She is solid top- 5,and the most developed of the teenagers as shown in her consistent results(for the whack-jobs who think she'll drop out of the top ten,go boil yer 'ead
),but why is it that only she is seen as having the game to dominate?One assumes that being only 18,she will definitely improve and get better.The question is,how much better can she get?How much better does she need to become to take Serena's place?
She never showed the kind of talent that we see in someone like Justine,who herself couldn't dominate( for physical reasons).What makes people so sure that Maria has what it takes to be more than consistent top-5.She held the number 1 ranking for a few weeks,but did not at any time look like she would have a stranglehold on it. Usually players reach that level when they peak,and it is very difficult to dislodge them from that ranking if they have the ability to dominate (hingis,seles,graf etc.).Has maria shown glimpses of this?