PDA

View Full Version : Azarenka is NOT a Sharapova clone!


MechWarrior2k
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:29 AM
I'm tired of hearing how Azarenka is a Sharapova-wannabe. Seriously, their games are quite different. Yes Sharapova has 3 slams and has been #1, but Sharapova's game has peaked while Azarenka has time and the ability to take another step or two forward.

Azarenka has better court movement and is MUCH more adept at the net. Her forehand isn't prone to silly reverse forehand finishes to the amount like Sharapova's. Azarenka's backhand is comparable to Sharapova's and while the serve is not as deadly, it's certainly less prone to double faults.

Yes they both grunt, but Azarenka's at least doesn't sound constipated or that of drinking sour milk.

Just letting out my mini-rant.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:54 AM
Maria's game as we knew it has peaked. I think she might... evolve and still be a force.

I don't think Vika's a Sharapova clone, but I do think there are similarities in their early career fearlessness.

I think it's probably more accurate to say (overstating, of course) that she's a YOUNG Sharapova clone.

LeonHart
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:02 AM
I don't see a difference in their game, let alone their grunt :tape:

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:02 AM
Azarenka has better court movement and is MUCH more adept at the net. Her forehand isn't prone to silly reverse forehand finishes to the amount like Sharapova's. Azarenka's backhand is comparable to Sharapova's and while the serve is not as deadly, it's certainly less prone to double faults.

Yes they both grunt, but Azarenka's at least doesn't sound constipated or that of drinking sour milk.

Azarenka is god. She grunts even better than Maria. Respect :worship:

frenchie
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:13 AM
they are as similar as 2 players in term of game, grunt and annoyance

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:26 AM
Vika moves much better, doesn't seem to hit quite as flat and plays more of an all-court game (not much, but some).

Br'er Rabbit
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:35 AM
They both play the same, they both grunt the same and they both annoy me

ArturoAce.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:46 AM
They both play the same, they both grunt the same and they both annoy me

:worship:

Andy.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:58 AM
Sharapova's game has peaked while Azarenka has time and the ability to take another step or two forward.
So you can se into the future can you :rolleyes:

How about telling us who will win the US Open in 2012, even better tell me what this weeks winning lottery numbers will be :rolleyes:

The Witch-king
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:29 AM
She's not a clone.

She's worse.

Polikarpov
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:36 AM
Azarenka is a good player no doubt, but her next step should be improving her serve. For a player who hits powerful off the ground, her serve is relatively weak. That was one of Sharapova's advantages pre-shoulder injury. Also, I don't think Azarenka has Sharapova's "fight."

Pasta-Na
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:49 AM
marias prettier. :p

Effy
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:58 AM
lol Azarenka is still a kid, well at least she behaves like a kid on court.

Slutiana
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:59 AM
Azarenka posseses nowhere near the power of Sharapova, her game is similar to Zvonareva, without the tears. :shrug:

frenchie
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Azarenka posseses nowhere near the power of Sharapova, her game is similar to Zvonareva, without the tears. :shrug:

this is probably one of the most inaccurate quote ever:help:

Vera has all the shots which obviously can't be said for Azarenka:help:

madmax
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Azarenka obviously doesn't have the talent nor power of Maria's groundstrokes, stop kidding yourselves...when Maria is ON, her power game and grounstrokes are simply beautiful to watch - she hits them very cleanly and precisely with amazing pace, only a few women on tour if any can match that

joćo.
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:44 AM
Azarenka is not a Sharapova clone but she certainly tries to, and I certainly understand her, why girl would not want to be like Maria, right?!

And :spit: at you saying Sharapova peaked, are you scared of what's still to come? :laugh: But I'll just let their results do the talking in the next years.

DefyingGravity
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Victoria is only good for hitting her shots down the line. That's it. She just screams like Sharapova.

At least Sharapova had the competency to hit short angles off of her forehand side. And their volleys aren't that great either. If you even try to use her mixed doubles title(s) as an excuse...she had Max Mirnyi with her! Hell, anyone could win a mixed doubles title with his serve helping them out.

Sharapova is the more composed player on court, she's the more focused and she has the results to prove that she is the original and best.

Sharapowerr
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:44 PM
I like Azarenka but imo she wants to be like Maria, `first she s allrady 19 , Maria won 2slams by that time, When Maria is playing solid her groundstrokes are deadly, she hits the ball harder and she can hit winners from allmost everywhere, Azarenka moves a liitle better, Azarenka 's skills at the net are better , but Maria's drive volley is amazing , mentally Maria is stronger and she is hotter;)

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:49 PM
Sharapova was way better than Azarenka when she was 19. Her Backhand is better than Vika's. Vika's FH might be reliable but she doesnt have the firepower that Maria was able to produce on her . Maria's serve was better, and she is mentally stable and stronger. The only things where Vika has a slight advantage are volleying skills and movement.

Craig.
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:48 PM
Sharapova was way better than Azarenka when she was 19. Her Backhand is better than Vika's. Vika's FH might be reliable but she doesnt have the firepower that Maria was able to produce on her . Maria's serve was better, and she is mentally stable and stronger. The only things where Vika has a slight advantage are volleying skills and movement.

This.

The Dawntreader
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:15 PM
Sharapova was way better than Azarenka when she was 19. Her Backhand is better than Vika's. Vika's FH might be reliable but she doesnt have the firepower that Maria was able to produce on her . Maria's serve was better, and she is mentally stable and stronger. The only things where Vika has a slight advantage are volleying skills and movement.

Vika's forehand isn't reliable under pressure. Her grip makes it almost impossible for her to generate racquet head speed in high-octane exchanges. Sharapova has the timing on the forehand to carve out winners when she's in trouble.

Still, Azarenka's is better technically. She just doesn't use it as effectively.

I'm undecided about the backhand. I actually think Vika can generate very acute angles which i've rarely seen Sharapova employ. Sharapova tops her for pace though.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:25 PM
sharapova >>>> vika...quite simple

Temperenka
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:41 PM
Because they both grunt and hit hard?Those are the only similarities I can find.

Vika's movement alone gives them two completely different types of games. Maria's serve was(/is) much more of a weapon than Vika's, whose is more consistent. Vika is also much more skilled at net and with drop shots.

Maria does have three slams, and I do think is a better player (for now)... but with an improved serve, Vika could be scary good. But most won't admit that. ;)

Derek.
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:58 PM
:lol:

This is hilarious.

All the Sharapova fans flocking to defend their Queen Bee as if someone was attacking her. :awww:

LeonHart
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:01 PM
:lol:

This is hilarious.

All the Sharapova fans flocking to defend their Queen Bee as if someone was attacking her. :awww:

I noticed that :haha:

Kart
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:09 PM
I don't see the big deal.

Azarenka is in the ascendency but hasn't done anything truly stellar yet - likening her to a top star like Sharapova is surely a compliment :shrug:.

As for the screeching, well they both do it and they're both noisy - saying one is better or worse than the other is a bit silly.

joćo.
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:10 PM
:lol:

This is hilarious.

All the Sharapova fans flocking to defend their Queen Bee as if someone was attacking her. :awww:

First, that's what fans are supposed to do.
Second, including "Azarenka" in any sentence with "Sharapova" is an attack and should be considered a felony.

Effy
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:12 PM
First, that's what fans are supposed to do.
Second, including "Azarenka" in any sentence with "Sharapova" is an attack and should be considered a felony.

:haha:

Effy
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:13 PM
:lol:

This is hilarious.

All the Sharapova fans flocking to defend their Queen Bee as if someone was attacking her. :awww:

all fans are defending their faves if you havent noticed yet being here so long :o

Cora
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:15 PM
I don“t see difference in their game too, only in their personality...

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:20 PM
There are no similarities that are exclusive to them apart from the fact they both grunt, and even that is different.

Of course Vika is not as good as Pova was at her age but IMO she will go on to be better. Her game is more impressive to me, and as others have mentioned she is technically more sound. I don't like this comparison at all.

Knizzle
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:21 PM
She hasn't reached the level of the best we saw of pova, but I guess she can get there once she can control her game and be mentally tougher. And Pova's grunt is better.

LeonHart
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:38 PM
She hasn't reached the level of the best we saw of pova, but I guess she can get there once she can control her game and be mentally tougher. And Pova's grunt is better.

Would you care to enlighten us on how Sharapova's grunt is better? :haha:

Rumkin
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:50 PM
First, that's what fans are supposed to do.
Second, including "Azarenka" in any sentence with "Sharapova" is an attack and should be considered a felony.

:haha:

I actually do like Vika and I don't mind the comparison. But I don't really see similarities in their games :shrug:

The only similarities are the grunt, blond hair and the intensity. I do hope to see both girls play each other some time ;)

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Off the ground Azarenka does play closer to Zvonareva than Sharapova.

Sharapova's depth and weight is a class above Azarenka.

Azarenka moves the ball around deceptively well. If you watch her matches, she doesn't pull the trigger near as fast as you think she would. She actually moves the ball a bit.
I think Azarenka's point construction is the most underrated thing of her game. The media always labels her as a big hitter, but she really doesn't even hit the ball near as hard as Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Ivanovic, etc.


She is trying to incorporate more of the dropshot(we seen in RG against Safina), some of the volley, and some finesse shots.


The main thing that is holding Azarenka back is her serve. Her first serve at Wimbledon was in the high 80s/low 90s most of the time. That's just not going to worry anyone even with good placement sometimes.

Derek.
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:56 PM
all fans are defending their faves if you havent noticed yet being here so long :o

But no one's actually attacking her in this thread. :weirdo:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:27 PM
There are no similarities that are exclusive to them apart from the fact they both grunt, and even that is different.

Of course Vika is not as good as Pova was at her age but IMO she will go on to be better. Her game is more impressive to me, and as others have mentioned she is technically more sound. I don't like this comparison at all.

a more impressive and "technically" sound game does not always equate to more success...a whole lot of people on tour have way better technique than serena, but guess who is more successful...technique can only get you so far and imo maria (if she gets her game in order) will be more successful than vika (who will throw temper tantrums)

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:41 PM
a more impressive and "technically" sound game does not always equate to more success...a whole lot of people on tour have way better technique than serena, but guess who is more successful...technique can only get you so far and imo maria (if she gets her game in order) will be more successful than vika (who will throw temper tantrums)

well, duh :p


Nobody has a better service technique than Serena which is the single most important part of her game that sets her apart from others.

One of the main things for Azarenka now is to sort her attitude out, she's much better when she's calm on the court.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Who isn't? Besides, Chakvetadze. :rolls:

UDACHi
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:49 PM
what i got out of the original post was that you don't like sharapova and you do like azarenka. thanks for this greatly informative thread about how azarenka is better at everything, despite being far less accomplished. :p

Donny
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:53 PM
well, duh :p


Nobody has a better service technique than Serena which is the single most important part of her game that sets her apart from others.

One of the main things for Azarenka now is to sort her attitude out, she's much better when she's calm on the court.

No one as tall or as strong as Serena has as good a technique.

If Serena was a couple of inches shorter, and didn't have the leg strength she does, her serve would not be nearly as good as it is.

Not to mention that her serve's BEST aspect- holding up under pressure points- is largely a function of her mental strength. Technique only gets you so far.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:58 PM
No one as tall or as strong as Serena has as good a technique.

If Serena was a couple of inches shorter, and didn't have the leg strength she does, her serve would not be nearly as good as it is.

Not to mention that her serve's BEST aspect- holding up under pressure points- is largely a function of her mental strength. Technique only gets you so far.

Yeah true.

Although you could say some of her mental strength comes from confidence in her technique.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:02 PM
Very true!

Donny
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:07 PM
At any rate, I think "technique" is overrated, and too often used to mean "pretty looking".

Federer's FH, for instance, is very unconventional, but works amazingly well, and looks nice, so people say it's great technique, when in reality, I've never seen anyone ever hit their FH like that.

Conversely, Safina's FH is incredibly awkward looking, so it's called bad technique, despite the fact that it's been probably the most reliable shot on clay for the past two years (save the two FO finals).

IMO, technique should be based on how effective and reliable a shot is, not on some textbook example of what it *should* look like. Who's to say Sharapova's FH is bad technique? It worked for her for years. Conversely, I'm sure there are tons of player who produce their strokes like something out of a tutorial, yet suck.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:12 PM
Technique matters. It isn't overrated. Just watch Davenport play. If she didn't have that technique she wouldn't have been near as good as she is.

Just watch Venus Williams play. If Venus' technique had been better her game would have been better.

Technique generally can be translated to consistency of shot at the highest level off the game, but it isn't 100%. Generally, the players with the best technique on a specific shot are subsequently more reliable/consistent in critical moments and sometimes powerful as well.

Joe.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:14 PM
of course shes not a masha clone.

masha is way better:)

Donny
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:18 PM
Technique matters. It isn't overrated. Just watch Davenport play. If she didn't have that technique she wouldn't have been near as good as she is.

Just watch Venus Williams play. If Venus' technique had been better her game would have been better.

Technique generally can be translated to consistency of shot at the highest level off the game, but it isn't 100%. Generally, the players with the best technique on a specific shot are subsequently more reliable/consistent in critical moments and sometimes powerful as well.

My point is, what makes "good technique"? i think we should define it as whatever works well, not the other way around.

Kuznetsova may have great technique on her shots, but she's still prone to playing AWFUL tennis a lot of the time. Venus, OTOH, can produce great tennis, despite having what we call "bad" technique.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Venus produces great tennis on grass BECAUSE of the fact that grass helps her bad technique by playing fast and low into her flawed swings.

Kuznetsova's awful tennis is due to footwork.

fufuqifuqishahah
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:22 PM
we already know this

though it may not be so apparent at first

Knizzle
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:23 PM
Would you care to enlighten us on how Sharapova's grunt is better? :haha:LOL, it isn't quite as shrill as Azarenka's I can bear Maria's most of the time, but Azarenka's is more annoying. It's not the worst though.

The Dawntreader
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:27 PM
Technique matters. It isn't overrated. Just watch Davenport play. If she didn't have that technique she wouldn't have been near as good as she is.

Just watch Venus Williams play. If Venus' technique had been better her game would have been better.
Technique generally can be translated to consistency of shot at the highest level off the game, but it isn't 100%. Generally, the players with the best technique on a specific shot are subsequently more reliable/consistent in critical moments and sometimes powerful as well.

Venus has unorthodox technique, but it isn't bad at all.

Dominic
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:16 PM
Sharapova is much more powerful in everything.

Sharapower
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:53 AM
At any rate, I think "technique" is overrated, and too often used to mean "pretty looking".

Federer's FH, for instance, is very unconventional, but works amazingly well, and looks nice, so people say it's great technique, when in reality, I've never seen anyone ever hit their FH like that.

Conversely, Safina's FH is incredibly awkward looking, so it's called bad technique, despite the fact that it's been probably the most reliable shot on clay for the past two years (save the two FO finals).

IMO, technique should be based on how effective and reliable a shot is, not on some textbook example of what it *should* look like. Who's to say Sharapova's FH is bad technique? It worked for her for years. Conversely, I'm sure there are tons of player who produce their strokes like something out of a tutorial, yet suck.

Very true, however, there's another aspect to technique, it's the "healthiness". Some players use extreme motions that are quite effective in the game but also do harm their bodies in the long run, and I suspect this is the case for almost all the "power babes" of the WTA (hence all those injuries)

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:05 AM
IMO, technique should be based on how effective and reliable a shot is, not on some textbook example of what it *should* look like. Who's to say Sharapova's FH is bad technique? It worked for her for years. Conversely, I'm sure there are tons of player who produce their strokes like something out of a tutorial, yet suck.
Spot on. :worship:

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:12 AM
My point is, what makes "good technique"? i think we should define it as whatever works well, not the other way around.

Case and point, Roddick's serve.

There was a time when an abbreviated motion like that was a thing to be scorned. (trust me, my Tennis coach ridiculed and scorned mine plenty, but that's another story). Now, you have players changing their serves so it's MORE like Roddick's. :lol:

It used to be that you were instructed to keep your feet planted up until you surged up for the ball during your serve, then along came Pete, rocking back on his front heel and it's influenced a generation. Serena and Vee have A VERY Sampras influenced serve.

Cakeisgood
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:16 AM
Technique matters. It isn't overrated. Just watch Davenport play. If she didn't have that technique she wouldn't have been near as good as she is.

Just watch Venus Williams play. If Venus' technique had been better her game would have been better.

Technique generally can be translated to consistency of shot at the highest level off the game, but it isn't 100%. Generally, the players with the best technique on a specific shot are subsequently more reliable/consistent in critical moments and sometimes powerful as well.

Davenport's over the shoulder finish on her FH was hardly conventional and "technically" sound. Effective, but her strength was less based on technique but more of her keen ability to time and cleanly hit the ball to compensate for her horrid movement.

And to the OP, they are not the same. Simply put, they are too different to really compare. Vika is far less aggressive and plays a more anglular game built on consistency and footspeed. Masha plays with more power and depth.

spencercarlos
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:20 AM
they are as similar as 2 players in term of game, grunt and annoyance
Step to this! :p i agree

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:37 AM
Bad technique only comes into play if the shots can be broken down (at the highest level).

This has never been more apparent to me than when watching Venus and Maria warm up and play on grass. Venus looks to be taking the ball at 10 different contact points, slapping wildly at the ball even in warmups. Sharapova slugs away with metronomic consistency and keen control. Venus wins on grass, Maria wins on hard courts.

And a lot of "great" players have dominated the game with what some considered flawed technique. Evert(2 handed backhand), Graf (late prep on forehand, high ball toss), Seles (2 hands on both sides, unorthodox foot positioning, dominated the game while serving with her toes almost pointed at the net), Venus.

nelsondan
Jul 12th, 2009, 07:13 AM
:lol:

This is hilarious.

All the Sharapova fans flocking to defend their Queen Bee as if someone was attacking her. :awww:


how funny are the ones who don't think it is worth bothering about?

supergrunt
Jul 12th, 2009, 07:49 PM
i think that azarenka is a better athlete but sharapova is/was a better ball striker overall

Slutiana
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Off the ground Azarenka does play closer to Zvonareva than Sharapova.

Sharapova's depth and weight is a class above Azarenka.

Azarenka moves the ball around deceptively well. If you watch her matches, she doesn't pull the trigger near as fast as you think she would. She actually moves the ball a bit.
I think Azarenka's point construction is the most underrated thing of her game. The media always labels her as a big hitter, but she really doesn't even hit the ball near as hard as Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Ivanovic, etc.


She is trying to incorporate more of the dropshot(we seen in RG against Safina), some of the volley, and some finesse shots.


The main thing that is holding Azarenka back is her serve. Her first serve at Wimbledon was in the high 80s/low 90s most of the time. That's just not going to worry anyone even with good placement sometimes.
This. Her match against Cirstea was probably the only match i've ever been impressed with her serve. :tears: But that's the excpetion, usually she just rolls it in.
Venus produces great tennis on grass BECAUSE of the fact that grass helps her bad technique by playing fast and low into her flawed swings.

Kuznetsova's awful tennis is due to footwork.
I disagree, her technique has improved A LOT. Look at her game back in 1997 compared with now, it's been COMPLETELY revamped. I don't think technique is the problem now, its confidence.

Corswandt
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:29 PM
Off the ground Azarenka does play closer to Zvonareva than Sharapova.

Sharapova's depth and weight is a class above Azarenka.

Azarenka moves the ball around deceptively well. If you watch her matches, she doesn't pull the trigger near as fast as you think she would. She actually moves the ball a bit.
I think Azarenka's point construction is the most underrated thing of her game. The media always labels her as a big hitter, but she really doesn't even hit the ball near as hard as Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Ivanovic, etc.

Spot on. Nothing to add.

The main thing that is holding Azarenka back is her serve. Her first serve at Wimbledon was in the high 80s/low 90s most of the time. That's just not going to worry anyone even with good placement sometimes.

That's intentional I think. She trades some pace for a very high 1st serve %, which can be very useful when playing against ultra-aggressive returners.

Corswandt
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:37 PM
:lol:

Banned. Second incarnation of "Pristine", who was probably a cover for [...].

starin
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:48 PM
less power and as of now better movement. But she is similar to Sharapova in that she plays at a very consistently high level of play the vast majority of time and gets good consistent depth on her groundies. Azarenka's also better at net but Sharapova is just a step above in all other areas.

Thkmra
Jul 13th, 2009, 05:20 AM
They both play the same, they both grunt the same and they both annoy me

:lol::lol::help:

bandabou
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:36 AM
Vika is less aggressive than Maria imo...Maria is more first strike tennis.
But one thing Vika really needs to work on: Serve.. should be bigger weapon imo, she's a big babe afterall.

About good technique and as people noted, Serena's PERFECT technique on the most important shot in tennis..and it never breaks down. How many major she won because she could rely on that weapon? ' 99 u.s.open..without that serve, she wasn't winning at that time.

Corswandt
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:44 AM
she is similar to Sharapova in that she plays at a very consistently high level of play the vast majority of time

Agreed, and that's perhaps the single biggest factor in her recent successes. Azarenka nearly always shows up extremely sharp and playing at her very best or close to it.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:19 AM
I think Azarenka has a lot of power. It's just her choice to not hit the ball really hard every time. That's why she doesn't make lots of UE.

Ziggy Starduck
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Venus produces great tennis on grass BECAUSE of the fact that grass helps her bad technique by playing fast and low into her flawed swings.

Kuznetsova's awful tennis is due to footwork.

Occassionally yes, especially the Lisicki match recently but mainly it's mental.

Rafito.
Jul 13th, 2009, 12:21 PM
They are both the Best.

Loving Jaime and Cara from the AMAZING RACE 14.

petra martinnen
Jul 13th, 2009, 01:12 PM
Hmm, Maria is a Hall of Famer while Viktoria is still at age 19"Sharapova Light." Not on the same level these two. Save for Roland Garros, Maria was a threat to win any Slam she entered and may be back soon to peak #1 form.

Azarenka is a nice player, but still a pretender. Viktoria is smaller, less powerful,less intimidating with less of a champion's heart.