PDA

View Full Version : The difference between Azarenka and Capriati?


Kworb
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:05 PM
It's obvious that Azarenka is the new Capriati both in terms of game style and personality on and off the court. Other than the grunt, what do you think sets these two players apart?

Polikarpov
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:30 PM
Athleticism. Capriati can belt the ball harder too.

Wilson_07
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:33 PM
Why does anybody have to be 'the next someone'? I think the only thing that's similar is their on court behaviour and that they both rarely come to the net.
Other than that I think they're not that much alike.

Stonerpova
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:37 PM
Capriati was lightyears ahead in movement and defense, she could hit the ball harder and she was a better volleyer.

Ballbasher
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:40 PM
Jenny's FH was lethal, Vika kind of lacks such a shot in her arsenal.
Vika is currently more consistent though.

The Dawntreader
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Capriati was a far better athlete and ball-striker. And her return was on par with Azarenka's. Next.

Mr.Sharapova
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:42 PM
Capriati, Definitely a better mover :yeah:.

TheItalianStyle
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Capriati a better mover? She surely was, but if we take into account only her golden years (2001/2002).

Azarenka is way more consistent, though.

That said, I don't see that much of a similarity between the two.

améliemomo
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:54 PM
capriati was less annoying. Cant stand Azarenka shrieks and attitude.

miffedmax
Feb 27th, 2012, 01:58 PM
Azarenka is addicted to Snickers.

LightWarrior
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:05 PM
It's obvious that Azarenka is the new Capriati both in terms of game style and personality on and off the court.

No. :help:

Excelscior
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:06 PM
Capriati was lightyears ahead in movement and defense, she could hit the ball harder and she was a better volleyer.

This (more or less).

And some of the other comments.

WowWow
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:14 PM
It's obvious that Azarenka is the new Capriati both in terms of game style and personality on and off the court. Other than the grunt, what do you think sets these two players apart?

:unsure::confused:

Patrick S
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:37 PM
Azarenka isn´t using steroids.

danieln1
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:43 PM
Azarenka is slimmer

Lucemferre
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:53 PM
Are you sure you know who Capriati is?

TheBoiledEgg
Feb 27th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Vika is better :) :armed:

justineheninfan
Feb 27th, 2012, 03:04 PM
Capriati is superior to Azarenka in every facet of the game. I am glad Azarenka is making her move as she is one of the better young players of her era, but she sure as heck is playing in the right era, that is all I can say. In the 90s and early 2000s she would be a relative nobody, as nearly everyone in todays top 10 would be.

J4m3ka
Feb 27th, 2012, 03:11 PM
Capriati is superior to Azarenka in every facet of the game. I am glad Azarenka is making her move as she is one of the better young players of her era, but she sure as heck is playing in the right era, that is all I can say. In the 90s and early 2000s she would be a relative nobody, as nearly everyone in todays top 10 would be.

:lol: Was planning on replying with such a post as soon as I saw the thread :tape:



The difference between Azarenka and Capriati is that Jen played in a ferocious era and still comes across as the superior player :shrug:

ToopsTame
Feb 27th, 2012, 03:12 PM
They're not similar. Actually I can't think of a past top player that Azarenka resembles. Maybe Tracy Austin, with a more basic game plan?

Stonerpova
Feb 27th, 2012, 04:26 PM
Are you sure you know who Capriati is?

:lol:

vozas
Feb 27th, 2012, 04:51 PM
I really don't see the resemblance... Capriati had a forehand game, Victoria relies way too much on ripping her backhand. Capriati had a much better serve but was more error prone, Azarenka is the other way around :shrug:

Stevecw
Feb 27th, 2012, 05:04 PM
Capriati was lightyears ahead in movement and defense, she could hit the ball harder and she was a better volleyer.

This, plus Capriati didn't make annoying shrieking noises and didn't have as bad an attitude as Vika has.

Kworb
Feb 27th, 2012, 05:13 PM
Don't underestimate Vika's movement. Even on a broken leg she was moving and defending like a cheetah. Her movement looks heavy but so did Capriati's. I think they are clones in that department.

Charlatan
Feb 27th, 2012, 05:19 PM
Don't underestimate Vika's movement. Even on a broken leg she was moving and defending like a cheetah. Her movement looks heavy but so did Capriati's. I think they are clones in that department.

let's not go there, please :facepalm:

i agree with most people's comments. capriati can strike the ball harder and her forehand is her money shot. she was defending the heavy balls from the likes of serena and lindsay and this vika would hardly be able to do what capriate had done in her career in terms of movement, defense, athleticism.

Stonerpova
Feb 27th, 2012, 05:37 PM
Don't underestimate Vika's movement. Even on a broken leg she was moving and defending like a cheetah. Her movement looks heavy but so did Capriati's. I think they are clones in that department.

Capriati was one of the fastest, if not the fastest, players on tour in an era that included Hingis, Henin, Mauresmo, Clijsters, and peak Williams sisters. Nuff said.

wnuPIS2cJ2Q
-NZU32TefWY

Vika could never. :wavey:

AcesHigh
Feb 27th, 2012, 06:24 PM
Capriati was not one of the fastest. Lets get that straight. She played much better defense than Vika ever could though and more importantly moved better around the court

ToopsTame
Feb 27th, 2012, 06:28 PM
Oh, so you only created this thread to bash Azarenka. I'm sorry I participated in that.

moby
Feb 27th, 2012, 07:02 PM
Azarenka takes the ball much earlier and has better placement of shot. Her return is also superior.

Capriati has a bigger forehand, and better movement. Stronger serve, which however was extremely predictable (always the slice in tight situations.)

dsanders06
Feb 27th, 2012, 07:06 PM
Capriati was one of the fastest, if not the fastest, players on tour in an era that included Hingis, Henin, Mauresmo, Clijsters, and peak Williams sisters. Nuff said.

wnuPIS2cJ2Q
-NZU32TefWY

Vika could never. :wavey:

Yup. I do think Azarenka's defensive skills have long been underrated on this forum (changing recently maybe), but even so she couldn't hold a candle to Capriati in the defensive department.

Capriati did hit a bigger ball as well, but I do think Azarenka maybe has more flair, plus while as said Capriati was the better ballstriker at her best, Azarenka's groundstrokes are probably a little more secure (it would be like the Clijsters-Azarenka match-up - Kim at her very best can do everything better than Azarenka and thus can rout her, but when she's at around 50% like in the AO semis she is outlasted in long rallies by Azarenka).

faboozadoo15
Feb 27th, 2012, 07:07 PM
Capriati had every shot in the book. Just ask Martina Hingis. I think Capriati and Azarenka are both predominantly baseline power-grinders.

Capriati wasn't the fastest sprinter, but she was an athletic mover with good footwork who could play amazing defense. What held her back at times was her inability to go for the lines to stretcht the court, which is something Azarenka does beautifully.

It's been mentioned several times, but Jen attacked with her forehand (probably one of the best ever), and Azarenka does more damage with her backhand. However, Jenn could hit slices Azarenka just doesn't have in her repertoire.

moby
Feb 27th, 2012, 07:09 PM
Capriati did hit a bigger ball as well, but I do think Azarenka maybe has more flair.Capriati, like Dementieva, negated their aggressive advantage of hitting heavy balls, by camping behind the baseline and grinding out wins instead.

Vika is underpowered, but almost always tries to keep her position on the baseline and redirect pace.

Apoleb
Feb 27th, 2012, 07:40 PM
Capriati has the edge because of her much superior athleticism. In terms of ballstriking, I really don't think the gap is as big as people are making it. As mentioned, Azarenka takes the ball much earlier and has the more impressive return. But you always feel she's running on empty whenever she's facing an in-form quality opponent because she's such a mediocre athlete, whereas Capriati can still rely on her defense to stay in touch.

Also, Azarenka isn't Myth to make use of early ball striking, but maybe they do deserve a comparison. (Hi Smitten. :oh: )

ptkten
Feb 27th, 2012, 07:48 PM
I can actually see some similarities in game style but Azarenka is much more consistent than Jennifer was. If she's in position to hit the ball, she almost never misses. The difference is that Jennifer was a better defender and mover and had a bigger forehand. Obviously so far, Capriati is a better player, but if Azarenka continues to improve her movement and continue to take the ball early, she can surpass her.

However, I don't see the similarities in their personalities at all. Sure they both have attitude on the court, but in my opinion, Vika just does it because she's pissed off whereas Jennifer liked to use gamesmanship to get the crowd on her side in big matches. Off the court, Vika seems a lot more outgoing and friendly with more of the players but that's always hard to tell.

JCTennisFan
Feb 27th, 2012, 08:28 PM
Lol.... Azarenka is far from Capriati. Out of all the players on tour right now... the one that most resembles Capriati's playstyle is Kim Clijsters. Capriati could hit harder, move better, turn defense to offense better, had a superior (though more erratic) serve when compared to Victoria......

Honestly the only thing I can think of that Azarenka does better is her backhand. Capriati was an incredibly well-rounded player.... she truely had no blatant weakness. And to the people that say she could only defensively grind... haha. She could very readily take control of the points and the match.... Azarenka cannot overpower her opponents in the same fashion.

And I dont see where people get the consistency thing from... possibly non Slam tournaments? Capriati was a player who lived for the slams.... and she consistently went deep in all of them.

Nicolás89
Feb 27th, 2012, 08:31 PM
Capriati wasn't a fake persona.

miffedmax
Feb 27th, 2012, 08:31 PM
Capriati had every shot in the book. Just ask Martina Hingis. I think Capriati and Azarenka are both predominantly baseline power-grinders.

Capriati wasn't the fastest sprinter, but she was an athletic mover with good footwork who could play amazing defense. What held her back at times was her inability to go for the lines to stretcht the court, which is something Azarenka does beautifully.

It's been mentioned several times, but Jen attacked with her forehand (probably one of the best ever), and Azarenka does more damage with her backhand. However, Jenn could hit slices Azarenka just doesn't have in her repertoire.

In fairness to Vika, I think some of JCap's slices would be less effective on today's standardized courts.

That takes nothing from Capriati, either. She developed a great game for the conditions of her era. Again, for me, this mostly brings up the futility of comparing players from different eras. Capriati's game was built for the rackets, courts and opponents of the late '90s and early 2000s. Even in the course of a single generation Vika finds herself playing under a significantly different set of circumstances and has done a good job of retooling her game to meet them.

JCTennisFan
Feb 27th, 2012, 08:38 PM
In fairness to Vika, I think some of JCap's slices would be less effective on today's standardized courts.

That takes nothing from Capriati, either. She developed a great game for the conditions of her era. Again, for me, this mostly brings up the futility of comparing players from different eras. Capriati's game was built for the rackets, courts and opponents of the late '90s and early 2000s. Even in the course of a single generation Vika finds herself playing under a significantly different set of circumstances and has done a good job of retooling her game to meet them.

The raquet technology has not had a leap from the late 90s to now like it did during, say the early to mid 80s. String technology has improved but mostly only for adding topspin. Capriati's gamestyle would do well today.... when you dont have many weaknesses and several strengths.... your bound to do well. Just ask Serena and Kim... they will agree.

Dawn Marie
Feb 27th, 2012, 08:51 PM
Huh? I dont think they resemble each other at all?? Capriati had more mental toughness. Capriati had a better serve. Jennifer moved 1000 times better. Anyhoo,I wish Dementieva would come back. I think she could do well and win a slam.

Stonerpova
Feb 27th, 2012, 09:59 PM
Lol.... Azarenka is far from Capriati. Out of all the players on tour right now... the one that most resembles Capriati's playstyle is Kim Clijsters. Capriati could hit harder, move better, turn defense to offense better, had a superior (though more erratic) serve when compared to Victoria......

Honestly the only thing I can think of that Azarenka does better is her backhand. Capriati was an incredibly well-rounded player.... she truely had no blatant weakness. And to the people that say she could only defensively grind... haha. She could very readily take control of the points and the match.... Azarenka cannot overpower her opponents in the same fashion.

And I dont see where people get the consistency thing from... possibly non Slam tournaments? Capriati was a player who lived for the slams.... and she consistently went deep in all of them.

Her serve, or more specifically her ball-toss, was what kept her from winning more than 3 slams. In the 02-04 period especially, any capable returner ate her second serve for breakfast. She was also way too passive in her later years. I'm honestly befuddled to this day how she didn't win the 04 French or US Open, or both really.

JCTennisFan
Feb 27th, 2012, 10:10 PM
Her serve, or more specifically her ball-toss, was what kept her from winning more than 3 slams. In the 02-04 period especially, any capable returner ate her second serve for breakfast. She was also way too passive in her later years. I'm honestly befuddled to this day how she didn't win the 04 French or US Open, or both really.

True but I almost feel that it was more confidence and mental than anything. I truely believe that the 03 US SF did something to Capriati... the following year she was far less aggressive than she had been during late 03. When she was confident and fit, she really could do some tremendous damage. 3 slams while having half your career best years ruined isnt that bad though :)

Smitten
Feb 27th, 2012, 10:11 PM
Lmfao @ the above post.

Jennifer's game deteriorated. It was amazing that she vultured the wins she got in 2004 to remain relevant. Her game was dated TBH.

To the comparison, it isn't really an absurd thing to think. People in here are quick to say Jennifer hit the harder ball and that her FH was a weapon, but Jennifer was very hesistant to go for broke or really paint the lines. She hit the ball relatively hard but kept good margins.

Azarenka's court positioning is by far more aggressive in present day, and Jennifer's serve was by no means a weapon. It was inconsistent at best, and betrayed her in many key matches.

Both of them are underpowered, struggle with holding serve consistently against top level opponents, and have disgusting on-court behavior, though Jennifer more-so for the latter. Jennifer is on drugs, Azarenka is not(so far).

JCTennisFan
Feb 27th, 2012, 10:19 PM
Lmfao @ the above post.

Jennifer's game deteriorated. It was amazing that she vultured the wins she got in 2004 to remain relevant. Her game was dated TBH.

To the comparison, it isn't really an absurd thing to think. People in here are quick to say Jennifer hit the harder ball and that her FH was a weapon, but Jennifer was very hesistant to go for broke or really paint the lines. She hit the ball relatively hard but kept good margins.

Azarenka's court positioning is by far more aggressive in present day, and Jennifer's serve was by no means a weapon. It was inconsistent at best, and betrayed her in many key matches.

Both of them are underpowered, struggle with holding serve consistently against top level opponents, and have disgusting on-court behavior, though Jennifer more-so for the latter. Jennifer is on drugs, Azarenka is not(so far).

You can believe what you want... but I do not agree...sorry. The hesitation was mental... and it was largely from her defeat to Henin. I can completely understand it, considering ive never heard of someone needing IV fluids after a match before then or after. How Henin won that match still baffles me today.... It was Jennifers to win. Above everything I simply think that luck simply was not on jennifer's side. The cards did not fall her way... but it was not from lack of trying.

And though her serve was inconsistent... that sort of made it a bit of a weapon (I.E. Dementieva). I still remember her hitting a 117 mph serve at the 04 us Open.... thats not weak. Her serve was more a Venus-lite in the respect that her 1st serve was pretty good but her 2nd was substantially less effective.

And how on earth you can say her game was "dated" when people like Woz, Safina, Chaky, etc have done well since her retirement. Jennifer had an all-round game that had enough power to never truely get "dated". Her combination of firepower and defense is simply too good to "deteriorate" (barring age, which is uncontrollable).

Smitten
Feb 27th, 2012, 10:28 PM
What power? Jennifer struggled to consistently dictate play. She ran behind the baseline and kept the ball deep which made it hard to attack her.

She struggled with Bagelie and Henin way before their developmental peaks, and she struggled with variety/counterpunchers largely due to her inability to generate big enough pace to hit them off the court.

If you watch that Henin match just notice how many shots it takes Jennifer to win a point. It takes too long for her to wins points just like Azarenka. She needed to be a bolder shotmaker, but she was trapped in the mold of a counterpuncher.

JCTennisFan
Feb 27th, 2012, 10:39 PM
What power? Jennifer struggled to consistently dictate play. She ran behind the baseline and kept the ball deep which made it hard to attack her.

She struggled with Bagelie and Henin way before their developmental peaks, and she struggled with variety/counterpunchers largely due to her inability to generate big enough pace to hit them off the court.

If you watch that Henin match just notice how many shots it takes Jennifer to win a point. It takes too long for her to wins points just like Azarenka. She needed to be a bolder shotmaker, but she was trapped in the mold of a counterpuncher.

Maybe at the non-slam tournies she occasionally struggled... but at the slams she was not losing to scrubs.... she was actually remarkably consistent. The 03 SF that Henin played is honestly one of the best matches of her career... and of Capriati's. The level that both women played at during that SF would have put any of the other contendors at the US open that year to shame.

There is a reason why Federer, Nadal, and Djoko have dominated the Men's side for the past few years... its because they are "complete" players. Its also no surprise to me that Jennifer and Kim, two of the most complete players of their era, made the two single best comebacks on the women's tour. A complete game will always be potentially threatening if backed up by proper mentality.

And with Mauresmo... it was a matchup problem. When Mauresmo was not being a headcase she was giving people other than just Capriati issues (henin anyone?)

Tennisation
Feb 28th, 2012, 02:56 AM
Capriati...power? Really? She was always defending when playing against Venus and Serena. If anything she was a grinder like Azarenka and ball toss like Ivanovic.

GAGAlady
Feb 28th, 2012, 07:18 AM
Capriati is a champiOn and someone who was destined to
Win majors. Azarenka? Not really o. The same level sorry. And yes, Jennifer was a power player people!

justineheninfan
Feb 28th, 2012, 06:28 PM
Capriati...power? Really? She was always defending when playing against Venus and Serena. If anything she was a grinder like Azarenka and ball toss like Ivanovic.

Capriati had power, but the problem was she seemed to have problems ending points vs players with similar power. She just didnt go for the lines or corners as much as she maybe should have, but that seemed almost by choice, she preferred to be a power grinder of sorts. In many ways she is similar to Azarenka, just at a much higher level. Azarenka is like a very light Capriati.

justineheninfan
Feb 28th, 2012, 06:33 PM
And with Mauresmo... it was a matchup problem. When Mauresmo was not being a headcase she was giving people other than just Capriati issues (henin anyone?)

Everyone except Serena and Davenport. They ate her for breakfast regardless her form. In 2006 even Serena in her most horrific physical form and fitness ever bageled, hit many more winners, and nearly beat Mauresmo at the U.S Open during her career year.

JCTennisFan
Feb 28th, 2012, 09:17 PM
Everyone except Serena and Davenport. They ate her for breakfast regardless her form. In 2006 even Serena in her most horrific physical form and fitness ever bageled, hit many more winners, and nearly beat Mauresmo at the U.S Open during her career year.

Very well written and I have become to expect that from you. Serena I believe had little trouble with Mauresmo due to the large gulf in confidence between the two. Serena really never doubted herself... while Mauresmo constantly did.

With Davenport... I think it is two reasons. The most obvious is that Davenport had substantial power and weapons... usually allowing her to overpower Mauresmo. Momo liked to work the points with her finesse and variety... but Davenport often would shut her down in just a few strokes before Amelie could get a chance to work the point.

The less obvious reason was because Davenport was actually a tactically smart player. She was able to sense when Mauresmo was mentally weakening and could take advantage of it.... she also could pummel that weak Forehand as well.

Sammo
Feb 28th, 2012, 09:24 PM
Capriati...power? Really? She was always defending when playing against Venus and Serena. If anything she was a grinder like Azarenka and ball toss like Ivanovic.

http://forums.vr-zone.com/photopost/data/500/calm_down_bro.jpg

justineheninfan
Feb 29th, 2012, 06:03 AM
Very well written and I have become to expect that from you. Serena I believe had little trouble with Mauresmo due to the large gulf in confidence between the two. Serena really never doubted herself... while Mauresmo constantly did.

With Davenport... I think it is two reasons. The most obvious is that Davenport had substantial power and weapons... usually allowing her to overpower Mauresmo. Momo liked to work the points with her finesse and variety... but Davenport often would shut her down in just a few strokes before Amelie could get a chance to work the point.

The less obvious reason was because Davenport was actually a tactically smart player. She was able to sense when Mauresmo was mentally weakening and could take advantage of it.... she also could pummel that weak Forehand as well.

Mauresmo actually did reasonably well vs Davenport in 99-2000 when she wasnt in her prime and wasnt nearly as good a player as Davenport yet, then got owned by her in the later years they were roughly the same level. It is kind of strange. I think Mauresmo changed her playing style alot as she entered her prime years, and it made her a better player overall but less effective against Davenport. Her shots in later years had just the right amount of spin to go right into the very tall Davenports hitting zone, and she waited too long in rallies to go for the lower trajectory more penetrating blows making it easy for Davenport to take the first strike and control the point, whereas in her younger years she went for them earlier (often to her detriment but far more effective vs Davenport).

It is funny she did much better vs Venus, but she seemed able to get to the net against Venus more effectively than Davenport.

I agree that Serena had just far too much belief and determination for Mauresmo. Apart from GoatRena of 02-03, Serena always had battles with Mauresmo, but always inevitably won them. The 2004 Wimbledon semis had to be one of the most gut wrenching losses of Mauresmos career. 2004 could have really been her shining year as much or more than 2006, she had a good shot at winning any of the last 3 slams that year, but blew all of them, at Wimbledon and U.S Open exiting with a very weak mental performances in matches she had well in her grasp to win and possibly been on course for the title if she had.

hERi
Feb 29th, 2012, 11:09 AM
vika is hotter than capriati...

JCTennisFan
Mar 2nd, 2012, 09:17 PM
vika is hotter than capriati...

http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/pictures/20100628/Jennifer%20Capriati%20Overdose/Jennifer_Capriati_banner.jpg When jenny was in shape.... she wasnt exactly what Id call ugly.

Sammo
Mar 2nd, 2012, 09:25 PM
vika is hotter than capriati...

Hmmm... meh.

GAGAlady
Mar 2nd, 2012, 09:33 PM
http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/pictures/20100628/Jennifer%20Capriati%20Overdose/Jennifer_Capriati_banner.jpg When jenny was in shape.... she wasnt exactly what Id call ugly.

Vika was hotter

ranfurly
Mar 2nd, 2012, 09:34 PM
vika is hotter than capriati...

No No No, you plonker.

Vika has that slutty look on her face, she'd be good in a gangster gangbang porno with her tits Mosquito Bites flailing everywhere.

J-Cap when dolled up, looked like a young MILF! :hearts:

Linguae^
Mar 4th, 2012, 10:41 PM
Jenny is too much for her, especially mentally.

Andy.
Mar 5th, 2012, 12:46 AM
Ones dominant shot is forhand the others dominant shot is the backhand.

Beat
Mar 5th, 2012, 07:42 AM
It's obvious that Azarenka is the new Capriati

blasphemy!

gosh, those capriati vs. s. williams duels were so good.

The Kaz
Mar 5th, 2012, 12:05 PM
Capriati was lightyears ahead in movement and defense, she could hit the ball harder and she was a better volleyer.

And yet Azarenka is going to smash her results wise. Go figure.

StephenUK
Mar 5th, 2012, 01:49 PM
1. One of the big differences is mental. Vika is a front-runner who wins many matches through annihilating opponents - she has already won 11 singles titles including one GS despite being only 22.

Jennifer had to work a lot harder to win tournaments and slams. She only won 14 singles titles in her whole career. Two of her three slams were knife-edge affairs where she won a mental battle; her first win over Hingis in Australia was IMO due to surprise - Martina completely underestimated her, as did the press, no-one really expected her to be a GS champion at the beginning of 2001. In fact, in her whole career, Jennifer never won a final as easily as Vika's annihilation of Sharapova in Australia this year.

On the other hand, Jennifer was much cooler in a crisis than Vika and played much better under pressure. Vika has improved under pressure substantially but still has much more of a reputation for mental breakdowns than Capriati ever had.

2. Doubles - Vika has had an accomplished if not stellar doubles career, including two mixed GS. Jennifer almost totally steered clear of doubles and only finished with one doubles title in her whole career. I am sure this has helped Vika develop into a more versatile competitor.

3. Surfaces. It is hard to compare one very young career with one completed one. Both were at their best on hard courts but of course, Jennifer also prospered on clay, where she won Roland Garros. Vika has not yet shown Jennifer's form on clay and I don't think she has yet shown she is really a natural on that surface. Cf grass. Apart from her 1991 Wimbledon semi-final, Jennifer always underachieved on grass, never reached a final on the surface and always tended to lose her big matches at Wimbledon eg v Henin 2001, v Mauresmo etc, it ended up turning into a 'misery slam' for her in her second career. Vika's career-defining moment was her Wimbledon semi-final last year and I feel that she seems a lot happier on that surface and could well blossom into a threat for the title in future years.

miffedmax
Mar 5th, 2012, 02:19 PM
And yet Azarenka is going to smash her results wise. Go figure.

JCap's offcourt issues definitely impacted her results. Thankfully, it appears Vika doesn't have some of the problems that held Jennifer back (and I say that not just as a Vika fan, but because I wouldn't wish those problems on anybody). Capriati had lots of talent, but was able to give 100% to her tennis for a brief time in her career. Vika may not have as much raw ability, but she has (so far) been able to be more focused on her tennis, and (so far) plays in a weaker field.

Although I do think the new and improved, post-Snickers scarfing Vika is a better player than a lot of people around here want to believe. (But yeah, I'm biased).

dsanders06
Mar 5th, 2012, 06:36 PM
And yet Azarenka is going to smash her results wise. Go figure.

Uh ... debateable.

pov
Mar 5th, 2012, 06:37 PM
wnuPIS2cJ2Q

I've never watched Capriati before but based on this video I do see similarities between her game and Azarenka's. She may well have been faster but speed is a different thing to style of play.

pov
Mar 5th, 2012, 06:40 PM
post-Snickers
Sacrilege!

Sammo
Mar 5th, 2012, 06:40 PM
That Capriati was much better. Goodbye forever.

Kworb
Mar 5th, 2012, 06:55 PM
I've never watched Capriati before but based on this video I do see similarities between her game and Azarenka's. She may well have been faster but speed is a different thing to style of play.

Love Serena's celebration there.

http://kworb.net/serenayay.gif

Smitten
Mar 5th, 2012, 07:31 PM
Uh ... debateable.

Is it?

Jennifer only won 14 titles or so with two of those being Tier I. Azarenka already has two Miami titles > Jennifer's Tier Is at Canada and Charleston.

Capriati obviously still leads in the slam department 2 AO & 1 RG > 1 AO.

It's more likely than not. Jennifer's career isn't even that stellar. Players like Legend in a single year have trumped that, Serena as well.

Sammo
Mar 5th, 2012, 08:00 PM
Is it?

Jennifer only won 14 titles or so with two of those being Tier I. Azarenka already has two Miami titles > Jennifer's Tier Is at Canada and Charleston.

Capriati obviously still leads in the slam department 2 AO & 1 RG > 1 AO.

It's more likely than not. Jennifer's career isn't even that stellar. Players like Legend in a single year have trumped that, Serena as well.

Uh, Gold Medal hello?

JCTennisFan
Mar 5th, 2012, 08:43 PM
Is it?

Jennifer only won 14 titles or so with two of those being Tier I. Azarenka already has two Miami titles > Jennifer's Tier Is at Canada and Charleston.

Capriati obviously still leads in the slam department 2 AO & 1 RG > 1 AO.

It's more likely than not. Jennifer's career isn't even that stellar. Players like Legend in a single year have trumped that, Serena as well.

titles dont matter... weeks at number one dont matter... it is the slam performaces that matter. Jennifer was a consistent threat to win slams for a 4 year period, was the youngest ever top 10, beat the most accomplished player ever at the olympics when she was a teenager, Beat arguably the best grass courter ever at W in her teens (which was Capriati's worst surface).... Its really not a debate up until this point. Capriati by a country mile and then some.

Id like to see Azarenka have half her prime career taken from her yet still be a dominant force.... she doesnt have the strength of character to push through the hell on earth that Capriati endured. On top of that Capriati's competition was substantially harder than Azarenka has ever had to face.

JCTennisFan
Mar 5th, 2012, 09:01 PM
1. One of the big differences is mental. Vika is a front-runner who wins many matches through annihilating opponents - she has already won 11 singles titles including one GS despite being only 22.

Jennifer had to work a lot harder to win tournaments and slams. She only won 14 singles titles in her whole career. Two of her three slams were knife-edge affairs where she won a mental battle; her first win over Hingis in Australia was IMO due to surprise - Martina completely underestimated her, as did the press, no-one really expected her to be a GS champion at the beginning of 2001. In fact, in her whole career, Jennifer never won a final as easily as Vika's annihilation of Sharapova in Australia this year.

On the other hand, Jennifer was much cooler in a crisis than Vika and played much better under pressure. Vika has improved under pressure substantially but still has much more of a reputation for mental breakdowns than Capriati ever had.

There would be a reason behind that. She dealt with two of the strongest generations in WTA history... Graf, Seles, Hingis, Serena, Venus, Davenport, Henin, Kim is alot harder to deal with than Kvitova, Woz, post 08 JJ, twilight Kim and Serena, and post shoulder Sharapova.

dsanders06
Mar 5th, 2012, 10:25 PM
Is it?

Jennifer only won 14 titles or so with two of those being Tier I. Azarenka already has two Miami titles > Jennifer's Tier Is at Canada and Charleston.

Capriati obviously still leads in the slam department 2 AO & 1 RG > 1 AO.

It's more likely than not. Jennifer's career isn't even that stellar. Players like Legend in a single year have trumped that, Serena as well.

I don't know, I still expect Azarenka to max out at 3 Slams (if that)... I still think her top level is a bit below 2 or 3 of her peers (Wozniacki not being one of them obvs), and can see her being on the losing end of a lot of Slam finals but rarely taking the trophy home herself. I think I predicted in the off-season that she'd end up with 1-2 Slams (back when certain people were still saying she was super-local :oh: :p ), although admittedly I didn't see her getting her first as early as this season - so because she broke her duck earlier than I expected, I'd maybe up my prediction to 3. She might end up with a slightly better career than Capriati with greater stats in the non-Slams tournaments as you said, but I'd be stunned if her overall career "smashed" Jennifer's results as the poster said.

justineheninfan
Mar 5th, 2012, 11:30 PM
Uh ... debateable.

It is highly unlikely she wont. Azarenka will probably win only 3 or 4 majors in her career. Capriati won 3. However when you factor in Capriati didnt make the finals of any of Wimbledon, U.S Open, or WTA Championships, won only 14 tournaments, and spent scant little time at #1, Azarenka with 3 or 4 slams most likely would have smashed Capriati's overall career. Ability and game is a whole other story though.

Nicolás89
Mar 5th, 2012, 11:38 PM
I still think her top level is a bit below 2 or 3 of her peers (Wozniacki not being one of them obvs)

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=115247&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/115247/oprah-smh.html)

rhz
Mar 6th, 2012, 03:33 AM
It's not even comparable PERIOD

justineheninfan
Mar 6th, 2012, 03:44 AM
titles dont matter... weeks at number one dont matter... it is the slam performaces that matter. Jennifer was a consistent threat to win slams for a 4 year period, was the youngest ever top 10, beat the most accomplished player ever at the olympics when she was a teenager, Beat arguably the best grass courter ever at W in her teens (which was Capriati's worst surface).... Its really not a debate up until this point. Capriati by a country mile and then some.

Id like to see Azarenka have half her prime career taken from her yet still be a dominant force.... she doesnt have the strength of character to push through the hell on earth that Capriati endured. On top of that Capriati's competition was substantially harder than Azarenka has ever had to face.

Other stats do matter. Winning slams are most important, but if winning slams were all that mattered why is Capriati never compared to Davenport, but instead compared to people like Mauresmo and Pierce who have only 2 slams. Conversely why is Clijsters with 4 slams still being compared to Davenport who has only 3. Why is Kuznetsova with 2 slams never compared to Mauresmo and Pierce who also have 2. One goes over their other stats and they will see the answer. Here is a good question for you, would you consider Schiavone or Na to have had a better overall career than say Gabriela Sabatini if either wins a 2nd slam (which Na definitely still could).At the very least the WTA Championships and a substantial difference in tier 1 titles does count (as does the Olympics which is a plus for Jennifer).

In the event two players each have 3 slams then other stats become everything in comparing their careers.

I dont think Azarenka will ever be as good a player as any of Capriati, Pierce, or Mauresmo in their primes, but sadly the state of the WTA is such she will almost certainly surpass their careers. That plus she wont likely go through the crazy up and downs people like Capriati and Pierce did, and doesnt have the mental fragility in the heat of battle Pierce and Mauresmo do.

JCTennisFan
Mar 6th, 2012, 05:51 AM
Other stats do matter. Winning slams are most important, but if winning slams were all that mattered why is Capriati never compared to Davenport, but instead compared to people like Mauresmo and Pierce who have only 2 slams. Conversely why is Clijsters with 4 slams still being compared to Davenport who has only 3. Why is Kuznetsova with 2 slams never compared to Mauresmo and Pierce who also have 2. One goes over their other stats and they will see the answer. Here is a good question for you, would you consider Schiavone or Na to have had a better overall career than say Gabriela Sabatini if either wins a 2nd slam (which Na definitely still could).At the very least the WTA Championships and a substantial difference in tier 1 titles does count (as does the Olympics which is a plus for Jennifer).

In the event two players each have 3 slams then other stats become everything in comparing their careers.

I dont think Azarenka will ever be as good a player as any of Capriati, Pierce, or Mauresmo in their primes, but sadly the state of the WTA is such she will almost certainly surpass their careers. That plus she wont likely go through the crazy up and downs people like Capriati and Pierce did, and doesnt have the mental fragility in the heat of battle Pierce and Mauresmo do.

I can see your point. But on Davenport.... I personally compare her to Capriati but maybe that is just me. Davenport won all of her slams during Hingis' era which was not at the same level of 01-02. If she had managed to pull out one of her several Final losses at slams then I would rate her above Capriati.... but the fact is she fell short. The bagel that Serena gave her at the 05 AO was disgraceful... she just gave up. Her Match against Venus that year was impressive, however.

faboozadoo15
Mar 6th, 2012, 06:36 AM
Is it?

Jennifer only won 14 titles or so with two of those being Tier I. Azarenka already has two Miami titles > Jennifer's Tier Is at Canada and Charleston.


The relentless Miami/5th slam crap again. :facepalm:

faboozadoo15
Mar 6th, 2012, 06:38 AM
Jenny is too much for her, especially mentally.

I think they're similar: Big fighters but not necessarily the most mentally tough. And they're hot heads.

Kunal
Mar 6th, 2012, 07:21 AM
the slams record and factor will change. for a really proper comparison azarenka needs to have a few more years under the belt. will be interesting to see how she reacts to the number 1 ranking and a totally different dynamic she will encounter now.

justineheninfan
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:57 AM
I can see your point. But on Davenport.... I personally compare her to Capriati but maybe that is just me. Davenport won all of her slams during Hingis' era which was not at the same level of 01-02. If she had managed to pull out one of her several Final losses at slams then I would rate her above Capriati.... but the fact is she fell short. The bagel that Serena gave her at the 05 AO was disgraceful... she just gave up. Her Match against Venus that year was impressive, however.

The thing is while Davenport did win all her slams in the Hingis era, which I agree was weaker than the early 2000s, that in all 3 slams Capriati won her toughest opponent she beat in each was...Hingis (the one exception might be Davenport herself in the 01 AO semis). So given that I cant really see that as an advantage. I do agree on Davenport's late career slam failures though. How she failed to win a single slam in 2004 and 2005 was unbelievable.

Tenis Srbija
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:52 AM
Oh Lord... Capriati was a great player in a GREAT time, Azarenka is No1 in a SAD, SAD, SAAAAD time.
That said I think it's clear they cannot be compared!!!

Tenis Srbija
Mar 6th, 2012, 10:54 AM
Why does anybody have to be 'the next someone'? I think the only thing that's similar is their on court behaviour and that they both rarely come to the net.
Other than that I think they're not that much alike.

Not true, Capriati went to the net waaaaaay more often than Azarenka and was way better at it!

GAGAlady
Mar 6th, 2012, 05:24 PM
I can see your point. But on Davenport.... I personally compare her to Capriati but maybe that is just me. Davenport won all of her slams during Hingis' era which was not at the same level of 01-02. If she had managed to pull out one of her several Final losses at slams then I would rate her above Capriati.... but the fact is she fell short. The bagel that Serena gave her at the 05 AO was disgraceful... she just gave up. Her Match against Venus that year was impressive, however.

Ok u know what I love jennifer but davenport achieved a lot considering she wasn't touted like Jen was and used her talent to the max.jen didn't but anyways both are great

justineheninfan
Mar 6th, 2012, 05:36 PM
True Davenport wasnt touted much coming up despite her junior success. She definitely wasnt a young phenom like Capriati who was probably the biggest 14 or 15 year old phenom ever, including Monica Seles.

JCTennisFan
Mar 6th, 2012, 08:29 PM
True Davenport wasnt touted much coming up despite her junior success. She definitely wasnt a young phenom like Capriati who was probably the biggest 14 or 15 year old phenom ever, including Monica Seles.

This is yet another reason why I rate her so highly. She wasnt just giving one generation problems.... she was giving two generations issues. For not having what id call a long career... she has classic matches with Seles, Nav, Hingis, Serena, Henin, Clijsters.... she was in the mix of things during two different generations. If she hadnt gone apeshit and derailed herself she might have had a big impact during the 97-99 years.... she very well could have made Hingis a technicality during that time. But "ifs" arent realities... sadly.

vozas
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:05 AM
The thing is while Davenport did win all her slams in the Hingis era

Love this. Legend having her own era :worship::worship::worship:

Corswandt
Mar 7th, 2012, 11:28 AM
Capriati only played doubles with mugs.

Azarenka played doubles with Kvitova.