PDA

View Full Version : Is sharapova better than Kournikova???


Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:14 PM
She may be inexperienced but Shara has already won two titles while korny languishes titleless. Shara has a solid game and once she gains more and more experience playing top players she's sure to go far. Mentally she's much more together than anna ever was.

So even with her lack of doubles success that anna has I still say that Shara is BETTER than kourny.

KV
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:18 PM
If Anna had played more tier 4's she would probably have won a few tournaments. You can't compare the tennis of now to 5 years ago. At the age of 16 Anna was SEMI-FINALIST at Wimbledon. Anna had by far too many injuries to be fairly judged. Hopefully Masha stays fit, then she has a great career ahead.

Greenout
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:18 PM
Can't forget Anna's real claim to fame-
WIMBLEDON 1997 semi's.

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:20 PM
Its not about injuries or burnout or bad teen years that derail careers its about results. So far as a singles player shara is better and doubles is pretty much irrelevant.

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:24 PM
Oh God! Not one of these threads where people will find a way to bash both players!

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:39 PM
I look at it this way. Both Anna and Maria have emerged at different times on the tour; therefore, their results will be different. The good thing about Maria winning these small events early in her career is that she will not have to deal with the "titleless curse" that has followed Kournikova around like an albatross for most of Anna's career. Maria has made a smart decision to play small events, get the experience and overcome the hype in ways that Kournikova was never allowed to. So, in a sense, Maria has learned from Anna's mistakes. If Anna had played smaller events earlier in her career and got those wins, her confidence and career may be in a different place at this time. As for Maria, she is still very young and deserves credit for trying to build her career on results and not allow herself to get lost in the hype.

I guess what I am trying to say is that these threads invite bashing of one player over another. It is a disservice to both women. They deserve better.

jimbo mack
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:42 PM
this thread is sooooo stupid when sharapova hasn't even played a full year on the tour!!

and if u HAD to compare them, kournikova's had the better career so far.

look at the facts! grandslams, big tourneys. not a couple of small tournaments like tokyo and quebec!!

Kart
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:44 PM
I like Anna K more.

Not that that has anything to do with this thread I admit.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:47 PM
Maria has her titles, but I think that it is due to smart-play. Anna at the time was top-5 candidate and of course had no business playing tier III´s and IV. Even without the titles I think Anna was better at a younger age than Maria....but of course Maria made the smart move to winning the small titles first to dodge the hype.

jimbo mack
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:49 PM
you are remembered for playing well in the big tournaments, not the little ones.

i think maria WILL have a better career than anna, but like i said earlier, not yet, its too early to compare

JustineTime
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:50 PM
Better at what? :confused:

switz
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:55 PM
Maria has her titles, but I think that it is due to smart-play. Anna at the time was top-5 candidate and of course had no business playing tier III´s and IV. Even without the titles I think Anna was better at a younger age than Maria....but of course Maria made the smart move to winning the small titles first to dodge the hype.

OMG i totally agree with you!! the teenage kournikova was too busy beating top players and making grand slam semis to be winning titles 'beating' players outside top 100 in the final. sharapova is a big talent, but i think kournikova versus sharapova at the same age would favour anna. sharapova doesn't seem like she is going to caught up in the whole glamour side of the sport, and i think her record will probably be better, but the reality is that she still has a lot to prove against the top players before we can say how far she will go. if she gets stronger though i really think that she could be something special

DA FOREHAND
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:56 PM
". Maria has made a smart decision to play small events, get the experience and overcome the hype in ways that Kournikova was never allowed to"

Anna wasn't allowed? LOL...Anna went for the glamour and the glitz

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:06 PM
". Maria has made a smart decision to play small events, get the experience and overcome the hype in ways that Kournikova was never allowed to"

Anna wasn't allowed? LOL...Anna went for the glamour and the glitz

Yep and that decision will hunt her forever it seems! Heck even Venus won her first title at a tier III: Oklahoma.....there are few players who break out at the big stage immediately...Serena´s run from Paris to Lipton was a HUGE HUGE run for a 17 year old kid.

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:21 PM
I look at it this way. Both Anna and Maria have emerged at different times on the tour; therefore, their results will be different. The good thing about Maria winning these small events early in her career is that she will not have to deal with the "titleless curse" that has followed Kournikova around like an albatross for most of Anna's career. Maria has made a smart decision to play small events, get the experience and overcome the hype in ways that Kournikova was never allowed to. So, in a sense, Maria has learned from Anna's mistakes. If Anna had played smaller events earlier in her career and got those wins, her confidence and career may be in a different place at this time. As for Maria, she is still very young and deserves credit for trying to build her career on results and not allow herself to get lost in the hype.

I guess what I am trying to say is that these threads invite bashing of one player over another. It is a disservice to both women. They deserve better.

never allowed to? No one forced her to play those tournaments. She chose her schedule like all players do.

also comparing two players is not a disservice. Whats wrong with you people? In every other sport this is done: football, soccer, basketball, etc etc... can you imagine track fans not wanting to discuss who is better between kellie white and marion jones? Hell its fun and interesting to compare atheletes! Some of you are just too sensitive. Im not bashing kournikova as a person I just think her tennis record, even with the slam semi, is just not as impressive as actually winning titles.

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:24 PM
this thread is sooooo stupid when sharapova hasn't even played a full year on the tour!!

and if u HAD to compare them, kournikova's had the better career so far.

look at the facts! grandslams, big tourneys. not a couple of small tournaments like tokyo and quebec!!

what grandslam has anna won? What big tourney? SHE HAS NO WIN. I dont care how many top playes she beat at one touranment in a row, she didn't win the final. I mean would you want to be known as a player who could threaten a top player occasionally or a player who can win tournaments?

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:30 PM
what grandslam has anna won? What big tourney? SHE HAS NO WIN. I dont care how many top playes she beat at one touranment in a row, she didn't win the final. I mean would you want to be known as a player who could threaten a top player occasionally or a player who can win tournaments?

Yep....but remember Henrietta Nagyova?! Queen of tier III´s but no threat for the top players?! It doesn´t sound nice to be known as a player like that either...but you´re right winning is the name of the game.

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:32 PM
Yep....but remember Henrietta Nagyova?! Queen of tier III´s but no threat for the top players?! It doesn´t sound nice to be known as a player like that either...but you´re right winning is the name of the game.

somehow I doubt shara will end up the nagyova of her time. not with her game. Also sharapova has already beaten players ranked well above her so she is a threat to the higher players as well as a title winner.

ALPHA
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:33 PM
what grandslam has anna won? What big tourney? SHE HAS NO WIN. I dont care how many top playes she beat at one touranment in a row, she didn't win the final. I mean would you want to be known as a player who could threaten a top player occasionally or a player who can win tournaments?


If I could choose, I will favor to be a player, who is known and feared by even the top-players of the game for upsets ... rather than to be one known to be capapble of winning rinky-dink events in Katmandu or Hyderabad etc etc.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:38 PM
somehow I doubt shara will end up the nagyova of her time. not with her game. Also sharapova has already beaten players ranked well above her so she is a threat to the higher players as well as a title winner.

which exactly?! She beat Dokic...but I wouldn´t really really put too much in that win.

TatiAnnahølic
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:40 PM
Maria has her titles, but I think that it is due to smart-play. Anna at the time was top-5 candidate and of course had no business playing tier III´s and IV. Even without the titles I think Anna was better at a younger age than Maria....but of course Maria made the smart move to winning the small titles first to dodge the hype.
i agree with you, by first time :)

jimbo mack
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:40 PM
what grandslam has anna won? What big tourney? SHE HAS NO WIN. I dont care how many top playes she beat at one touranment in a row, she didn't win the final. I mean would you want to be known as a player who could threaten a top player occasionally or a player who can win tournaments?

what? small tournaments like tokyo? quebec? beating qualifiers like kapros or sequeras?

WAKE UP!!!! live in the real world!!!

do u know anything about tennis?

kournikova has wins over legends in huge tournaments like hingis, graf, seles, davenport

sharpova's best win is over dokic!!

and ur asking me who i'd rather be known as?

the cat
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:43 PM
So Cybelle, who's better between LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony? ;) Even though James is physically superior to Anthony, I prefer Anthony because he's a proven winner in high school and college. And he's more experienced than James, too.

As for who is better tennis player between Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova, Maria is better because she's playing and Anna is not playing. Sadly Anna's numerous injuries have devastated her career. :sad: Maria has superior size while Anna has superior speed and finesse. As apoet astutley pointed out, Anna and Maria broke in at 2 different times. Anna broke in in 1996 and 1997 when women's tennis was weak and lacking depth. Maria broke in in 2003 when the depth of women's tennis has never been better. Maria cannot be expected to have the breakthroughs that Anna did at Wimbledon 1997 and the Lipton 1998 so early in her career. Why? Because womens tennis is dominated by the Williams sisters, Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters. These 4 great tennis players were not there in 1996 and 1997 dominating the WTA Tour. I just hope Anna can make a comeback in 2004 and play some fine tennis. Then if Anna is playing well and Maria is playing well the discussion of who's better between Sharapova and Kournikova will make for an interesting discussion. But for now Maria is better by default. Mainly because Anna hasn't played since April.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:47 PM
i agree with you, by first time :)

Never too late for a first! :D

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:09 PM
never allowed to? No one forced her to play those tournaments. She chose her schedule like all players do.

also comparing two players is not a disservice. Whats wrong with you people? In every other sport this is done: football, soccer, basketball, etc etc... can you imagine track fans not wanting to discuss who is better between kellie white and marion jones? Hell its fun and interesting to compare atheletes! Some of you are just too sensitive. Im not bashing kournikova as a person I just think her tennis record, even with the slam semi, is just not as impressive as actually winning titles.

I agree with you. My point was that these types of threads invite bashing because some people are highly sensitive to any perceived criticism of their favorite. What people don't realize is that Anna and Maria are playing at different times on the tour. The tour's depth has changed quite a bit from 1997-1998, so it is unfair to slam Maria by saying that she cannot compare to Anna's results. At least, that is what I think. Anna's had good results as a player, which makes her decline all the more sad.

Personally, I think Anna's hype never allowed her to develop as a player because she got too caught up in it. What I don't understand is fans who seem to believe that making the finals of a tier 1 event somehow makes her superior to a player who has won a tier 3 event. A player plays tennis to win, not just have good results. Anna apparently agree with that otherwise she would not have started playing smaller events later in her career.

ally baker
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:12 PM
Can't forget Anna's real claim to fame-
WIMBLEDON 1997 semi's.
98 Miami proved a lot more...

Masha may have won 2 titles... but she didn't defeat a Top 50 player in either.

Anna went 15 months, or whatever, without losing to a player ranked below her... so if she played any lower tournaments at that time... she'd have a title.

When Maria starts beating legit Top 5 players (none of this Dokic shit)... then you can start the comparisons

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:17 PM
It is non win situation....Anna got caught up in her hype and instead of going to the lower tournaments to get the monkey of her back, she insisted playing tier I and II´s only....bunch of semi´s and finals....but it was all close but not close enough with her.

Maria otoh goes to bush leagues and beats the Kapros and segueros of this world et voila: she has a title.

I think that they are both in the same situation. Anna was too good for the tier III´s and Maria may well prove to not be good enough for the tier I´s. Who knows?!

At least there´s hope for her at IW, ´cause the sisters ain´t playing there.

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:24 PM
what? small tournaments like tokyo? quebec? beating qualifiers like kapros or sequeras?

WAKE UP!!!! live in the real world!!!

do u know anything about tennis?

kournikova has wins over legends in huge tournaments like hingis, graf, seles, davenport

sharpova's best win is over dokic!!

and ur asking me who i'd rather be known as?

It depends on how you look at it. In the real world, Anna's wins over Hingis, Seles, Graf and Davenport are significant, but the fact that she has never won any title of merit puts her in a class of those with great potential but no wins. And let's be honest, Anna's wins over those players apparently did not give her the confidence she needed to move to the next level. It had to be difficult for her to admit this past spring that she needed to play challenger events. Can you imagine being a former top ten player with significant wins who has to play challenger events?

Maria has already overcome that barrier and besides, every player has to start somewhere. Venus Williams' first win was at a tier 3 event in Oklahoma. Justine Henin-Hardenne's first tour wins came at Gold Coast (tier 3), Canberra (tier 5). I am going to repeat myself ad nauseum here, but players play to win events, not just have good results. Anna's had great results in her career, but her lack of a tournament win does hurt her when judging her results.

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:26 PM
98 Miami proved a lot more...

Masha may have won 2 titles... but she didn't defeat a Top 50 player in either.

Anna went 15 months, or whatever, without losing to a player ranked below her... so if she played any lower tournaments at that time... she'd have a title.

When Maria starts beating legit Top 5 players (none of this Dokic shit)... then you can start the comparisons

Anna was too good for a tier 3 event? How? I keep reading these statements over and over again and don't understand them. If small events were good enough for GS champions like Venus and Justine, who were also hyped early in their careers, to begin their winning streaks, why is Anna somehow the exception to the rule?

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:35 PM
Yep....bad mistake by Anna. You just can start winning biggies, without winning a smaller one first...when the biggies aren´t falling, then you have to retreat to a smaller one. But she thought of herself as too good for this world and this is her reward.

Yak
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:14 PM
Anna didn't have that much to say chosing her events early in her career! Alla and her agent made ALL the desicion about the scheduling and went where more money was available... Anna hasn't been deciding her schedule before 2000... Then came the injury... Like someone said, if she would have played a tier 3 during her 15 months dominance against player ranked below her(she was in the top20) she would have a title by now.

But even if Anna would have won tier 3's, people would still bash her for not having won a tier 1 or a grand slam just because it's Anna... Nagyova doesn't get that shit...

Like someone also said, right now Maria is better by default because Anna isn't playing so it isn't fair to compare now...

If I would rate some elements of their game, it's pretty even in my opinion...

Forehand: Maria hands down..
Backhand: Anna's best groudies superior to Maria
Serve: Maria...not very tough to be better then AK
Volleys/touch: Anna without a doubt
Speed/Mobility: Anna without a doubt again.. Maria's weakest point...
Mental toughness: Maria

Pretty even...

Yak
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:14 PM
finally a thread about AK and MS that is not negative but objective...:bounce:

jimbo mack
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:18 PM
i think if anna comes back she will play more smaller tournaments. thats what she did in 2002 and got close to winning a tournament.

auckland- semis
acupulco- semis
shanghai- final

Yak
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:21 PM
Acapulco :sad: That is where all the shit started...

ptkten
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:39 PM
Anna certainly has a better career so far, there's no comparison imo regardless of who you like more.

However, Sharapova is extremely promising in my opinion and has a very good chance of surpassing Kournikova's career achievements.

Martian Willow
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:54 PM
and ur asking me who i'd rather be known as?

...I don't know who you'd rather be known as...but I know whose position I'd rather be in at this point...Anna is finished...Maria has only just started... :)

...why do you want to scrap the Hopman Cup btw...? :confused:

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 3rd, 2003, 07:27 PM
Anna too good for Tier Threes???? Right. Hingis has tour three tournament wins. She's not better than anna? Try to come up with another theory. Two tier three titles is better than zero titles especially when she isn't even playing full time!

ally baker
Nov 3rd, 2003, 07:52 PM
Anna was too good for a tier 3 event? How? I keep reading these statements over and over again and don't understand them. If small events were good enough for GS champions like Venus and Justine, who were also hyped early in their careers, to begin their winning streaks, why is Anna somehow the exception to the rule?
I never said Anna was too good to play smaller tournaments. She should have played some when she started... but she didn't.

ally baker
Nov 3rd, 2003, 07:55 PM
Anna too good for Tier Threes???? Right. Hingis has tour three tournament wins. She's not better than anna? Try to come up with another theory. Two tier three titles is better than zero titles especially when she isn't even playing full time!
Reaching the Miami 98 final... beating 4 Top 10 players... is much better than winning 2 weak Tier III fields.

By that logic... Angie Widjaja, Elena Bovina, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Fabiola Zuluaga, Henrieta Nagyova, Anna Pistolesi, etc... have all had better careers than Kournikova.

Let me remind everyone, that I'm probably the biggest Kournikova hater on this board... but you can't deny her accomplishments.

faboozadoo15
Nov 3rd, 2003, 08:53 PM
well i actually DO think anna pistolesi has had a better career! hands down! she prolly have about as many wins over top 20 players too... not to metion what-- 5 titles??? i think some are tier 2...

WhatTheDeuce
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:06 PM
this is a quote i heard and agree with...

"anna has more talent in her finger than sharapova has, period."

KV
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:08 PM
well i actually DO think anna pistolesi has had a better career! hands down! she prolly have about as many wins over top 20 players too... not to metion what-- 5 titles??? i think some are tier 2...A. Pistolesi has never been a top 10 player. She doesn't have the game for it. When did she bt. top 10 players, not too often. And it's very often the opponent who beats herself. That was the final Anna should have won, but she bt. herself.

Whatzup
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:10 PM
Anna Kournikova has a lot more talent... she showed at the beginning of her career.. but injury's and a lot of other thing (we all know) changed her career of a subtop player instead of a world top player. Maybe Maria can become still better... but I think Anna has still more talent! :D

KV
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:13 PM
Anna Kournikova has a lot more talent... she showed at the beginning of her career.. but injury's and a lot of other thing (we all know) changed her career of a subtop player instead of a world top player. Maybe Maria can become still better... but I think Anna has still more talent! :D
When some people would understand this, I'll be relieved. "But injury's and a lot of other things (we all know) changed her career."

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:20 PM
But that some other thing was her own DANG fault. She ENJOYED it and let it get to her! She was more busy posing for calendars, fhm and stuff.

That´s why people can´t take her seriously anymore.

Whatzup
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:29 PM
When some people would understand this, I'll be relieved. "But injury's and a lot of other things (we all know) changed her career."

Is that so difficult to understand??? At the beginning the was raising very quick and became better and better... but after some years her modelwork became important too and later the injury's came up... but not the expected results. That changed her career. But she has still a lot of talent! :D

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 09:58 PM
They made a mistake with Anna schedule, by pushing her to only play Tier II and bigger. But was it really a mistake? Anyone intelligent would realize that it's better to make the final of a Tier II than winning a Tier IV, so people harping on the fact that she never won a title are morons.

I must be moron because I don't understand how making a final is better than winning a tournament, even a small one.

jimbo mack
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:03 PM
well i actually DO think anna pistolesi has had a better career! hands down! she prolly have about as many wins over top 20 players too... not to metion what-- 5 titles??? i think some are tier 2...

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Martian Willow
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:08 PM
...some of you Anna fans seem not to have noticed the game has changed since '97-'98...it changed for Martina...it would have changed for Anna...injuries or no injuries... :)

Lindsay A Davenport
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:14 PM
If Anna K. was at her peak right now, she would be better than Maria. But I think that ultimately, Maria will have a better career.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:18 PM
If Anna K. was at her peak right now, she would be better than Maria. But I think that ultimately, Maria will have a better career.

That´s the statement. Anna´s best would beat Maria´s best..but in the end it is careers that matters

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:29 PM
A lot of Tier III, IV and V are weak... Tier I and II were almost never when Anna was playing, so yes, reaching a final of a Tier I or II is way way better than winning a tournement with a cream-puff field.

Yes, but don't you think winning a tier 3, 4, or 5 field would have given Anna the confidence to try and go after bigger titles? That is what I was trying to say before. Every player has to start somewhere and not every player is going to win a huge event as their first title. Justine's first wins were a tier 3 and tier 5 event. Now, three years later, she is a two-time grand slam champion. Sometimes you have to crawl before you can walk and I think Anna only entering big events may have hurt her later on because she never got the chance to know how to win a tournament. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.

Confidence is a huge factor for Anna. I truly believe that she really wanted to win a title and not winning one became a real factor in her confidence. That, I think, is why Anna started playing smaller events later in her career and even started playing challengers this year.

Do I think Anna is talented? Absolutely. Is she more talented than Maria? I would rank them about even. Can Anna come back and win a title? I surely hope so. I fear that her confidence has been shattered and that will make it harder to come back.

apoet29
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:31 PM
What matters right is now is that Anna is rich... The rest matters very little.

If that was the case, then Anna wouldn't need to play tennis at all. She could do other things.

tennischick
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:34 PM
the inevitable comparison...:o

Hurley
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:38 PM
well i actually DO think anna pistolesi has had a better career! hands down! she prolly have about as many wins over top 20 players too... not to metion what-- 5 titles??? i think some are tier 2...

Man. This whole post is so full of misinformation that I don't even know where to begin.

¤CharlDa¤
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:39 PM
Im sure Sharapova is better than Anna and by far she will be...I saw her all week long in Quebe ccity and she reminded me of Venus athlecety and Serena's mind...

That gril is gooing to be good!!! HSe is born to be a star!!!

switz
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:46 PM
i don't love anna or anything, but come on, if she went and played in lower tier events most of you people would have criticised her doing it, and then said she only won a tier III which she shouldn't have played anyway. she'd get exactly the same shit, except it punch line would change to slightly less edgy "the girl who has never won any tournament anyone has ever heard of".

switz
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:55 PM
and only played those lower tier events because she needed ranking points and in reality it was the only place she could string a few matches together. i'm sure wanted a title, but IMO not so much because she would suddenly gain this inner belief from beating aniko kapros in a tier V final, but more to stop people from also having the line about her career "oh, but she's never won a tournament".

yes anna probably should of had a crack at lower tier title earlier on, but i think it silly to simply announce her empty trophy cupboard as the overriding reason for her lack of success.

switz
Nov 3rd, 2003, 10:57 PM
and i think sharapova has a lot of development left, both physically and technically, which IMO makes this debate even harder to assess. if she bulks up a bit i think she could go far

SerialKiller#69
Nov 3rd, 2003, 11:04 PM
Yes, we all remember how Sharapova reached the final of Key Biscayne beating 4 top 10 players, not to mention her 1/2F at Wimbledon when she was 16 and her number 8 ranking in single; so yes, she is better than Kournikova.

:worship:

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 11:05 PM
Im sure Sharapova is better than Anna and by far she will be...I saw her all week long in Quebe ccity and she reminded me of Venus athlecety and Serena's mind...

That gril is gooing to be good!!! HSe is born to be a star!!!

Yeah....but not THAT good.

SerialKiller#69
Nov 3rd, 2003, 11:06 PM
what grandslam has anna won? What big tourney? SHE HAS NO WIN. I dont care how many top playes she beat at one touranment in a row, she didn't win the final. I mean would you want to be known as a player who could threaten a top player occasionally or a player who can win tournaments?

the former if we're talking about the tournaments that Maria won.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 11:08 PM
the former if we're talking about the tournaments that Maria won.

DANG!!

juggler
Nov 4th, 2003, 07:25 AM
The biggest mistake Anna made in her acreer was not playing enough lower tier events. That is the single biggest reason why she has never won a tournament.

The problem was that she was a victim of her own early success. All of a sudden she found herself being able to compete with and beat top 10 players. Along with that succes came entry into bigger tournaments and before she knew it she was a big name player. In hindsight it would have been better for her development to be held back, and play the lower tournaments despite having automatic entry into tier 1 & 2 events.. But its hard to hold back a young player who wants to beat the best.

xin_hui
Nov 4th, 2003, 07:41 AM
look, i dont like both anna and sharapova, but i have this to say.
yes, maria has won 2 titles. but please look at the quality of the 2 fields. tier4/5 events,winning no top 50 players. just look at quebec, while everyone else was in philadelphia, she played in quebec. top players? no.
and who's the best maria has won? jelena at wimby, when jelena was an absolute disaster.
but at around maria's age, anna reached the semifinals of wimby, finals of ericsson. mind u, there were far more top players there than at quebec and tokyo.
so, anna wins, hands down

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 4th, 2003, 07:53 AM
I'm glad that a lot of you remember how good Anna was when she was good. It's easy to forget.

samhatz
Nov 4th, 2003, 09:00 AM
I'm surprised Daniela Hantuchova isn't in the comparisons :oP

Alan
Nov 4th, 2003, 09:23 AM
Its not about injuries or burnout or bad teen years that derail careers its about results. So far as a singles player shara is better and doubles is pretty much irrelevant.


but at 16 kournikova has had better SINGLES results than sharapova! and sharapova has so far at her age won two tier 4 events singles titles

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 4th, 2003, 09:23 AM
Re Daniela: Don't even go there. :)

oddkayla
Nov 4th, 2003, 11:17 AM
The focus on Anna beating top 10 players at the Lipton, and her run at Wimbledon is IMO what has held her back. It has consistently blinded everyone who could have been objective in assessing the girl's career. Everytime there has been need to be critical, people say, oh no, she is a Wimbledon semifinalist, she came one match shy of winning a tier one, etc. Even she has used the same logic.

You guys need to use the same approach as journalists. And I mean the serious ones. "You are only as good as your last story." You might have won an award last year, but what matters is the shit you write now.

I'm a Venus fan. All I care about is her results now, and they have not been stellar, by her standards. There are a variety of reasons for that, but hey they exist. I am not too caught up in the fact that she won majors in 2001. I care about the fact that she hasnt won any in two years, and I hope she does too.

In short, Anna = 0 titles. Maria = 2 titles. Enough said!

the cat
Nov 4th, 2003, 04:26 PM
apoet really dominated this thread with her reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent posts. :worship:

harloo
Nov 4th, 2003, 04:35 PM
I think Sharpova has proven that she is a better singles player than Anna. She has not proven this in doubles though.

Sharpova has won 2 titiles, 2 more than Anna where it really counts. I do feel that at one time anna was a really good player and she had the potential to win tier I,II, or III's, but that slowly evaported as she continued getting the contracts and attention for being an underachiever.

Anna is a great doubles player, but singles is where it counts and IMO Sharpova is better at this point.

:)

jojoseph
Nov 5th, 2003, 06:54 AM
Getting back to the original subject. Welp, obviously Anna isn't playing and though Maria isn't winning huge title, she's still getting the wins. I'd have to think she's better than anna right now. I mean, come on.

Moving onto the subject that's getting the most attention, of course when you've beat such formidable foes such as anna has beaten, at her best in her best matches she's better than Maria has been thus far, but even though they are small titles for Maria, they are wins. You have to take that over just making finals or getting deep in GS's as well. Atleast that's how I look at it.

At any rate, no matter if she stepped down to lower tiers or not previously, I have to think that some thing, somehow would have stopped her from winning anyhow. It's been all mental. At any crucial moment in a any of the tournaments anna's ever played, something has just been able to stand in the way and get in her head whereby she can't close it out. If she played tough players, they beat her before she could get the title, if she played weaker players, they beat her before she could get the title. I agree with jug, it's like she was playing really well against the top players so early that she figured she was gonna win the title anyhow, so why step down. For Maria, her head is mentally stronger than I believe anna's ever was or atleast has been. Anna's skills could only get her so far in the past, and that was very far, might I add.

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 5th, 2003, 07:07 AM
Fair enough, jojo. That's a very honest and reasonable post.

-- joui who calls 'em how he sees 'em

gRaFiC
Nov 5th, 2003, 10:05 AM
Leave Maria alone, she's only 16! She is to be commended for winning two titles already and having the mental resolve to do so.

She obviously has good support and she's showing the sense to build things gradually. Good to see she hasn't been chucked in the deep end by arrogant "handlers."

switz
Nov 5th, 2003, 10:24 AM
Leave Maria alone, she's only 16! She is to be commended for winning two titles already and having the mental resolve to do so.

She obviously has good support and she's showing the sense to build things gradually. Good to see she hasn't been chucked in the deep end by arrogant "handlers."

i don't think people are criticsing sharapova for winning smaller titles. she should be commended for achieving so much at her age. although i think this thread is stupid, the point is to compare anna and maria's careers, and thus when people start using maria's 2 titles as their only argument for her being better than anna, it is inevitable that people are going to bring up the fact that her wins were not exactly indicative of how much better she is than anna. ultimately i think she will have a very successful career, and i think she has the potential to be a dominant player.

tennisjam
Nov 5th, 2003, 11:56 AM
Maria is on the way to become better...still you can't compare them in terms of achievements...

...despite her general waste of talent, Anna scored some significant wins that Maria didn't so far...

twight6
Nov 5th, 2003, 11:57 AM
yes :)

the cat
Nov 5th, 2003, 02:37 PM
That was a fine post, Jojo. :) Your points are reasonable and well explained.

It's good that Maria has won 2 WTA titles already. She's building a solid foundation for her caeer and taking thins step by step.

I still hope Anna returns next year and plays a handful of Tier lll or Tier IV tournaments. If she finds some good form she could win one of those smaller tournaments.

jojoseph
Nov 5th, 2003, 07:51 PM
it is inevitable that people are going to bring up the fact that her wins were not exactly indicative of how much better she is than anna. .

The problem with this thread is that the thread title simply asks who's the better player, not who's had the better career, or who's gonna have a better career in the long run, or which one is having a better career at the same point in time in their professional careers, etc. etc. Without being specific in that, it's easy for people to fight over not knowing what the others are referring to. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

gRaFiC
Nov 5th, 2003, 11:52 PM
...despite her general waste of talent, Anna scored some significant wins that Maria didn't so far...

Remember Maria is only 16. Give her a chance first.