Maria Sharapova vs. Victoria Azarenka: The New Rivalry in Women's Tennis?

As the men wrap up minor tournaments in Estoril and Munich, it's worthwhile pondering the recent state of women's tennis.

Its never been as orderly an affair, and 2012 seemed to start likewise. Victoria Azarenka won the Australian Open in Melbourne, continuing a trend that has saw four different grand slam champions in 2011, the last three (Li Na, Petra Kvitova, and Sam Stosur) being maiden winners.

Azarenka, too, was a maiden champ, although something suggests that we may be in for a bit of a period of settlement in the WTA. Kvitova since winning Wimbledon has proved her mettle, going deep into the Australian Open, and Azarenka has justified her No. 1 ranking with a sensational run in the last few months.

Perhaps the biggest and most noticeable member of this nascent WTA power stranglehold at the top is Maria Sharapova.

A three-time grand slam champion, she won her first title in Stuttgart last week, defeating none other than Victoria Azarenka. It was the third time she, the world No. 2, had played Azarenka, the world No. 1, in 2012.

Both have flowing, aggressive baseline games, with Azarenka perhaps slightly more rounded and mobile, while Sharapova arguably with slightly more firepower.

Admittedly, the WTA nowadays has a host of top players that defy ever so slightly the thinking that women's tennis is a monotonous log of ball-slogging.

Stosur and Williams have their kick-serves, Schiavone is the creative one-hander, Radwanska likes to change up pace, while we have the southpaw world No. 3 Kvitova to add some left-handed spice...is the WTA in an era of transition, however?

Ever since queen Wozniacki’s deposition, perhaps. The three contests between Azarenka and Sharapova seem to foreshadow, should it persist on the clay and beyond, a new, limited struggle for supremacy.

It was difficult somewhat in the last few years to find three to four outstanding, dominant players, because there were so many (one thinks of Wozniacki, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Zvonereva in 2008-10) and therefore, too few.

There isn’t anything too unique or adversarial about the Sharapova-Azarenka match-up that might suggest a lasting battle a la Nadal-Federer, or Nadal-Djokovic. But maybe, like the latter, they both shriek at shots, and are both battlers, with one (Sharapova) the cooler, and the other, the more hot-headed.

Sharapova’s win in Stuttgart was unlikely, because she had been roundly beaten at Melbourne and Indian Wells. Azarenka, to boot, had been nursing an injury. How differently one might be speaking of this rivalry had Azarenka won that final and gone up 3-0 against Sharapova this year. We’d more be talking about a domination than a rivalry.

Hopefully, the win does for Sharapova what winning Monte Carlo is likely to do for Rafael Nadal: boost confidence and rid the mind of recent demons.

The Russian does seem to be returning to the sort of form which we had missed from her pre-surgery days, while Azarenka, who has earned her seat at the top, seems to be carving out a majestic season. It happens, also, to be an Olympic year.

One can only hope that this state of affairs, and fortune, elevates even more the best of the best in women’s tennis.