Clijsters Comeback?
- Thread starter Terr
- Start date
Lionheart392
Professional
Well she hasn't actually begun her comeback yet. Her first match is this week against Bartoli in Cincinnati.
Topaz
Legend
Cincinnati...but yes, she starts against Bartoli. Not very lucky, but I'm sure she'll be ready.
Lionheart392
Professional
Lionheart392
Professional
^^^I was actually checking out the tournament online last night...and giving thought to driving out there to see her!She's always been a favorite (see my avatar) and I'm so glad she's coming back!
Yep I was at the Wimbledon exo in May and watched her play, it was great to see her.
To get married and start a family, plus she has made good money already
Mick
Legend
i remember it also was because she was tired of getting one injury after another.
That is correct. All that sliding is not good.
Terr
Semi-Pro
I heart Kim.
Wolland
Rookie
Kim is gonna be all over these so-called professional tennis players. I just cannot understand what happened to WTA. Women's circut used to be much more interesting than men's, but look at it now. No true leader, no-one has the authority, no-one is able to gain respect from colleagues. Frankly, I think they're overpaid. Just take a look at Ivanovic. She earned so much money from sponsors just because she is pretty, and now she is not hungry for victories and doesn't practise as hard as she used to. She's got loads of money, so why work hard every day.
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
I must have missed that.
Wolland
Rookie
Well it was. Just a couple of years ago Henin, Clijsters, Williams sisters, Davenport, Maursmo, Myskina, Capriati etc were playing some really interesting, close matches. And things seemed to be going the right way, but then something happened and today you have this ridiculous circut. But WTA was more interesting, at least for me, 4 or 5 years ago. For example, in 2004\2005 Federer was winning almost every tournament with Roddick being world number 2 and Ljubicic number 3. Of course, then Nadal came into spotlight and things hooked up and became much more interesting. You cannot deny that it was much, much harder to predict women's grand slam winner than men's.
Topaz
Legend
IMO, it still is.
Ebb and flow. You can't expect either tour to always be exciting. People complain if there isn't a dominant #1, and then people complain if there is a dominant #1 because they win everything.
D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't.
As much as I love Clijsters and I'm thrilled she beat Bartoli, I don't think that automatically signals that she would beat a Williams sister or Kuznetsova or even some of the young up and comers. Bartoli is and always has been a bit of an anomaly on the women's tour. Let's see how Kimmie does in the rest of the tournament, shall we?
And, yes, Ivanovic got paid lots 'cause she is pretty...just like Sharapova and Kournikova. I'm thinking it is their male fan base that their sponsors are trying to appeal to...right?
anointedone
Banned
Yes which is why a far below her former best and obviously out of shape Serena has won 3 of the last 4 slams (and could have easily won all 4). So unpredictable and exciting, much harder to predict what will happen, LOL! I hope Clijsters pulls a surprise and wins the U.S Open again after such a long layoff to make a further mockery of the current WTA freak show.
anointedone
Banned
Excellent post. Agree with everything you said.
2006 was the last great tennis year if you ask me.
even if the 006 Aussie ended badly but you had the likes of Davenport,Henin.Mauresmo;Clijsters;Sharapova and Hingis going deap
RG ended the way anyone would expect it to end with Henin in the draw
Wimbledon was great with Sharapova-Mauresmo doing battle
Henin-Clijsters going at it
you had Myskina,Hingis
the YEC was fantastic
now tennis is left with Venus and Serena,Kuznetsova,Dementieva and the rest of the junk players
Topaz
Legend
Well, I watch the entire tour, not just the slams. Serena went out early just two weeks ago. Venus lost in the final. And this week it was another tournament where is was exciting to watch...with upsets and no clear favorite to win the tournament. Serena, as talented as she is, is never a lock, IMO, even in the slams.
And she is talented, though people around here desperately try their best to ignore that fact and her incredible accomplishments.
Why do people think that Clijsters, who was known for choking, is suddenly going to beat everyone? I think she will do well (I hope she does, I'm a fan!), but even in her prime, she choked, and she choked a lot.
To suggest that anyone who wins enough matches to win a Grand Slam is a mockery suggest more that you have either little knowledge of tennis and/or little respect for women.
anointedone
Banned
The slams are always what will define the sport, otherwise Safina would be a deserved #1 now. Outside of the French, in the slams Serena is a lock these days period. Only one left who can even challenge her is Venus, and that was pretty much put to bed at the last two slams. The other women are gauranteed to choke or even completely collapse in the very unlikely event they even get into a winning position vs Serena in a slam (eg- Kuznetsova's meltdown vs Serena when she should have closed her out at the Aussie Open this year, Dementieva losing after having a match point at Wimbledon). There is absolutely nothing unpredictable about the current womens game, other than a new bogus slamless #1 and Serena winning any event she gives half a damn about which isnt on clay.
Nobody is saying Serena isnt a great player and incredibly talented. However only someone living under a rock or who only got into tennis a couple years ago wouldnt see the massive difference in her level of play and commitement level compared to 1999-2003. For her to all of a sudden by this dominant in the slams again without rising back up to anywhere approaching her old self, aided of course by the retirements/virtual dissapearances of a bunch of other women like Henin, Sharapova, Clijsters, Mauresmo also speaks to the state of the current womes game, and the aid she gets from the choking of her mentally feeble opponents.
I did not say I neccessarily thought Clijsters would beat everyone. I said her winning the U.S Open would be interesting if it did happen as it would shed even more light on the current womens game. For the record while I wouldnt neccessarily predict that, it wouldnt stun me either. Kim's previous prime was in a very difficult time period for the womens game, infinitely tougher than the current one. She often lost in slam semis and finals to Henin, Venus, Serena, and Capriati, some of those tight matches where yes she did "choke" away a few of them. She was considered an underachiever by almost all to win only 1 slam, even with the tough field she faced and her early retirement. Now with a much weakened field, including even a much lesser Serena than the one she used to face (despite her mostly default current dominance of the slams) even something approaching her old level, complete with even her old choking, would give her a much better shot of winning multiple slams today.
I certainly did not say Clijsters was a mockery. I said her winning the U.S Open after such a long layoff, if it happened, would make further mockery of the current womens tour which is already a laughing stock to most everyone, and that much is true.
I do not disrespect women. I disrespect the current womens field since it is plain BAD. That is just the way it is. The womens field wasnt always bad, but the current womens game is the worst it has ever been. Even former champions of the womens game are commenting on that with increasing frequency. I seem to recall the foremost womens libber Billie Jean King saying she was dissapointed in the state of the current womens field during Wimbleon this year.
Last edited:
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
The WTA was obviously stronger back then, but better than the ATP?
Myskina is a one-slam wonder that disappeared into nowhere, a bit like Ivanovic. Clijsters' game is not unlike that of a well playing Jankovic.
What made it worth watching were players like Mauresmo and Henin, they played smart tennis with variety. Something most other players, past or present, didn't do, including the Williams sisters.
I read somewhere that not a single slice was played in the 09 Wimbledon final between Serena and Venus, that says it all, if you ask me.
anointedone
Banned
That is completely ridiculous. If we are talking about both at their best Clijsters has extremely solid and quite powerful groundies off both wings. Jankovic's forehand cant even be compared to Kim's, and even Kim's backhand (her lesser side and Jelena's best shot) is probably better. Kim has the much better serve, merely a solid serve that isnt a big weapon but still easily better than Jelena's. Kim is clearly quicker and better defensively, despite this being perhaps Jelena's biggest asset. Kim can volley competently which already puts her over Jelena there. So really where are they similar, Kim is much more powerful, more consistent, even a better backboard, a smarter player. Mentally both are cookoo during their matches, probably where they are closest to each other. Then again I dont remember Kim losing 10 games in row in a slam semi since a chair umpire used a harsh tone with her so actually Kim probably wins even here.
Last edited:
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I think what the poster ment that is was not as predictable as the ATP. in the ATP the quality was greater, but at the slams it really was usually all Federer everywhere but at the French. The women were all a little closer at the very top in terms of ability, where Fed during his prime just dwarfed everyone not named Nadal.
In general, I agree about Myskina...her french was almost a joke...especially since in her career she lost 5 times there in the 1st round. But how can you even compare Clijsters to Jankovic, Clijsters in her prime is way better than Jankovic, both had the top spot, but Clijsters won a slam, something it is looking less likely Jankovic will do, and clijsters won one during a much strong time on the tour. Not to mention all of Clijsters other slam finals and near misses, so to say she is no different from Jankovic is an insult to Clijsters.
Seles pretty much did that, so all Clijsters winning would prove is that women's tennis is a ****e now as it has always been.
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
I didn't say they were no different. I said that Clijsters normal game isn't that different to what Jankovic does at the height or her game.
I do respect Clijsters way more than Jankovic, but here game is still not appealing to me.
anointedone
Banned
One thing I forgot to mention is Kim was extremely unlucky to be injured and miss from the 2004 French-2005 Australian Open. From 2001-2004 Australian Open, and in 2005-2006 she was losing out in slams to Henin, Venus, Serena, Davenport, Capriati at their peaks. However the 4 slams in that one year interim were won by Myskina (Kim owns her), Sharapova (Kim owned her until late 2006), Kuznetsova (Kim completely owned her), and a vurnerable Serena. Kim probably would have won 2 or 3 of those slams and been sitting on 3 or 4 total as we speak, and people would be thinking and talking about her in a totally different light, someone who retired at 23 and still managed 3 or 4 slams despite some other near misses, rather than just the 1 slam wonder she is known for today. It is really an injustice someone like Kuznetsova has more slams than her.
Seles did not win the U.S Open in her comeback. In fact after missing 2.5 years off she was only able to win 1 more slam in her almost 8 year comeback, and it was a slam where she had a joke draw (Majoli, Rubin, and Huber in the last 3 rounds) and nearly all the big guns missing or not on the scene yet (Graf missing, Seles's 96 nemisis Novotna missing, Hingis and Davenport half a year away, Venus on the horizon). She also can thank Rubin for choking away their semifinal she had in the bag.
Furthmore Seles is a legend of tennis who probably would have become the greatest ever had she not been stabbed. With all due respect to Clijsters her coming back to win after a long layoff would be a much different thing to a hypothetical of if Seles were to have done so.
I know what she did. It was embarrassing. She was a lump and she beat pretty much everyone, save Graf, who was very lucky that she was such a lump. Women's tennis is awful now, but it was awful back then too. People need to take off the rose tinted glasses. It has always been a joke.
nadalfan4life
Rookie
I live in St. Louis and went to see her play for the Aces. She was a little shaky at times, but for the most part she played really well.
Seles in the first half of her comeback in the 90s from late 95-99 had losing head to heads with all of Graf, Novotna, Hingis, Venus, Serena, Davenport, Spirlea, Pierce and won only 1 slam so how is that beating pretty much everyone. She was a 2nd tier player by then, not some nearly dominating player even with the lump you seem to think she was.
Terr
Semi-Pro
I don't see how anyone can justify that, quite frankly, misogynistic statement. But I think you should at least try.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
I think JJ has great defense but you're right that's the only department where she can be compared to Clijsters somewhat.Kim hits much more powerful and deep and her serve at the very least isn't a weakness(like it is for Jelena).
They're similar only in the fact that they're both have great defense and that they both slide on HC on top of clay which is somewhat dangerous.
This thread is about Clijsters' comeback, so I am obviously referring to Seles' comeback in 1995/ 96. God knows why you are taking about 98 or 99.
People are saying Clijsters winning the 95 US Open would show how awful women's tennis is now, and I am saying this has happened before, and women's tennis has always been awful.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Disagree,it had better periods.I liked both Seles and Graf,Seles because of the amazing angles he got with her groundies and her tenacity(she was a female Nadal on big points)and because of patriotic reasons,Graf because of her footwork and amazing FH.Although I liked Justine more than both,I enjoyed her game almost as much as I do Fed's game on men's side,beautiful BH,all-court skills,footwork and defense,she could do it all(I actually think her biggest weakness apart from low % of first serves was mental strength).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Definitely,a big FH while JJ's FH is pretty weak,JJ's BH is very good,maybe even better than Kim's but FHs aren't really comparable,not even in the same league.I'm pretty excited she's back,hope she wins a few slams over the next few years,Henin is gone so it will be easier for her.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Clijsters retired from the WTA-tour (had enough money) popped out a kid (got bored at changing dipers) and decided to start playing again to improve her legacy, practices for 4-5 months and then beats a top 10 player...this to me is why i am no fan or will ever be a fan of the WTA-tour
Lionheart392
Professional
hewittboy
Banned
Yeah there was Graf and Seles but who else was there during that era. Navratilova was in her mid 30s and on her last legs almost literally (notice all the knee bandages and other things she was wearing while playing by then). Sabatini was a huge underachiever, a 1 slam wonder, either a waste of talent, huge choker, or someone way overrated in the first place (probably a combination of all 3). Could school Graf and Seles in non slam tournaments, could never beat them when it really mattered, even up a break in the 3rd set. The way she blew the 91 Wimbledon final to Graf was pathetic, that open court volley she poked right to Graf's sideline, ROTFL!! Sanchez Vicario was a great player with her 4 slams I guess, but she might have won her 1 early slam without the Seles stabbing. She was very spirited, overachieving, hard worker, great fighter, unbelievable defensive player, fun to watch, but she wasnt a top talent. She needed to rely on her huge heart and scrambling ability to even hang with the far more skilled Graf or Seles. Who else am I forgetting. There was Pierce, the female version of Safin, could show up and blow everyone off the court in a tournament but only showed up once every few years. There was Novotna, another mentally fragile underachieving 1 slam wonder. Then there was Capriati, one of the most overhyped players in slam history who despite lucking out to win 3 slams in 2001-2002 which really ought to have been only 1, was never a real rival to Graf or Seles, and was too young to really be in her prime yet then anyway. Then there is Conchita Martinez, what a joke, a sulky moonballer with no serve, no net game, playing 20 feet behind the baseline, didnt have the desire or heart or fitness to chase down every ball like Sanchez which you need when playing that style. How the heck was she even in the top 3 so long, what an embarassment.
Womens tennis has ALWAYS sucked. There are the big 1, 2, sometimes 3 and a bunch of clowns behind them. It has always been that way. The deepest womens field ever was really 1998-2005 in fact.
Similar threads
