Right now Henin is clearly the greatest Belgium player of all time. Could she be in danger of losing that title though. Clijsters has only 3 slams to Henin's 7. However the way Kim is going she could possibly reach 6, 7, even 8 slams by the time she retires. Justine might never win another slam.
Will Henin remain the best Belgian player ever?
- Thread starter Trillus
- Start date
single_handed_champion
Professional
Kim plans to retire by 2012 Olympics. It is your opinion she could win 5 of the next 8 Slams, when she has never won anywhere but NY. OK.....
I dont think she will retire until she stops doing well. She might take a year break to have another baby or something, probably taking it after a U.S Open so she can be back for the next U.S Open which is her favorite slam anyway.
Looking at the current field I think she can win an Australian and French both. Her only real competition in Australia is Serena. And at the French it should be wide open for her if she can play some strong clay tennis. She might have won it this year had she played.
Looking at the current field I think she can win an Australian and French both. Her only real competition in Australia is Serena. And at the French it should be wide open for her if she can play some strong clay tennis. She might have won it this year had she played.
single_handed_champion
Professional
I am sorry, but did you just start watching tennis at the USO? There is NO evidence to suggest she will suddenly start dominating Slams. She has been in this position any number of times before, after winning the USO (or even before that, having strong results going into Slams), but came up empty soon after.
She has played 3 claycourt matches in donkey ages (one in Fed Cup), scraping past Dulgheru, and lost 1 to Garcia Vidagany, does not like clay etc. Now suddenly she is a clay-GOAT and overwhelming favorite? Even if she plays her very best (i.e. career 1.0 best) on clay, I would expect Henin, Stosur, Kuznetsova, Jankovic and even Serena to beat her. Wide open for her... :lol:
I understand the hype machine is churning full speed right now, after she won the USO, but I fully expect her to be a final weekend contender only at the USO.
Clijsters in decent form would easily beat Kuznestova or Jankovic on any surface. Probably Stosur too who she owns and couldnt even beat a very bad Ciljsters at the Open the day she played her.
Nobody said anything about Kim being the Clay court GOAT. It is you who is making such absurd over the top dramatizations, not me. I said amongst the current clay court field it is wide open for even a pretty good clay courter to win it. And it obviously is, which is how Schiavone won it last year, and how Kuznetsova the weakest 2 slam winner in history won her 2nd slam there two years ago, and how Ivanovic one of the worst 1 slam winners in history won it the year before that. Unless Henin regains her clay court dominance it will be wide open again next year. Kim has hardly played on clay since her return so there is no way to judge her definitively. What we do know is before she retired she made 2 French Open finals and another semifinal at the French when the field was far stronger than today. So why on earth would she not have a chance to win the title there now. :lol: You claim she couldnt be a final weekend performer there when she was when there was much competition than today.
And in Australia her only competition is Serena. Who else is a threat there.
I never said anything about dominating the slams either. Nobody today does what I would consider dominating including Serena, unless you have a very lean definition of the word. Winning an Australian, a French, and another 1 or 2 U.S Opens, would not be any form of true domination, even if she did that in only 2-3 years. And I am not saying she is certain to do that but is very possible. Her prospects for future slams are alot better than Henin's right now.
single_handed_champion
Professional
Sorry, I cannot take you seriously when you state your opinions so bluntly as to make them sound like fact. Remember Kuznetsova had won more Slams than Kim until late last year.
Anyway, Kim would not be in my top 5 list for RG winners. Hopefully Justine will get back to her winning ways there next year. Kim can definitely win any of the HC Slams (but I doubt she'll win the AO), but RG, just no.
I laud her for making the 2 RG finals on her worst surface, but her opposition? :
2001: Maria Emilia Salerni, Mariana Diaz-Oliva, Henrieta Nagyova, Petra Mandula, Justine Henin (choked a comfortable lead), Capriati (lost)
2003: Amy Frazier, Marlene Weingartner, Paola Suarez, Magdalena Maleeva, Conchita Martinez, Nadia Petrova and Henin (lost with complementary bakery products). In fact, Petrova was outplaying her in the semifinal until Kim got a lucky letcord on Petrova's setpoint and then Petrova imploded in a way that has defined her since.
Impossibly strong fields, as you pointed out...
Last edited:
MotherMarjorie
Banned
Justine, always.
Mother Marjorie Ann
Mother Marjorie Ann
Yes beating Martinez (who has about 10 tier 1 titles on clay) and Henin on the way to 2 French Open finals is nothing. :roll: And of course you make no mention that Kim was so close to winning the 2001 title, but mention Henin losing a lead in the semis.
And Kuznetsova the flake ever at any point having more slam titles than Clijsters just proves what a lucky career she has led. If flukes like Kuznetsova and Ivanovic, and miracles like Schiavone can win the French, then Kim sure as heck has a shot regardless what you want to believe.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Keep in mind that between the two, Kim's consistency takes her out of the underachiever zone occupied by Kuznetsova.
You do realize that Kim--no matter how you rate the competition as stated above--is a better player now than in her younger years. Winning the USO back-to-back is no easy task, and lifts her profile as a serious player. Moreover, she has proven to be more than comfortable on clay, so add that comfort with her stronger, present-day game and will you still count her out?
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I don't see Kim passing Henin, especially if she really plans to retire by the 2012 Olympics. Even if Kim does manage to get to 7 or more slams (which I don't think she will do in that time frame, its a race against the clock that if she tried to win might damage her body for something she would have a tough time doing anyway), Henin's best years were all better than Kim's. If Kim say has an awesome 2011, and wins 2 of the 4 say, and has a lot of wins and blah blah blah and wins one in 2012, that 6, and even though her slam numbers would be close, Henin's amazing years of 2003, 2006 and 2007 would overwhelm Kim. I know some might argue 2006, but Henin made all 4 slam finals that year, still amazing. Henin has sewn it up for a while, since i don't see any belgian women coming up any time soon to top her.
Clijsters should be/have been the clear second best player of her generation on clay behind Henin. Looking at the non-Henin French Open champions over the past 10 years, Capriati, Serena, Myskina, Ivanovic Kuznetsova and Schiavone, are any of those players more talented than Kim on clay? I would definately say no. Only with Kuznetsova, who was a massive clay court underachiver until she won the Rome and French Open titles in 2009, is it debatable.
Last edited:
single_handed_champion
Professional
Martinez in 2003? You do realize she was 31 then :lol:? If I remember correctly, you basically branded Venus, 30 now, as over the hill in another thread?
I am not bashing Kim, but if you think about it, the 'fluke' Kuznetsova has a stronger resume at RG than Kim.
Whatever dude, in my opinion Kim winning RG would be a travesty, because there are much better players than her on the surface.
Kuznetsova had a much weaker resume than Kim at RG before her surprise title, a title attained during the retirement phase of both Henin and Clijsters. I never felt Kuznetsova was a stronger player than Kim on any surface and I think most people would agree with me. Kuznetsova is truly the weakest player to win 2 slams considering how she has almost no big wins over the top players in slam events over the years. Her only ones are beating a very injured Davenport at the 04 U.S Open and Serena on her worst surface by far which she struggles on these days at the 09 French. I guess if you want to be generous Safina in the final of the 09 French and Dementieva in the final of the 04 U.S Open. If Kuznetsova is so much better than Kim on clay why did other than a lone final did she do almost nothing at the French during Henin's dominance there. Clijsters atleast made it to the semis and 2 finals while people like Henin, Capriati, and Serena were in serious contention there (Serena still is somewhat but only due to the abysmal clay court field now as her own clay game has gone down the drain of late).
So you think Clijsters winning RG would be a travesty when Ivanovic, Schiavone, Kuznetsova, and Myskina have all won it in the last 6 years. You are funny. You are entitled your strange viewpoints I guess but dont expect me to come around to them anytime soon.
So you think Clijsters winning RG would be a travesty when Ivanovic, Schiavone, Kuznetsova, and Myskina have all won it in the last 6 years. You are funny. You are entitled your strange viewpoints I guess but dont expect me to come around to them anytime soon.
Last edited:
Thank you. Someone who makes sense.
single_handed_champion
Professional
:lol: she made the final in 2006, quarterfinal in 2007, semifinal in 2008, winner in 2009. Plus she had the champions in 2004 and 2005 down matchpoints (of course, it also points to her underachievement, but still). Nothing indeed...
You don't have to agree with me, but I am still laughing away at your first claim that someone who hasn't played on clay for 2 years and said (THIS very year) she was not fond of the surface was somehow supposed to win a Slam on it.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Your cause for laughter is thin, since a page from history would tell you that another who once claimed not to like a particular surface eventually won a major on that surface. The player was Agassi, who was (allegedly) not fond of grass at the time he won. If he could win on his weakest, least favorite surface, is it wise to write off Kim--who was not only a 2 time finalist at the FO (proving some feel/game for the surface), but is now a much better player than the period she made the FO finals?
single_handed_champion
Professional
Ah, if only analogies like that routinely translated to reality.
Anyway, returning to ground level, please review the original assertion : 'And at the French it should be wide open for her if she can play some strong clay tennis. She might have won it this year had she played.'
You tell me how reasonable that sounds. If you really think RG is that random, you have some balls claiming Kim was a surefire winner if she played. If anything, you should say she had a 1 in 16 chance (or something like that) of winning. By your logic, no one is a favorite at RG, so ...
And you are the guys looking to beat to death the point of Henin (2 time finalist and multiple semifinalist at Wimbledon, better than Kim@RG, incidentally) being utterly incapable of winning on grass, to the point of WRITING HER OFF.
Not saying that is why I am making my point, it is obvious to me Kim doesn't care for RG and there is no evidence of late that will convince me she stands a better chance of winning there now.
Last edited:
Note I said she "might have won it". Nowhere did I say she would have been a lock. That is more of your crazed overdramatization. And yes I take the conclusion that with Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, and Schiavone winning the last 3 French Opens that it could be wide open for someone like former 2 time finalist Kim to win if she plays some of her stronger clay court tennis. So sue me. You are the only one who seems to have this huge problem with a perfectly logical statement, LOL! Kim was stopped from winning the French in past years by people like Henin and Capriati. Such forces on clay dont exist now (including the current version of Henin, maybe she will improve next year but at this point....)
And Kim is a much better player than Justine right now based on the tennis both showed this year. So of course she has a far better shot of winning an elusive slam she was runner up at twice than Justine does likewise at Wimbledon. If you are writing off Kim of having any hope of winning Roland Garros but yet implying we are foolish to write off Henin of winning Wimbledon at this point, then I just have to laugh at you.
It appears you have some kind of agenda with Kim. I am not even a fan of Kim really but I see the most likely scenario is her closing the gap in a big way in slam wins between her and Henin in the coming years.
And Kim is a much better player than Justine right now based on the tennis both showed this year. So of course she has a far better shot of winning an elusive slam she was runner up at twice than Justine does likewise at Wimbledon. If you are writing off Kim of having any hope of winning Roland Garros but yet implying we are foolish to write off Henin of winning Wimbledon at this point, then I just have to laugh at you.
It appears you have some kind of agenda with Kim. I am not even a fan of Kim really but I see the most likely scenario is her closing the gap in a big way in slam wins between her and Henin in the coming years.
single_handed_champion
Professional
Please go ahead and laugh. We'll just wait and see what happens next year, and who has the last laugh.
And I don't care if Kim wins 20 Slams, so there. She probably deserves them if she does.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Trillus addressed that. Moving on....
The difference you fail to understand is that Kim has only made (what I consider) minor adjustments to her game, and is a sharper player (psychologically & in her basic strategy) than in her Henin-doormat days. On the other hand, Justine has screwed her slam-winning form with this desperate "win Wimbledon" game, which failed before our eyes in 2010--so much that she transformed herself into an easy target on her best surface, then followed that performance with Wimbledon, where the new game prevented her from even matching her last best result at Wimbledon--the very tournament her new game was designed for.
This is why it is not a stretch to suggest Kim's chances to win at the FO are greater than altered-game-Henin's chances at Wimbledon...especially if Justine sticks with the troubled "win Wimbledon" game.
I am actually a big Henin fan but unfortunately I have to say she will not win anymore slams UNLESS she makes a concerted effort to return to her old game style. I dont believe she will win Wimbledon at this point with any game (though she has a much better chance of even doing that with her old game than her new one which is the funniest and saddest irony of all here). Her old game style won her 7 slams and atleast 1 slam every year from 2003 to 2007. For a player who is 5"7 in this power age of tennis and who doesnt even have the natural guile of say a Hingis either, that it mighty impressive. Safe to say she should have concluded her old playing style was one that was maximizing her potential, and of course you look to improve but that should have meant making minor adjustments or looking to further improve what she already had. It even took her to the final of Wimbledon and a 3 set defeat in the final twice. So to totally abandon it even with the ultimate goal of winning Wimbledon was crazy.
Her new game which is essentially a combination of a big babe wannabee and a Navratilova wannabee style morphed into one has been for all intent and purposes a disaester. Yes she did nearly win the Australian Open, but that was her year highlight, not actually winning something but "almost" which is not what her targets are I am sure. And she almost lost about 3 or 4 times before the final just as much as almost winning. And other than that and a decent sized tournament win on her beloved clay, her year has been a forgettable one.
The worst thing of all though is this. Her game has not only completely wrecked for the time being her chances on her better surfaces. Clay where she was once the heavy favorite she ended up being reduced to a long shot hopeful on in 2010. Hard courts she is also less of a threat for major titles at the moment than she had been previously. And yet grass the surface she sacrificed her chances and game all for has seen her fortunes slip too. She has gone from knocking on the door to a Wimbledon title to getting blown away in the 4th round by Clijsters on Kim's true "worst surface" (Kim's worst sruface is grass, not clay as the earlier poster indicated). So she has sacrificed her chances at what could have possibly been a clear path to future French Opens, and sacrificed her chances for hard court slams too, all with the goal of winning Wimbledon. Yet she has ended up far worsening her grass court game, and even further reducing her chances of winning Wimbledon on top of all that too. Could it possibly have worked out any worse.
Her new game which is essentially a combination of a big babe wannabee and a Navratilova wannabee style morphed into one has been for all intent and purposes a disaester. Yes she did nearly win the Australian Open, but that was her year highlight, not actually winning something but "almost" which is not what her targets are I am sure. And she almost lost about 3 or 4 times before the final just as much as almost winning. And other than that and a decent sized tournament win on her beloved clay, her year has been a forgettable one.
The worst thing of all though is this. Her game has not only completely wrecked for the time being her chances on her better surfaces. Clay where she was once the heavy favorite she ended up being reduced to a long shot hopeful on in 2010. Hard courts she is also less of a threat for major titles at the moment than she had been previously. And yet grass the surface she sacrificed her chances and game all for has seen her fortunes slip too. She has gone from knocking on the door to a Wimbledon title to getting blown away in the 4th round by Clijsters on Kim's true "worst surface" (Kim's worst sruface is grass, not clay as the earlier poster indicated). So she has sacrificed her chances at what could have possibly been a clear path to future French Opens, and sacrificed her chances for hard court slams too, all with the goal of winning Wimbledon. Yet she has ended up far worsening her grass court game, and even further reducing her chances of winning Wimbledon on top of all that too. Could it possibly have worked out any worse.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
It is quite a mystery why she would craft a game of two styles which are far out of her range of skills. It would be as bad as Davenport--in the final good years of her career--trying to become a serious S&V expert and expecting the best results.
Certainly. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" means nothing to a serious slam winner, though some try to argue that "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is fine...despite that not having any realistic connection to her stated goal.
Indeed; there should not be much argument about this improved Kim's chances at an event where she made the finals, other than some who wish to handicap everyone in order to make Henin's chances on clay appear to be the same as that seen in her prime years.
single_handed_champion
Professional
I am sure she'll do better next year. The sudden return really caused too many freak incidents, even with minimal play. I don't think the extra aggression is BAD, per se, just that she has not found a good balance she can comfortably rely on, which she was doing fairly well in Australia.
All analysis aside, if she plays to her strengths, she will contend for all the Slams next year. I cannot wait to see her back.
All analysis aside, if she plays to her strengths, she will contend for all the Slams next year. I cannot wait to see her back.
Similar threads
