Re: Which part of Kim's career was better?
First part. Obviously when it;s all over, you want to win slams. But the first part of Clijsters career is that of a consistent, long-term top level player. The second part is the same player, but less consistent, and for a shorter term.
1st part: 1 slam singles, 4 slam finals, 6 slam semis, 34 titles including
2005 - Indian Wells, Miami, Toronto,
2003 - Indian Wells, Rome, WTA Championships;
2002 - WTA Championships;
2nd part: 2 slam singles, 1 QF, 6 total titles including
2010 - Miami, Cincinnati, WTA Championships
The first part of Kim's career was 8 years long.
The second part is 1.5 years long so far, and she's already won twice as many slams.
6 titles in 1.5 years is comparable to 34 titles in 8 years. Except now Kim is winning the big ones, and playing less tournaments.
I don't think it makes sense to knock on Kim's second career for the freak losses in smaller tournaments, etc. It's obvious that her priorities have changed now, and she doesn't really care about the rankings. #1 is been there, done that for her.
A single flow'r he sent me, since we met./All tenderly his messenger he chose;
Deep-hearted, pure, with scented dew still wet - One perfect rose.
I knew the language of the floweret;/'My fragile leaves,' it said, 'his heart enclose.'
Love long has taken for his amulet/One perfect rose.
Why is it no one ever sent me yet/One perfect limousine, do you suppose?
Ah no, it's always just my luck to get/One perfect rose.