Tennis Forum banner

WWW Peak Clijsters vs Peak Hingis

WWW: Peak Clijsters vs Peak Hingis??

10K views 86 replies 32 participants last post by  MrSerenaWilliams 
#1 ·
This is a real interesting match up because Hingis had an easy time with Kim early in their rivalry but Kim obviously started to make things competitive but Hingis retired and lead their H2H 4-1. When Hingis made her comeback 2006-2007, Kim went undefeated against Martina in 3 slam QFs and in San Diego QF to take the lead in their H2H 5-4. Kim only had one slam at the time. Now in Kim's comeback, she achieved what Martina thought she could and has taken a handful of slams to make them closer in achievements.
 
#11 ·
yep kim on hard courts most of the time. clay is intresting as hingis was good on it, though even in the year 2006 when hingis won rome and made the qtrs of the french she was overpowered by kim in that qtr final. i would probably give martina the edge on clay, but martina was prone to being hit off the court on clay.

grass is tight too, although martina won wimbledon, she sucked for the most part on grass apart from that. i would actually give kim the edge on grass.

i'd give kim a 7-3 edge if they played 10 times on all surfaces.

on a slightly off topicness, i think martina is overrated. she nabbed 3 slams in a weak year, and yes she was really consistent and her style of tennis was beautiful but she sometimes couldn't crack an egg with that forehand and the serve was very soft and short.
 
#15 ·
why would hingis win on grass? 2 top 10 wins in her entire career (navotna and ASV) and 2 career titles on it.

kim has 4 top 10 wins on grass and 2 titles also.

i know obviously hingis won wimbledon, but her draw was laughable. serial choker novotna in the final and facing 1 top 20 player to make the final. that would be like kim winning wimbledon beating dementieva in the final and beating penetta along the way.
 
#33 ·
I much prefer Kim, but I have to say I think peak Martina would beat her on everything but quick hardcourts. Slow HCs would be close, but Hingis was such a demon on Rebound Ace especially that I have to give the edge to her (that said, Capriati, obviously similar to Kim, did very well against an albeit slightly-past-her-prime Hingis on Rebound Ace...tough one). Clay would be a Hingis blowout, and I think she'd win pretty convincingly on grass too.
 
#34 ·
Legend.
 
#36 ·
:facepalm:

Kim everywhere. She was already beating number one Hingis at 17. Kim is also a better claycourter at her best and a better grasscourter at her best. Only really close match would be on old Rebound Ace. But even there Kim is a better player. Hingis is so overrated. She was a great teen champion but she just got overwhelmed by everything that began to happen in 1999, she hung on for 2 years and just was finished after.
 
#37 ·
:facepalm:

Kim everywhere. She was already beating number one Hingis at 17. Kim is also a better claycourter at her best and a better grasscourter at her best. Only really close match would be on old Rebound Ace. But even there Kim is a better player. Hingis is so overrated. She was a great teen champion but she just got overwhelmed by everything that began to happen in 1999, she hung on for 2 years and just was finished after.
:weirdo:

Clijsters is a grass mug, who can't serve, volley or adjust to bad bounce or sleek grass surface, which disrupts her grinding game. She has zero variety, finesse or touch. She's a grinder, who excels on hard courts, easy as that.

Wingis, was more like ATP's Hewitt. Not great serve, but great tactician, good at the net and possessed necessary court smarts. Her volleys were world class and her variety is unmatched. To claim the Belgian pusher is superior to Wingis on GRASS is one of the most preposterous things that I have ever heard. :eek:
 
#50 ·
:spit: at Kim being an OVERACHIEVER.
This is a thread where posters feel free to pile their hate on Kim.
 
#55 ·
To be honest, I fail to see how Wingis could have done much better with her ~ so smart game :shrug:

Against the big Four, I totally disagree.... they were as smart, they were not as one-dimensional as some other players can be... they could play different kind of games.
About any other player, I can agree :shrug: just that imo the WS and the Belgians are above Hingis. The Belgians could actually play tactical games while using power and variety... I do think Hingis is overrated in the sense that many think she might be the GOAT comparing to some other great players such as Clijsters and Henin.
 
#57 ·
To be honest, I fail to see how Wingis could have done much better with her ~ so smart game :shrug:

Against the big Four, I totally disagree.... they were as smart, they were not as one-dimensional as some other players can be... they could play different kind of games.
About any other player, I can agree :shrug: just that imo the WS and the Belgians are above Hingis. The Belgians could actually play tactical games while using power and variety... I do think Hingis is overrated in the sense that many think she might be the GOAT comparing to some other great players such as Clijsters and Henin.
 
#56 ·
In my opinion it is Kim without a doubt. Hingis didnt have alot of difficulty with fast moving but weak hitting players or hard hitting but slow moving players. The only type of player that gave Hingis issues was someone who could hit hard and also move very well. The 5 players who could best do this during Hingis' career were V & S, Capriati, Henin, and Kim.

On top of that, Kim's mentality since her comeback has gotten even better, so Hingis' chances would have been even worse against a Kim with mental conviction. Its really quite honestly a poor matchup for Hingis in my opinion..... the only thing she does better than Kim is finesse and netplay... and I cant see those two things making up the gap in power, movement, and serve.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top