PDA

View Full Version : Kim Clijsters has much more potential to win slams than Lindsay Davenport at 21!?


GoldenSlam
Sep 2nd, 2004, 06:55 PM
Believe it or not....they have the same birthday:D.....Kim is 21 now, and Lindsay is 28.
Interesting interivew Lindsay gave after her win over Arantxa Parra Santonja.
She said that in 1998, everyone said that she would never win a slam, and she proved them wrong, she was 22.
Obviously, it's even more so for Kim, and as well, more pressure for her too, and she is only 21.

At 21 going into US Open, both have no slam wins, Kim is out,
but Lindsay in 97 when she was 21 going into US Open, she had no slam wins too, and she only reached her first ever slam SF there while Kim already reaches F 3 times, and Kim has reached SF 6 times total already.
And Lindsay wasnt even in top 5 when she was 21, let alone #1 which Kim has achieved a year ago.
So in term of slam showing and ranking projection, Kim has it far better than Lindsay.

Comparing to the titles won
Lindsay before US Open 97
1997 - Oklahoma City, Indian Wells, Amelia Island, Atlanta;
1996 - Olympics, Strasbourg, Los Angeles;
1995 - Strasbourg;
1994 - Brisbane, Lucerne;
1993 - European Open
11 titles.

And Kim already has 21 titles
2004 - Paris [Indoors], Antwerp;
2003 - Sydney, Indian Wells, Rome, ís-Hertogenbosch, Stanford, Los Angeles,
Filderstadt, Luxembourg, Season-Ending Championships;
2002 - Hamburg, Filderstadt, Luxembourg, Season-Ending Championships;
2001 - Stanford, Leipzig, Luxembourg;
2000 - Hobart, Leipzig; 1999 - Luxembourg,

There is really no comparison between Lindsay at 21 vs Kim at 21.
So even though Kim withdrew from US Open, Kim still has the potential to do much more than Lindsay Davenport.
After she wins her first slam, the possibility is endless.

Hant Hant
Sep 2nd, 2004, 06:59 PM
there is always potential. no one can take that away.

Kelly
Sep 2nd, 2004, 07:33 PM
kim will win a slam one day but u cant compare the 2.....lindsay was playing in an era when some of the all time greats were at there prime, graff,sabitini,seles,hingis,novotna etc im saying that arent talented players now but no one os on there prime, the williams are prone to era,justines always ill, the russians are inconsistant etc

shap_half
Sep 2nd, 2004, 07:39 PM
Potential and Reality are two different things. She has the potential to win a slam once she comes back but she's not the only one who does.

VW#1
Sep 2nd, 2004, 07:47 PM
I'm really starting to wonder if Kim will really win a slam. I mean Davenport had to compete with The Williams Sisters who were headcases at the time, Graf and Seles who were past their prime. Her main competition was Hingis, and it was clear once Davenport got fit, she would have the game to beat Hingis consistently. When Clijsters wasn't injured and everybody was healthy she only had to worry about the Williams Sister and Henin Hardenne. And she couldn't do it then. Now when she come back she has them to worry about, a resurgent Lindsay Davenport, an up and coming Maria Sharapova, and a much improved Anastasia Myskina. Mauresmo, Kuznetsova, and Capriati are also in the mix. It's why Hingis eventually faded there were too many competitors for her to beat back to back. Surely she could get past one but there was another one waiting for her in the next round. I think if Kim is ever to win a grand slam the draw gods will have to be smiling down on her big time.

thelittlestelf
Sep 2nd, 2004, 07:58 PM
Kim has to win a slam, she's so talented and all she needs is a weakened field which won't be hard to find with all the injuries nowadays.

Kart
Sep 2nd, 2004, 08:01 PM
Kim had a lot more potential at 21 than Lindsay but Lindsay got fit and worked so hard. That's what put her where she is now. When I think about it now as I post this, I regard Lindsay as pretty damn amazing :worship:.

So potential isn't everything, Kim's still going to have to work very, very hard - but I know she can do it :).

Jakeev
Sep 2nd, 2004, 08:25 PM
Frankly, I think this compare/contrast stat is rather meaningless. Can't really compare the two players since they are two totally different women.

And what the thread starter did not say was that Lindsay actually got better once she one that first Slam and finally got into better shape.

Kim, although very talented, has a long way to go. Would really be interested to see how she handles the tour when she comes back and if she will even be close to having a Davenport-type career.

GoldenSlam
Sep 2nd, 2004, 08:29 PM
Frankly, I think this compare/contrast stat is rather meaningless. Can't really compare the two players since they are two totally different women.

And what the thread starter did not say was that Lindsay actually got better once she one that first Slam and finally got into better shape.

Kim, although very talented, has a long way to go. Would really be interested to see how she handles the tour when she comes back and if she will even be close to having a Davenport-type career.
Not as meaningless as you think......
Who comes to mind when one asks who the nemesis of Davenport is;).
And both with people saying that they would never win another slam despite great accomplishment
Lindsay won gold and Kim won YEC twice. Both won Indian Wells.
Not to mention that Kim is making a mini-comeback like Lindsay had after finishing #1 in 2001.
Look closely then you'll find a lot of similiariteis b/w these 2 former #1's.
And there will always be people who doubt Kim, but Kim will show you guys that she can win too:).

best best better
Sep 2nd, 2004, 08:41 PM
The difference between Lindsay at 21 and Kim at 21 is that Lindsay had not

- been ranked number one in the world
- been in 4 slam finals
- been touted as 'most likely to win' a grand slam since the age of 19

Now you can look at that whichever way you will. If the glass is half empty you'd say that Kim carries WAAaay more baggage than Lindsay at the same stage in her career. If you think it's half full you can point to the obvious talent that she must have to have been so successful up til now.

For what it's worth I think it's fairly meaningless to compare the two at the same age, since their developmental curve was completely different. But saying all of that, there is still (obviously) a ton of mileage left in Kim's career, and more than plenty for her still to achieve.

shap_half
Sep 2nd, 2004, 08:46 PM
I doubt Kim will win a slam.

Henin and the William sisters struggled after their respective returns to the tour, Kim will be subjected to the same type of struggle. By the time she is fully fit and match tough, how will she match up against the current players? She could never beat Henin and the sisters in big matches, but now she's gotta play against Lindsay, Amelie, and Anastasia who are having a great year.

But OTOH, this break from playing might have been what Kim needed to figure what she needs to do to win a GS.

martirogi
Sep 2nd, 2004, 09:11 PM
Kim has already peeked, Lindsay didnt peek until later

joaco
Sep 2nd, 2004, 11:02 PM
The main thing I believe in my opinion is that Lindsay started of with 3 wins in her first 3 GS finals.
Now Kim is already 0-4 in GS finals, meaning that it could be harder now for Kim to breakthrough. Plus, nobody really had expectations on Lindsay at that time...

Joaco

Crazy_Fool
Sep 2nd, 2004, 11:06 PM
Maybe Kim is better younger, but obviously when i've seen pictures of LD young, lets just say she is not well in shape. But when she got herself in real shape she became a contender, if she was actually was in shape younger, maybe she would have won more.

All this is pretty meaningless, Lleyton Hewitt was better than Federer younger, does that mean he's better, or what exactly is the point of this thread :confused:

Anyway, I'd be very surprised if Kim wins 3 slams.

Knizzle
Sep 2nd, 2004, 11:07 PM
Kim and LD had 2 different sets of circumstances. The reason LD didn't win a slam before she was 22 was because she wasn't fit, Kim's is because of her mental weaknesses on the court against JHH, Venus and Serena.