I was just browsing through the Roland Garros site when i came across an article which said..."Last year's runner-up, Kim Clisters (N░4), will play the Belarus Tatiana Poutchek at the end of the day on Suzanne Lenglen court. Clijster's recent success in Hamburg where she dominated Venus Williams proves that the Belgian is in great shape." No doubt Kim and Justine are in great shape but i hardly call Kim's victory dominating. Mind you, i'm not taking away from Kim's victory over Venus. It was well deserved. But the term "dominating" is very misleading. I pictured a straight set drubbing when i read that article.
May 26th, 2002, 06:38 PM
Well Kim did play very well, but the match was three sets, and I know the last two were not like 6:0. 6:1. So I'm not going to say she dominated. But she did play really well.
May 26th, 2002, 06:41 PM
May 26th, 2002, 06:43 PM
Depends on who's favorite wins... Some players win 7-5 or 7-6 in the 3rd, and it was a domination.
May 26th, 2002, 06:47 PM
Venus dominated the first set..but Kim clearly dominated in the last two...so you could say she has dominated Venus in Hamburg.
May 26th, 2002, 07:17 PM
no way man :D
a 3-set match is, by definition, not a domination.
get real :cool:
May 26th, 2002, 07:20 PM
sometimes it is
See USOpen 2001 Serena vs Barna...
first set Anca played well but the last two, Serena dominated
4-6 6-2 6-1 For me it is a domination..
May 26th, 2002, 07:24 PM
If you are a Kim fan, this is a domination
If you are Venus fan, you will definitely definitely call this a close match
The choice of word is irrelevent, the only fact needed to know is that Kim did beat Venus in Hamburg
May 26th, 2002, 07:28 PM
6-3 or 6-4 in the 3rd is not a domination.. The beat down that Venus gave her at the US Open was a domination.
May 26th, 2002, 07:32 PM
even if a player wins 6-7 6-0 6-0 then it's still not a domination. The last two sets obviously were, but not the match.
i'd say that domination occurs up until a situation where the loser has picked up at least 4 games.
6-3 6-2 is not a domination. a convincing and comfortable victory but not domination.
Kim dominated nobody. Get over it!
Gonzo Hates Me!
May 26th, 2002, 07:34 PM
Biass should never brainwash your choice of wording...
and I wouldn't say it was domination. I watched that match and was bored out of my mind. I don't think it was sparks for any of them, but Kimmie definitely kicked booty in last 2 sets. LOL! Made me proud.
May 26th, 2002, 07:40 PM
Nope, no domination, just 2 very good last sets by kim in which she was better as Venus and dominated more points as vice verse.
May 26th, 2002, 07:50 PM
no and that makes it even better, she had to fight for it and that's good:)
May 26th, 2002, 07:55 PM
"If you are a Kim fan, this is a domination"
I don't think so... I'm a Kim fan and I wouldn't say she dominated... not that I care anyway, she won, I'm happy with that, domination or not :D
May 26th, 2002, 09:08 PM
How can anyone calls a one time win a domination. Kim and Venus
played twice and it is 1-1. If you talk about someone dominates
another, you can compare the case of Venus and Henin, Venus and Capriati or Hingis and Seles. That is domination. After all
I think Kim can't beat Venus when they meet again. She doesn't
have the consistency to win against Venus all the time.
May 26th, 2002, 09:12 PM
Chibuku14, we were talking about domination in the match, not the career!
May 26th, 2002, 09:56 PM
I'm also a fan of Kim and it was not domination in my opinion. Venus dominated the first set. In the last two Venus was playing worse and Kim much better but she didn't blow Venus of the court. It's just about how to interpretate the word domination.
May 27th, 2002, 03:38 AM
It was a great match by Kim... no domination... but still, a great win... :D
Hehe, I was thinking the same thing when I read the article earlier... domination? :confused: