PDA

View Full Version : Which part of Kim's career was better?


Navratil
Jan 18th, 2011, 09:59 AM
Which part of Kim's career was better?

The first part until 2007 or the second part from 2009 on?

First part:

- 1 Grand-Slam-title
- 19 weeks # 1 (2003)


Second part:

- 2 Grand-Slam-titles (+ ?)
- # 3 (2010)
--> close to # 2 (maybe # 1)

Pops Maellard
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:22 AM
Second part, but then again the competition is no-where near as cut-throat as her first career.

benbest
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:43 AM
Mama Kim is much more impressive

blamoh
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:52 AM
We know many players who doublebageled other players at Grandslam
and did not win it. so maybe you have been carried away by Kim's
performance today and think she will win the whole thing. Let us
wait and see what her few next opponents to show against her before
we will conclusively convince that she is the ONE.

tsmile789
Jan 18th, 2011, 11:07 AM
Second part, but then again the competition is no-where near as cut-throat as her first career.

Agree!!! Her second career competitors are way beyond her level...her first though got serena, hard hitting on top form Venus n Justine, the fearless Maria sharapova...n the one n only Lindsay davenport...and others!!!

Potato
Jan 18th, 2011, 11:15 AM
We know many players who doublebageled other players at Grandslam
and did not win it. so maybe you have been carried away by Kim's
performance today and think she will win the whole thing. Let us
wait and see what her few next opponents to show against her before
we will conclusively convince that she is the ONE.

Lol can you read? Where is there a single mention of Kim winning the AO? :spit: This thread is talking about which part of Kim's career is better, not how she's going to win AO, there's plenty of threads in GM for that.

Obviously, Kim's had a more impressive 2nd part of her career, but her only competition has been a Serena that only shows up during slams (not even all of them :spit:)and a frail Henin. Her opposition was INFINITELY more dangerous during the first part of her career, and she won a bunch of titles back then.

goldenlox
Jan 18th, 2011, 11:19 AM
That she has a child, & won 2 majors is incredible.
The amount of work & focus that it takes to be this good, plus raising a child, which involves a lot of focus & worries.

Is there any other mom who won multiple slams?

debby
Jan 18th, 2011, 11:57 AM
Second part, but then again the competition is no-where near as cut-throat as her first career.

This.

In achievements, Kim's second career is much better, clearly.
Game wise, Kim's first career hands down IMO.

thegreendestiny
Jan 18th, 2011, 12:08 PM
2 slams > 1 slam

Plus she has better record against Serena, Justine, Venus and Maria.

cellophane
Jan 18th, 2011, 03:44 PM
Obviously, Kim's had a more impressive 2nd part of her career, but her only competition has been a Serena that only shows up during slams (not even all of them :spit:)and a frail Henin. Her opposition was INFINITELY more dangerous during the first part of her career, and she won a bunch of titles back then.

And she was still able to beat the players who were better in 2005 - 2 wins against Venus, beat Sharapova on the way to her title in '05. People talk like she only wins now that she is playing mugs... She never played Serena/Henin in slams past AO 2004 anyways.

AcesHigh
Jan 18th, 2011, 03:47 PM
This.

In achievements, Kim's second career is much better, clearly.
Game wise, Kim's first career hands down IMO.

Game-wise her first career yes... but mentally she's miles ahead of where she was in her first career.

Personally, I enjoyed the titles, doubles achievements, and #1 reign as a fan..
but she seems really happy now and she's taking the big titles instead of winning a ton of smaller ones so I'll say second career as well.

Volcana
Jan 18th, 2011, 04:17 PM
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

Mistress of Evil
Jan 18th, 2011, 04:42 PM
Second part, but then again the competition is no-where near as cut-throat as her first career.

pretty much this. :yeah:

moby
Jan 18th, 2011, 04:42 PM
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.

RenaSlam.
Jan 18th, 2011, 04:50 PM
The competition has been shit her second career.

sweetpeas
Jan 18th, 2011, 05:39 PM
There so many female with children playing sports!Some of them run up and down the court 50 something games.3 time a wk.Come on!Some of them come back 6mth after birth.

Smitten
Jan 18th, 2011, 05:47 PM
Is this a joke? She already won the biggest prizes she did in her first career in less than two years and she is dominating Justine and Venus even in grand slams.

n1_and_uh_noone
Jan 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM
And she was still able to beat the players who were better in 2005 - 2 wins against Venus, beat Sharapova on the way to her title in '05. People talk like she only wins now that she is playing mugs... She never played Serena/Henin in slams past AO 2004 anyways.

:happy: EPIC FAIL!

Lost to Henin in straights at RG, Wimby 2006. So your excuse to say that this part of her career was a failure falls flat, she was still getting beaten by the better players. Isn't like she was losing to scrubs.

edificio
Jan 18th, 2011, 07:37 PM
Her mindset is just better now.

The Dawntreader
Jan 18th, 2011, 09:25 PM
Pre 2007 undoubtedly. It's the same for most elite players, like Serena pre 2003 for instance. The accumulation of Slams doesn't actually equate to them being better players, nor the field being more formidable. In fact it's probably the reverse.

That said, if the opposition has lessened to such a startling degree, it'd be madness not to take advantange. Something Henin and Venus have somewhat missed the boat on, of that that elite circle.

V's a star
Jan 18th, 2011, 09:28 PM
Level of play better in the 1st.
More success in the second.

danieln1
Jan 18th, 2011, 09:34 PM
Where's claycourter for his insightful analisys....

Whatever, Kimberly in her first career had to face Seles, Davenport, Hingis, prime Serena and Venus, her nemesis Christine... Now she has to face Wozniacki, azarenka, jankovic, zvonareva and others...

She's only having this success because of weaker competition, otherwise she would be just like her first career...

ViceUltramontain
Jan 18th, 2011, 09:42 PM
Where's claycourter for his insightful analisys....

Whatever, Kimberly in her first career had to face Seles, Davenport, Hingis, prime Serena and Venus, her nemesis Christine... Now she has to face Wozniacki, azarenka, jankovic, zvonareva and others...

She's only having this success because of weaker competition, otherwise she would be just like her first career...

Cause Serena, Venus and Justine are retired now ? Last time I checked, she was 7-0 against them in 17 months.

V's a star
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:03 PM
Cause Serena, Venus and Justine are retired now ? Last time I checked, she was 7-0 against them in 17 months.

Justine and Venus are much more mentally fragile now and often not healthy a lot of the time. It really shows the decline in them that they are now consistently folding to Clijsters of all players :lol:

terjw
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:05 PM
:happy: EPIC FAIL!

Lost to Henin in straights at RG, Wimby 2006. So your excuse to say that this part of her career was a failure falls flat, she was still getting beaten by the better players. Isn't like she was losing to scrubs.

The whole of that paragraph was on 2005. Yes I noticed the mistake but it's not an epic fail and doesn't change the point of cellophane's post and that paragraph which was all about 2005.

hingis-seles
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:28 PM
The competition has been shit her second career.

Justine and Venus are much more mentally fragile now and often not healthy a lot of the time. It really shows the decline in them that they are now consistently folding to Clijsters of all players :lol:

You people do realize that by diminishing Clijsters' competition and therefore, Clijsters you do the same for your favourites, since they have to beat the same "shit" when winning their Slams.

As you believe that Kim's last 2 Slams have been won against shit (including Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Caroline Wozniacki and Vera Zvonareva), this would mean that Serena's last string of Slam titles have also been won against shit such as Jankovic, Safina, Venus, Henin 2.0 and Zvonareva.

claypova
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:34 PM
I think she played better tennis before her retirement, but no doubt she was more successful after her retirement.

justineheninfan
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:40 PM
Where's claycourter for his insightful analisys....

Whatever, Kimberly in her first career had to face Seles, Davenport, Hingis, prime Serena and Venus, her nemesis Christine... Now she has to face Wozniacki, azarenka, jankovic, zvonareva and others...

She's only having this success because of weaker competition, otherwise she would be just like her first career...

So says an Ana fan when Ana won her only slam after Henin and Clijsters had retired (and on a surface the Williams are rubbish these days so dont matter) by beating such giants as Jankovic and Safina in the last 2 rounds. Just saying. :lol:

terjw
Jan 18th, 2011, 10:50 PM
Where's claycourter for his insightful analisys....

Whatever, Kimberly in her first career had to face Seles, Davenport, Hingis, prime Serena and Venus, her nemesis Christine... Now she has to face Wozniacki, azarenka, jankovic, zvonareva and others...

She's only having this success because of weaker competition, otherwise she would be just like her first career...

So Venus and Serena who she she had to beat in her second career to win USO 2009, And Venus who she had to beat to win USO 2010 are just "others" not even worth being listed according to you. :lol:

Volcana
Jan 18th, 2011, 11:02 PM
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) The OP set the terms of the thread. I chose to participate in that spirit.

b) I've never met Kim Clijsters. I do not pretend to know the priorities of people I've never met. If she enters a tournament for which people buy tickets, it is my belief that she owes a professional attempt to win that tournament.

moby
Jan 18th, 2011, 11:44 PM
a) The OP set the terms of the thread. I chose to participate in that spirit.

b) I've never met Kim Clijsters. I do not pretend to know the priorities of people I've never met. If she enters a tournament for which people buy tickets, it is my belief that she owes a professional attempt to win that tournament.Do you think Serena Williams puts in the same effort in MM tournaments as she does in Grand Slams?

I think Kim has addressed this issue of priorities in her interviews.

Apoleb
Jan 19th, 2011, 09:24 AM
Do you think Serena Williams puts in the same effort in MM tournaments as she does in Grand Slams?

I think Kim has addressed this issue of priorities in her interviews.

Don't think it matters what her priorities are.

It's close. But slams matter so much nowadays that 2 slams (and going) might as well shit over her previous career.

cellophane
Jan 19th, 2011, 10:06 AM
:happy: EPIC FAIL!

Lost to Henin in straights at RG, Wimby 2006. So your excuse to say that this part of her career was a failure falls flat, she was still getting beaten by the better players. Isn't like she was losing to scrubs.


Yeah, I forgot about 2006... but she was pre-retirement anyways...she was totally lacking motivation. She was not just losing to Justine, but Mauresmo and Sharapova who she had previously owned :shrug:

The point about her beating those players in 2005 still stands...you can't say that she is only winning this time around because she is facing weaker players and then deny that she beat elite players in 2005 :shrug:

Navratil
Jan 27th, 2011, 07:18 PM
2nd part - from today on ;)