PDA

View Full Version : Did Clijsters underachieve?


NashaP
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:05 PM
When she left the game in 2007 with only one slam, it was clear she underachieved. But then she came back and won 3 more slams. Many claim that her second career slams weren't as impressive because of the competition.

However, if you look at her game - great athleticism, awesome mover, solid groundstrokes (average serve, but she never relied on that anyways) - you could make an argument that she should have won more slams. Should she have won at least 7 slams, been up there with Henin and Venus?

Doully
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:16 PM
I think she's just right. Though it's still hard to process that she has more slams than Lindsay.

Prepare the bombardment of people saying she overachieved though.

NashaMasha
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:20 PM
She was underachiever in her first career, in the second she did what deserved.

She is definitely not up with Henin and Venus, Claygoat and Grassgoat , nuff said

SilverSlam
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:24 PM
I think considering how well she can play, and the amount of injuries she had, that she DID underachieve. But I don't think she'd change her career for a second, it's been an amazing one and she can surely have no regrets about it :yeah:

thrust
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:27 PM
She was underachiever in her first career, in the second she did what deserved.

She is definitely not up with Henin and Venus, Claygoat and Grassgoat , nuff said

I AGREE!

young_gunner913
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:30 PM
Overachieved. She did what Mythtina and Christine were hoping to do with their colossal comeback fails.

flareon
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:32 PM
I think she underachieved if she had been healthy I feel a kim slam was in here especially when serena was injured... but she was just unfit herself :/ :sobbing:

Volcana
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:34 PM
Tennis is only a part of life. Clijsters had a young mother, and she wanted to be a young mother herself. She couldn't be Serena and play all the time til she was 30 and do that. Clijsters accomplished as much as she wanted to. Given that, her achievements were about right.

Mr.Sharapova
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:36 PM
I think that with the sort of game that Clijsters had she should have won at least 1 or 2 more slams :shrug: so yeah I think she underachieved. She definitely had the game to win at the French and at Wimbledon.

Wiggly
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:39 PM
In her first career, she had a Slam winning game but her mental strength wasn't there at all.
She won three Slams during a transitional era on WTA. Borderline lucky.

She did very well for herself.

jasonbloom
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:40 PM
I still think she should at least won a RG title considering how well she played in RG final 2001 and she actually suffer so many injuries. But it is hard to believe that she won more than Lindsay and won nearly equal number to Legend

sweetadri06
Nov 9th, 2012, 05:44 PM
She's just about right. It's not like she wasn't winning any slams in her first career because she underachieved, she got beat by better players. She won 3 slams in her second career because this generation is just not that good. Heck even Justine got to one last GS final before retiring again. 2010-2011 were some weird years.

Uranus
Nov 9th, 2012, 06:01 PM
Underachieved.

Justine prevented her from winning many slams in her "first" career.
She came back and dominated the other mugs.

Won 4 slams and many other finals during the short career she's had. Could have been even more.

forehand27
Nov 9th, 2012, 06:07 PM
She was underachiever in her first career, in the second she did what deserved.

She is definitely not up with Henin and Venus, Claygoat and Grassgoat , nuff said

Henin and Venus are not the GOAT on clay and grass. Henin might be 2nd or 3rd all time on clay, and Venus on grass, but no higher than that.

harloo
Nov 9th, 2012, 06:57 PM
I felt like Kim was a very clever opportunist. She didn't possess the mental fortitude to topple the big guns during her first career despite having the game to defeat anyone. Therefore she prematurely retired and copped out.

She observed the state of the WTA during it's transitional period and all of the sudden you heard Kim was coming back to the tour despite the fact she'd been training for a while for that moment. Kim did well for a brief period because her main rivals were either retired, in decline, or playing like crap and she could beat all of the younger inexperienced players.

However, when the going got tough Kim bowed out again because once players started to become accustomed to her game she couldn't just BS her way through matches anymore. I bet Kim will be thinking about coming back again once she gets bored with home life.:lol: It seems to me that her motivation for tennis comes and goes like the wind. smh

forehand27
Nov 9th, 2012, 06:59 PM
I felt like Kim was a very clever opportunist. She didn't possess the mental fortitude to topple the big guns during her first career despite having the game to defeat anyone. Therefore she prematurely retired and copped out.

She observed the state of the WTA during it's transitional period and all of the sudden you heard Kim was coming back to the tour despite the fact she'd been training for a while for that moment. Kim did well for a brief period because her main rivals were either retired, in decline, or playing like crap and she could beat all of the younger inexperienced players.

However, when the going got tough Kim bowed out again because once players started to become accustomed to her game she couldn't just BS her way through matches anymore. I bet Kim will be thinking about coming back again at some time once she gets bored with home life.:lol: It seems to me that her motivation for tennis comes and goes like the wind. smh

I agree and I could also see Kim coming back at some point in the future the WTA goes into a down spell again.

saint2
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:03 PM
She just had tough competition...

Then, after her comeback competition got weaker and she won more slams than during her "prime"...

jj74
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:09 PM
She had the game to be a thread to everyone, but her mentality was very far from the dominant forces of her era (Serena, Venus and Justine). When she came back she found a weak field and her old enemies having healthy problems, and she conquer the slams.

She is a very good player, but four slams are more than enough. Davenport was a better and more competitive player (for more time) and she only had three (and the same for Capriati)

dybbuk
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:19 PM
She easily overachieved. I thin 2-3 Slams would be much more reasonable for her level. 4 is too much and the result of having to beat Li Na, Zvonareva and Wozniacki for some of her Slams. Credit to her for taking advantage of her draws, but no one is going to tell me that she wasn't helped greatly by winning 2/4 of her Slams in truly the rock bottom point of the WTA.

Stonerpova
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:23 PM
I think she underachieved. Injuries were a huge issue (as was motivation near the end of her career), but if she had remained committed and fit during her comeback she could have ended up with 5 or 6 slams IMO. Her serve was an issue and so was her mentality. Still one of the greats, but I still have the feeling she could have achieved more.

JJ all the way
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:28 PM
I love how people are saying Kim won in a "transitional era" and a "weak" field.....

she beat Serena and beat Venus twice; outside of slams she beat Maria, Henin.

Kim had a glorious career, maybe could have won a slam or more.

dybbuk
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:32 PM
I love how people are saying Kim won in a "transitional era" and a "weak" field.....

she beat Serena and beat Venus twice; outside of slams she beat Maria, Henin.

Kim had a glorious career, maybe could have won a slam or more.

Oh, she beat Venus and Serena for her amazing AO title? And she beat a non-Sjodgren Penus for her last USO title? I didn't know. Wow.

Kim beat an injured and unseeded Safina 1r, Suarez Navarro, Cornet, Makarova Radwanska, Zvonareva, and first time Slam finalist Li Na for her AO title. Truly an epic run for the history books. I'm sorry for doubting Kim, JJ all the way. You have made me see how wrong I was to believe she faced weak competition for some of her Slam titles. :tears:

Doully
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:42 PM
Oh, she beat Venus and Serena for her amazing AO title? And she beat a non-Sjodgren Penus for her last USO title? I didn't know. Wow.

Kim beat an injured and unseeded Safina 1r, Suarez Navarro, Cornet, Makarova Radwanska, Zvonareva, and first time Slam finalist Li Na for her AO title. Truly an epic run for the history books. I'm sorry for doubting Kim, JJ all the way. You have made me see how wrong I was to believe she faced weak competition for some of her Slam titles. :tears:

Name a single multi-slam champ out there that hasn't had one let alone multiple soft draws. Kim worked with what she had. If anything, I'm thankful she was there at all - else we'd potentially have the likes of Zvonareva as a slam champ and Li as a multiple slam champ.

The funny thing is that had Venus/Vera beat Kim in '10 and Li had beat her in '11, their slam wins would be considered good runs ~ if only for beating Kim en route.

Alejandrawrrr
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:56 PM
Just right. Underachieved in her first career, major over-achievement in her second, but it all evens out nicely I guess. I would be more comfortable with her being at 3(or Davenport being at 4 :shrug:) but it's life. She's definitely not quite on Venus or Handnin's level IMO, not very far beneath them but I do feel she's just like a hair below them, with Lindsay, Martina and Maria. Not bad company :lol:

Halepsova
Nov 9th, 2012, 07:59 PM
She should have won at least one RG.

n1_and_uh_noone
Nov 9th, 2012, 08:09 PM
I believe she was a better player in her comeback, she was more proactive and had other things to worry about, while when tennis was everything, she lacked the killer mentality. Of course, the part-timeness was annoying in career 2.0. If she had won a few more Slams in this period, it would have been seen as a sham, so 3 seems about right. I personally think for someone who hated clay, she did not deserve to win RG, despite having a good game for clay.

ShiftyFella
Nov 9th, 2012, 08:56 PM
In first career she was huge underachiever but when returned she get what she deserved for a long time, tho having few more slams would solidify her career more

Sammo
Nov 9th, 2012, 08:58 PM
:lol: Noooo

dsanders06
Nov 9th, 2012, 09:59 PM
Oh, she beat Venus and Serena for her amazing AO title? And she beat a non-Sjodgren Penus for her last USO title? I didn't know. Wow.

Kim beat an injured and unseeded Safina 1r, Suarez Navarro, Cornet, Makarova Radwanska, Zvonareva, and first time Slam finalist Li Na for her AO title. Truly an epic run for the history books. I'm sorry for doubting Kim, JJ all the way. You have made me see how wrong I was to believe she faced weak competition for some of her Slam titles. :tears:

Oh please :lol: Sjogren's or no Sjogren's, Venus played one of her best post-2003 matches away from grass in that USO2010 SF. Plus at that tournament Kim also beat the player who would go on to win the USO the very next year. And her USO2009 run in retrospect looks like one of the strongest Slam runs of recent years - both Williams sisters obviously (including Serena in one of the best seasons of her career), plus a future Slam champ and world #1. Her AO2011 run is the only one that is weaker than average.

I believe she was a better player in her comeback, she was more proactive and had other things to worry about, while when tennis was everything, she lacked the killer mentality. Of course, the part-timeness was annoying in career 2.0. If she had won a few more Slams in this period, it would have been seen as a sham, so 3 seems about right. I personally think for someone who hated clay, she did not deserve to win RG, despite having a good game for clay.

I think she was fundamentally a better player in her first career (her athletic abilities in her 2nd career paled in comparison to her 1st career), but she definitely produced better tennis (at crunch time atleast) in her 2nd career. It wasn't just a case of her not choking anymore, it was as you say also about her being willing to be more proactive and take matters into her own hands in her 2nd career when she needed to -- her forehand (which, contrary to popular belief, was always her more potent groundstroke even if more erratic) was the saving grace in all those epic matches she played at the US Open in 2009 and 2010, she was willing to step up and go for much more off that wing than she would've ever done in a huge match in her first career.

danieln1
Nov 9th, 2012, 10:04 PM
She could be classified as one of the most overachievers of all time.

2 slams would be fair for her, but winning for it was just too much, but she took advantage of a very weak field at the 10 US Open and 1 Australian.

Shocking to see that much more talented players like Davenport, Pierce and Mauresmo have less slams than her :rolleyes:

Losing to Robson to end her career was a pretty decent end.

Brad[le]y.
Nov 9th, 2012, 10:13 PM
I'm by no means a fan, but to claim that somebody with winning H2Hs against Hingis, Henin, and Venus with 4 slams is an overachiever is just stupid. :lol:

Imagine what Kim could of done if she had her 2003 form in this weak-ass era.

In The Zone
Nov 10th, 2012, 01:16 AM
Clijsters is just about right. Her lack of slams during the early 2000s were made up for during the end of the decade.

She is not up there with Serena, Venus, and Justine but she should be in line with Lindsay and Sharapova.

CrossCourt~Rally
Nov 10th, 2012, 01:20 AM
Both, under achieve pre baby, over achieve post baby ;)

flareon
Nov 10th, 2012, 10:38 AM
NID people throwing shade at kim for her Grand slam wins, in her US open comeback she beat Serena and the following year she beat Venus when she defended it, just because the halves were top heavy its not her fault... Her Oz triumph was fantastic and the yea before she beat Henin twice as well, I feel on her day she could beat anyone and she proved that by beating both williams who are undoubtedly were the best out there. Yes she did not play Maria that much which I wish she had.

Brad[le]y.
Nov 10th, 2012, 10:40 AM
NID people throwing shade at kim for her Grand slam wins, in her US open comeback she beat Serena and the following year she beat Venus when she defended it, just because the halves were top heavy its not her fault... Her Oz triumph was fantastic and the week before she beat Henin as well, I feel on her day she could beat anyone and she proved that by beating both williams who are undoubtedly were the best out there. Yes she did not play Maria that much which I wish she had.

She beat Henin in Brisbane in 2010, right before she got bitchslapped by Nadia :p

She played a warmup in Sydney last year, but that was it.

flareon
Nov 10th, 2012, 10:51 AM
y.;22458869']She beat Henin in Brisbane in 2010, right before she got bitchslapped by Nadia :p

She played a warmup in Sydney last year, but that was it.

Ohh yes got my years mixed up, but still she won the Oz open... she beat Henin at wimbledon as well.

sammy01
Nov 10th, 2012, 11:10 AM
I felt like Kim was a very clever opportunist. She didn't possess the mental fortitude to topple the big guns during her first career despite having the game to defeat anyone. Therefore she prematurely retired and copped out.

She observed the state of the WTA during it's transitional period and all of the sudden you heard Kim was coming back to the tour despite the fact she'd been training for a while for that moment. Kim did well for a brief period because her main rivals were either retired, in decline, or playing like crap and she could beat all of the younger inexperienced players.

However, when the going got tough Kim bowed out again because once players started to become accustomed to her game she couldn't just BS her way through matches anymore. I bet Kim will be thinking about coming back again once she gets bored with home life.:lol: It seems to me that her motivation for tennis comes and goes like the wind. smh

BS posts like this are why I barely post on here anymore. When kim came back serena was US open, Wim and Oz open champ, venus had made 3 consecutive Wim finals. Safina was lapping up everything else. The very top of women's tennis looked set for the next couple of years.

pattyclijsters
Nov 10th, 2012, 12:01 PM
BS posts like this are why I barely post on here anymore. When kim came back serena was US open, Wim and Oz open champ, venus had made 3 consecutive Wim finals. Safina was lapping up everything else. The very top of women's tennis looked set for the next couple of years.

+ 1000000000000000000

:worship:

pattyclijsters
Nov 10th, 2012, 12:08 PM
I felt like Kim was a very clever opportunist. She didn't possess the mental fortitude to topple the big guns during her first career despite having the game to defeat anyone. Therefore she prematurely retired and copped out.

She observed the state of the WTA during it's transitional period and all of the sudden you heard Kim was coming back to the tour despite the fact she'd been training for a while for that moment. Kim did well for a brief period because her main rivals were either retired, in decline, or playing like crap and she could beat all of the younger inexperienced players.

However, when the going got tough Kim bowed out again because once players started to become accustomed to her game she couldn't just BS her way through matches anymore. I bet Kim will be thinking about coming back again once she gets bored with home life.:lol: It seems to me that her motivation for tennis comes and goes like the wind. smh

:help: :confused: :rolleyes: :help: :tape:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 10th, 2012, 02:48 PM
I felt like Kim was a very clever opportunist. She didn't possess the mental fortitude to topple the big guns during her first career despite having the game to defeat anyone. Therefore she prematurely retired and copped out.

She observed the state of the WTA during it's transitional period and all of the sudden you heard Kim was coming back to the tour despite the fact she'd been training for a while for that moment. Kim did well for a brief period because her main rivals were either retired, in decline, or playing like crap and she could beat all of the younger inexperienced players.

However, when the going got tough Kim bowed out again because once players started to become accustomed to her game she couldn't just BS her way through matches anymore. I bet Kim will be thinking about coming back again once she gets bored with home life.:lol: It seems to me that her motivation for tennis comes and goes like the wind. smh


spot on :wavey:

pattyclijsters
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:09 PM
spot on :wavey:

As an interested follower of tennis I heard rumors of Kim leaving the tour to become a mother... :confused:

Also, if her main rivals "play like crap" as has been suggested in the above statements... well it says: kim played better than them. Is it punish-worthy to play better than your rivals? :eek:

resilience
Nov 10th, 2012, 03:24 PM
Pre-2007 I kinda think she did. She should've won the US Open in 2003 and maybe the AO in 2004 if she wasn't such a mental midget in finals against Henin.

Given her scavenging of slams during the Dark Ages of tennis though, I can't say she underachieved. She only succeeded on HCs and that's how it should've been.