PDA

View Full Version : Was Kim Clijsters run at RG 2001 a fluke?


Volcana
Dec 22nd, 2002, 03:42 PM
Obviously, it was an accurate demonstration of her ability.
She's ranked #4 now, and basically hasn't gone backwards in the rankings since RG '01. So we're not discussing her overall ability.
What I'm asking is, is that particular tournament result more a matter of who she played than how she played?

Here's the draw.

28 May 2001 Roland Garros FRA

r1 W SALERNI 6-3 6-4
r2 W DIAZ-OLIVA 7-5 6-1
r3 W MARRERO 6-2 6-2
r4 W NAGYOVA 6-4 4-6 6-3
QF W MANDULA 6-1 6-3
SF W HENIN 2-6 7-5 6-3
FR L CAPRIATI 6-1 4-6 10-12

And the head to head vs Henin

2001 Indian Wells 32 Kim CLIJSTERS 1-6 6-4 6-3
2001 Roland Garros SF Kim CLIJSTERS 2-6 7-5 6-3
2001 's-Hertogenbosch FR Justine HENIN 4-6 6-3 3-6
2002 Sydney QF Kim CLIJSTERS 7-6 6-2
2002 Australian Open QF Kim CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-3
2002 Rome SF Justine HENIN 5-7 2-6
2002 Tour Champs QF Kim CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-1

It turns out that Henin vs Clijsters rather favors Henin.
So looking back, that was a damn easy draw.

And the GS tournaments since then haven't been kind.

01 U.S. Open GS QF L WILLIAMS (USA) 3-6 1-6
02 Australian Open GS SF L CAPRIATI (USA) 5-7 6-3 1-6
02 Roland Garros GS 32 L FERNANDEZ (ARG) 4-6 0-6
02 Wimbledon GS 64 L LIKHOVTSEVA (RUS) 6-7(5) 2-6
02 U.S. Open GS 16 L MAURESMO (FRA) 6-4 3-6 5-7

She can play. That isn't in dispute. I'd like to see another GS final soon though. Serena took two years between GS finals. Venus took three. Martina Hingis might be a better role model in this case.

Experimentee
Dec 22nd, 2002, 03:50 PM
She was also on the brink of losing to Henin in the semis, but Justine choked. She took advantage of this and won, and did her best in the final. I wouldnt call it a fluke though, because it was well within her ability at the time. When all the seeds but one were knocked out of her half at RG, i expected Kim to come through. I would call it a fluke if she beat 3 top ten players to get to the final and never did it again, but not in this case. I guess it depends on what your definition of fluke is.

Venus Forever
Dec 22nd, 2002, 03:58 PM
I definitely don't think it was a fluke.

nuriboy
Dec 22nd, 2002, 04:03 PM
I donīt think itīs a fluke perce, although Justine should have won that semi!! Itīs not like she didnīt reach no other finals in big tournyīs or something. To me the Hantuchova win in Indian Wells is more a fluke. After she won that she didnīt do anything more the rest of the year!

Come-on-kim
Dec 22nd, 2002, 04:42 PM
No, it isn't!!!

She'll do it again in 2003 I hope!

Bigkimfan
Dec 22nd, 2002, 04:44 PM
Ofcourse not!!!!!!!!!!

Come on Kim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bounce: :bounce:

Wimanna
Dec 22nd, 2002, 04:55 PM
No, not a fluke... I know I had no expectations for Kim in 2001 for Roland Garros, cause her results in the warming-up tournaments were so terrible...
Bol: Diaz Oliva - Clijsters 0-6 6-2 6-4 (Kim was leading 6-0 2-0) OK, it was a semi-final, but that was a terrible loss.
Berlin: R1 Kremer - Clijsters 6-2 6-1
Rome: R2 (after Bye) Gagliardi - Clijsters 3-6 6-2 6-3

But we saw a different Kim at Roland Garros 2001...she had patience...and it paid off. First she had a qualifier, always dangerous, then Diaz Oliva (remember Bol), Marta Marrero (1/4 finalist in 2000)... In the 4th round she had a real test: Nagyova, always difficult to play when she's on, and she was ;) Maybe 1/4-final was easy, but Mandula did beat Dokic... That semi-final was dramatic fot Justine, but Kim kept it together and played great at the end of the second set, third set she was simply the better player...

-Sonic-
Dec 22nd, 2002, 06:15 PM
I don't think it was a fluke... her performance & scoreline against Capriati in the final showed that for me.

She had to play some experienced clay courters there as well... it as definately not without its tests... as other higher ranked players not so good on clay would have been an easier opponent imho.

Messenger
Dec 22nd, 2002, 07:36 PM
Yes.

Henin wasn't a top player either.

All the seeds dropped out early in the bottom half of the draw, except for two.

Venus Williams- Barbara Schett R1
Amelie Mauresmo - Jana Kandarr R1

Jelena Dokic - Petra Mandula R3
Anke Huber - Virginie Razzano R2

Nathalie Tauziat - Lina Krasnaroutskaya R1
Elena Dementieva - (Henrieta Nagyova R3? Not sure about this one)

Messenger
Dec 22nd, 2002, 07:38 PM
Maybe Clijsters would have beaten these seeds - but the fact remains that she escaped all of them.

Messenger
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:00 PM
I was wrong - Huber wasn't seeded but Maleeva was and she lost to Farina-Elia R1.

Here's a better list -

2 Venus Williams lost R1
5 Amelie Mauresmo lost R1
7 Elena Dementieva lost R3
9 Nathalie Tauziat lost R1

12 Kim Clijsters
13 Maleeva lost R1
14 Justine Henin
15 Jelena Dokic lost R3

Other notable losses:

Anke Huber lost R2
Iva Majoli lost R1
Ruxandra Dragomir lost R1
Elena Likhovtseva lost R1
Ai Sugiyama lost R1

I don't think I remember a draw that opened up so much after the early rounds. Grande, Nagyova, Farina, Schett made the 4th round, Mandula and Krasnaroutskaya made the QF, and Clijsters made the final.

Volcana
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:10 PM
Caesar's Messenger - Starting with RG 2001, and running through OZ 2002, Kim made the semis or better in 10 out of 15 tournaments. Making the OZ final was admittedly the start, but it was in pattern. The girl kicked ass til she hurt her shoulder.

Messenger
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:15 PM
Volcana - I know http://www.officialforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Kim was definately very lucky at RG 2001, but I wouldn't say that it was the only reason Kim got to the RG final. Like you said, Kim's ability is not in question. Kim has the potential to win a Grand Slam, but the Roland Garros final remains a fluke because of the seed collapse on the bottom half of the draw.

Warrior
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:21 PM
I don't think so. This result showed her potential as a player.

Messenger
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:28 PM
Okay I think there may be a disagreement as to the meaning of fluke. Iva Majoli won a Grand Slam yet I don't think it's unreasonable for some people to justify classifying Charleston 2002 as a fluke because of the draw and the players that Iva did not have to face.

To me, a fluke is based on luck - not on the ability of a player. If Serena Williams, the world #1, wins the Australian Open defeating 7 qualifiers that is a fluke to me.

Messenger
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:40 PM
But if the definition of fluke is someone who has success due to only luck and no talent then no, Clijsters' run at RG was not a fluke. But from the original post, I don't think that is what Volcana is asking us.

nuriboy
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:51 PM
If you see what happened after RG 01 it isnīt a fluke. I mean she reached the semis or quarters of all the slams after that until she injured her shoulder. ANd she did add some impressive tournament victories too.

irma
Dec 22nd, 2002, 08:57 PM
well for a player who would never win any match on clay in her whole career(many claimed that the week before the french open 2001) it can hardly be a fluke :p

AjdeNate!
Dec 22nd, 2002, 09:01 PM
Fluke?....hardly.

See also, Home Depot Sanex Championships Presented By Porsche 2002.

joao
Dec 22nd, 2002, 09:47 PM
It wasn't a fluke ... I don't believe in flukes! if you win it means you have the capability of winning and win again. But let's be honest : Kim got really lucky at 2001 RG with all the early upsets!

Hantuchova's win at IW wasn't a fluke either! She hasn't won a tournament since then but she will again! Give her some more time!

Volcana
Dec 22nd, 2002, 09:51 PM
What I'm asking is, is that particular tournament result more a matter of who she played than how she played?

I'd have to say Caesar's Messenger has caught my meaning.
Take Stuttgart 2002. There's no question Kim won that tournament because of HOW she played, since she beat Davenport, Mauresmo and Hantuchova in succession to do it. At RG '01, her last three wins were Nagyova, Mandula and Henin. A far, far easier draw for Kim. WHO she played counted for as much as HOW.

o0O0o
Dec 23rd, 2002, 01:28 AM
Well Volcana, if you call that a fluke than surely you must call Venus' final this year at Roland Garros an extrodinary fluke.

Clijsters beat no one of note except Justine Henin.
Venus beat no one of note except Monica Seles.

Henin is better on clay than Seles.

Clijsters has a good head-to-head against Henin.
Venus has had a laughably easy head-to-head against Seles. There is no one else she would have preferred to play.

Clijsters put up a good clay-court fight against the in-form opponent of the year.
Venus put up an embarressing clay-court fight against the in-form opponent of the year.

Volcana
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:05 AM
o0O0o - Every loss of Venus' is a fluke, so of course, that was too.:)

Venus Forever
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:10 AM
You can't call Venus' a fluke because she got to at least the final of every clay event she entered this year, beating playing like Henin-Hardenne, Hingis, and Seles who have all won big titles on clay.

Ma. Estefania
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:47 AM
Yes.

AjdeNate!
Dec 23rd, 2002, 03:19 AM
To clarify...until Justine wins 3 majors on clay, she will not and should not be considered better on clay than anyone who has won 3 majors on clay.

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 23rd, 2002, 04:20 AM
Well you can only beat whats put in front of you.
she's hardly likely to say i'm not playing her, everyone will call me a fluke ........ bring back Venus or Amelie :rolleyes:

~|Naomi|~
Dec 23rd, 2002, 05:29 AM
No it wasn't and to all those who think it was she'll prove you wrong just you wait and see;)

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:38 AM
just like you could say was Venus 1997 run to the US Open final a fluke if Kim's run was a fluke also.
I'm not a fan of either

US Open Sep 7 1997
1 V Williams - L Neiland 5-7 6-0 6-1
2 V Williams - G Leon-Garcia 6-0 6-1
3 V Williams - A Huber(8) 6-3 6-4
4 V Williams - J Kruger 6-2 6-3
QF V Williams - S Testud 7-5 7-5
SF V Williams - I Spirlea(11) 7-6(5) 4-6 7-6(7)
F M Hingis(1) - V Williams

Volcana
Dec 23rd, 2002, 12:24 PM
TheBoiledEgg - Perhaps that's why Venus didn't show up in a GS final again til 2000. Raw power got her to that 1997 US Open final. She didn't see a GS final again til she had some control.

lizchris
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:12 PM
Venus' run at the US OPen Grand Slams wasn't really a fluke at becuase since 1997 (when she first appeared), she has never lost before the semifinals.

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:19 PM
Exactly lizchris!! Venus run isnīt fluke because she has done it again! Kim was kinda...because then suddenly she loses in the 4th roundat RG the next year?! But Venus has reached at least the semis like 5 yr running now?! And plus she had to beat three seeds and she was UNSEEDED!!! NO fluke man!!

Come-on-kim
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:29 PM
Excuse me all, but for me a fluke is when a player do something and then never confirm!!!

1) Kim reach RG final, then, she confirm, by reaching quarters of Wimby, US Open, the semis of Aussie Open, then perhaps she lost in the 3rd round of RG and the 2nd of Wimby, but she was INJURED, no COACH at Wimby,....

BTW, she won Hambourg, by beating Dokic and Williams V!! So, she can play on clay!!

She won the masters, so I think she confirm that it was not a fluke!!!

2) If all those seeded players lost early is that because the unseeded players were better than them!!! I am not telling that Barbara Schett is not a good player (by far) but if Barbara could beat Venus, Kim could also have beaten Venus!!!! So,...

If a player lose early in a tournament it's because her opponent was stronger and better!!!

supremeross
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:44 PM
To me fluke means a once in a life time type thing. So obviously, The BoiledEggs assessment is dead wrong seeing that Venus has since then won 4, count them 4 Grand Slam Titles and made three final appearances this year alone. While Kim C. has not made it back to another GS final, she has won other titles and is still an active player. Would you also put Henin and Mauresmo in the same category since they have both made GS finals, once, and have not made another as of yet??

nuriboy
Dec 23rd, 2002, 02:56 PM
Good point supremeross!! I think if that player become top 5/10 player and keeps reaching qrts and semis of GSīs and winning other titles it is not a fluke anymore.

Come-on-kim
Dec 23rd, 2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by nuriboy
Good point supremeross!! I think if that player become top 5/10 player and keeps reaching qrts and semis of GSīs and winning other titles it is not a fluke anymore.

So in Kim's case, it's not a fluke!

Messenger
Dec 23rd, 2002, 10:50 PM
This is bad. Am I the only one that can see that we all agree but we disagree because of our defination of "fluke"?

fhkung
Dec 24th, 2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by supremeross
To me fluke means a once in a life time type thing. So obviously, The BoiledEggs assessment is dead wrong seeing that Venus has since then won 4, count them 4 Grand Slam Titles and made three final appearances this year alone. While Kim C. has not made it back to another GS final, she has won other titles and is still an active player. Would you also put Henin and Mauresmo in the same category since they have both made GS finals, once, and have not made another as of yet??
you do know that since then, Venus never made it to the final
in 10 Slams till Wim 00, i guess u can call this a fluke,
Australian Open 1997
1 M Hingis(4) - B Rittner 6-1 7-5
2 M Hingis(4) - L Raymond 6-4 6-2
3 M Hingis(4) - B Schett 6-2 6-1
4 M Hingis(4) - R Dragomir Ilie 7-6(6) 6-1
QF M Hingis(4) - I Spirlea(8) 7-5 6-2
SF M Hingis(4) - M Fernandez(14) 6-1 6-3
F M Hingis(4) - M Pierce 6-2 6-2
but this is when her career takes off
so TBE is right, u can only beat what's in front of you

nuriboy
Dec 25th, 2002, 02:33 AM
Exactly fhkung! You have to start somewhere!! Every time you do a thing for the first time they will keep telling itīs a fluke, but you have to start somewhere!!