[Syka]

Which one is a better player?

 

[heninfanssince02]

Clijsters was compete in stronger era than Naomi. Naomi’s competitions are some scrubs and granny Serena.

 

[NikolaTesla]

Clijsters 10/10. Naomi struggles against players with great, consistent defense.

 

[Kenneth Chow]

Kim was actually competitive in all surfaces...Osaka isn't...

 

[BlueTrees]

clijsters easily

 

[Jajaloo]

Most of Clijsters early career was great, but just short of being amazing (and not winning the titles). She came back and took advantage of a lull in the tour, good on her. But Naomi is exerting energy and greatness when it matters straight up - she's not waiting for a weak period, she peaks when it matters.

I'm more impressed with Osaka.

 

[Gentleman]

Would probably be competitive but Osaka struggled against good defence aka Kerber, so peak Clijsters is a great defence. I assume we'd see a lot of close matches where Kim would have a mental edge in the end. Osaka would probably win sometimes too but I'd say Kim wins 4/5 matches.

 

[Arsenic]

A better comparison would be 23 year old Clijsters vs 23 year old Osaka. Naomi may not have peaked yet.

 

[Jameka]

Clijsters was compete in stronger era than Naomi. Naomi’s competitions are some scrubs and granny Serena.

Really?
When Henin Serena and Venus are at their peak she wasn't winning shit!
3 of her 4 slams were won between 2009 and 2011 when it was becoming shitty AF.
This era Naomi is competing in is stronger than the ear between 2009 and 2011.

 

[Mario101]

Naomi in reality or Kim by nostalgia. You choose

 

[LewisCarroll]

I think Kim by match up, but as much as I love her, Osaka is probably a better player, and we may not have even seen her peak yet.

In terms of charisma and likeability, Kim gives a double bagel

 

[Sheriff]

Really?
When Henin Serena and Venus are at their peak she wasn't winning shit!
3 of her 4 slams were won between 2009 and 2011 when it was becoming shitty AF.
This era Naomi is competing in is stronger than the ear between 2009 and 2011.

She won a slam in that period and was consistently contending, so to say she "wasn't winning shit" is weird. I'd wager Naomi really wouldn't have won shit had she played in that time.

 

[Sheriff]

Naomi in reality or Kim by nostalgia. You choose

Or Kim in reality and Naomi by recency bias. You choose.

 

[MLF4]

Kim as she was in a tougher era plus put it in the line on the regular tour too but Naomi is only 23 so her best could still be to come. I’m glad Osaka is around, it’s important to have a big match player around for the sport.

 

[Jameka]

She won a slam in that period and was consistently contending, so to say she "wasn't winning shit" is weird. I'd wager Naomi really wouldn't have won shit had she played in that time.

Yeah just one, the USO 2005 but otherwise nothing.

 

[didie]

A better comparison would be 23 year old Clijsters vs 23 year old Osaka. Naomi may not have peaked yet.

23 year old Clijsters lost her motivation and became pregnant. I doubt Osaka will follow the same path

 

[Aaron.]

Or Kim in reality and Naomi by recency bias. You choose.

You're finally starting to see the non-sense these posters constantly post about Osaka.

She's good but god damn, this is giving early Sharapova teas.

 

[longtin23]

Would actually want to see how Osaka compete with the previous gen player, besides Kim. It should be a great match up even with Justine, Sharapova and Li Na.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Naomi Osaka would have beaten Clijsters 6-0 6-0 in every match except clay

 

[EkVraNaamEnVan]

🙆‍♀️