August 15, 2009 
Experience the US Open Courtside with Grand Slam Tennis Tours
Click here to learn more. "What's New" Product Video - from Tennis Warehouse - Fila Men's Fall Center Court Apparel
Joel Drucker The return of Kim Clijsters? Why not? At one level, it’s vexing. More than two years ago, the Belgian was so adamant, so clear she’d had enough, so eager to raise a family. She was 23, a millionaire several times over. Goodbye tennis.
Now it’s hello tennis. Why she couldn’t announce a sabbatical back then is beyond me. One thing I’ve learned is that tennis players enjoy speaking decisively, as if the lines of the court were etched into their cranium. Such is the code of sports, where the rules are defined and the rest of life is oh-so-ambiguous. But at heart, any confusion I feel about Clijsters’ actions is far more my problem than hers. The real matter at the table is she’s back. Clijsters declared herself emphatically at the Western and Southern Financial Group Women’s Open in Cincinnati with a first-round win over Marion Bartoli, herself a couple of weeks removed from beating Venus Williams in the finals of the Bank of the West Classic in Stanford, California. Next came a win over Patty Schnyder, then an impressive three-set victory versus French Open champion Svetlana Kuznetsova. It’s nice to see Clijsters competing again – not just because she is a likeable, kind person but mostly because she’s a fine tennis player. I remember seeing her at age 16 reaching the round of 16 in her first-ever Slam event, the 1999 Wimbledon. She took out the rough-and-tumble Amanda Coetzer, showing a bouncy, engaging brand of athleticism that immediately commanded high respect from Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova.
At her best, there’s a no-nonsense quality to Clijsters game. If not quite as hard a hitter as, say, Lindsay Davenport, she was certainly a much better mover, able to track down one ball after another (even though I found her trademark splits an extravagance borne of bad technique) and happily pound one drive after another into the corners of the court. The good Clijsters' days saw her rapidly walk up to the baseline, bounce the ball a couple of times and go to work with a refreshing lack of pretension and a hearty dose of physicality. This was the Clijsters who I thought back in 2002 would turn out to post more results than her countrywoman, Justine Henin, a player who back then confessed to struggling to calm her nerves and execute her layered game. Though I was personally delighted to be proven wrong – yet another good reason to beg out of the prediction business – it was frustrating to watch bad things happen to a player as seemingly simple and skilled as Clijsters. There were times when that quick clip up to serve masked the tennis equivalent of a pitcher in a hurry, rushing through pitches, not really playing with purpose. Uncluttered as her technique appeared, forehands in particular could fly. And most of all, in the late stages of Slams. There Clijsters seemed as if she was merely hitting tennis balls rather than working her way through a game plan. Meanwhile, Henin was the one who didn’t blink when the going got tough. Still, it was delightful in 2005 to see Clijsters at last breakthrough and earn a Slam at the US Open. She had labored long, lost painfully, smiled through all of it, even maintained a long-term romance with the roguish Lleyton Hewitt.
And now she is back. How will it go? Writing about this game for so long has taught me the dangers of making predictions. But let’s face it: The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour is in an odd phase. Watching such stars as Henin, Davenport, Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati and others fade prematurely (or maybe not?) has left a constant gap at the top. I tip my hat to the Williams sisters for their enduring excellence – at least at Slams. The Russians continue to punch the clock and generate results – even if earning those Slams is somewhat evasive. Once Venus and Serena are gone, there’s a good chance no American women will be in the top 30. So amid all these vacuums, why shouldn’t Clijsters give it a go? Her work ethic is solid. Her meat-and-potatoes playing style (and that’s a compliment) makes it easy for her to return to competition. She’s earned tenure with her requisite Slam, and with a child in tow, probably doesn’t feel the need to win another. But it’s clear from her manner and approach that she never wanted to be the tennis equivalent of a Nobel Laureate. Just hit a few balls, make a few bucks and keep being nice. Colleagues in a team sport might not be so content to hear about a teammate who wants to play it this way. But in an individual sport, Clijsters is utterly free to choose. I hope she can give us more than a few engaging moments. As always, we would love to hear from you! Questions, comments, personal experiences all create helpful dialogue for everyone! Please click here to send us your email.
If you wish to be removed from our newsletter list, please send an email to newsletter-unsubscribe@tennisonedev.com and leave the subject line blank. A confirmation email will be sent to you, and you will be removed from our newsletter list once you reply to that confirmation.
|
|||||
