FRENCH OPEN: Add the Worst of Kim 1.0 to the Worst of Kim 2.0. What do you Get? Kim Clijsters Loses in Major Upset

Kim Clijsters loses at French Open

She was playing on a heavily taped ankle after tearing ligaments in an accident while dancing at a wedding. She hadn’t had much time to practice. But Kim Clijsters showed up at the French Open anyway, and courageously pla. . .

I don’t think so. That is not the narrative here.

Clijsters lost to Arantxa Rus, ranked somewhere in the low millions, 3-6, 7-5, 6-1 Thursday in the second round of the French Open. She had match point for a blowout win, and then just, poof, fell apart.

This wasn’t about her ankle, fitness or rust. Instead, it was an incredible combination of all things wrong with Kim 1.0 (choker) and Kim 2.0 (inexplicable disappearing act), on both sides of her maternity leave/retirement. It was as if she picked out all the bad parts of a great career.

“I started doubting a little bit,’’ she said. “For me, definitely on clay, it’s the wrong attitude to have.’’

Up 6-3, 5-2, match point, she doubted herself against someone named Arantxa Rus? Then, she lost 11 of the next 12 games?

Rus hit eight winners the entire match. Clijsters made 65 unforced errors, with 10 double-faults. Think about that: 65 unforced errors in 28 games. That’s 2.32 per game.

I’m not big on stats, but Rus won 101 points in the match. Clijsters handed her 65 of them.

Going into the tournament, it was guesswork as to how prepared Clijsters would be. Her loss opens up the draw perfectly for Maria Sharapova, my pick to win the tournament and rejuvenate women’s tennis.

For Clijsters, with a bad ankle it would be hard to get in position. With a bad ankle, it would be hard to spring up and into her serve. Right?

“If I wasn’t feeling like I was able to play tough matches physically, then I wouldn’t have made that decision to come here,’’ she said. “Physically everything was fine. It’s better to try than not to try. . .I definitely don’t regret it.’’

She had to come. She had won the past two majors and was halfway to the Kim Slam, winning four in a row. That’s just too great of an opportunity to pass up. On top of that – side bonus — it would have given her something Justine Henin had never accomplished. Kim 1.0 was always in Henin’s shadow, with both having come from Belgium and Henin being one of the greatest players of all time.

Clijsters, ranked No. 2, has won three majors during her comeback, and established herself historically, too.

Kim 1.0 used to be such a choker in big moments, despite all that talent. She seemed too nice or something, though she did have that U.S. Open title. But when she returned in summer of 2009, she started beating top players immediately. It was impressive, and motivational, for her to get into such a world-class level of fitness so shortly after having a baby. But also, it was embarrassing to the women’s tour for top players to lose to someone who had just come back.

Well, she has now established herself as a real champion, but I’m still not sure how much of that is her maturity and how much is this: It’s easier to hold her nerve now because of the lower level of players she’s facing.

Probably some of both. (And she did beat Serena Williams in the 2009 U.S. Open semis).

Whatever the reason, the great thing about Kim 2.0 has been her nerve, her relentlessness. There is not enough of that on the women’s tour.

But last year at the Australian Open, she lost 6-0, 6-1 in the third round to Nadia Petrova. Afterward, she said she didn’t know what had happened, or why. That has been the only thing wrong with Kim 2.0: Sometimes, though rarely, she just isn’t there.

I suspect that has something to do with the demands of being a mother who stays involved, and with the difficulty of staying focused at all times.

When she won the 2009 U.S. Open just weeks after coming back, imagine what kind of a wild celebration she must have had. This is true: Hours after the match, past midnight, I saw her with a small group in Times Square, just standing there looking at the lights. . .and pushing her baby in a stroller.

I wonder how committed she will be to the game anymore. In January, she said that 2012 would be her last full year on tour. If it weren’t for the London Olympics out there next summer, she might be gone by now.

A few weeks ago, when she tore the ankle ligament at a wedding, I wondered if we’d seen the last of her. She said she was dancing barefoot and stepped on the side of someone’s foot. Then, while she hobbled off the floor, someone else stepped on her toe.

I doubt she was fine physically Thursday, no matter what she said. That was just the toughness and sportsman in her, not willing to blame injuries and take credit from her opponent, who is actually ranked No. 114.

You can argue that Clijsters just isn’t fully back from that yet. But I think her focus on tennis is going to start splintering even more. How much more does she have to prove, and how much can she?

Also, is it worth the grind to do it?


About gregcouch

I can talk tennis all day long, and often do. And yet some of the people I talk to about it might rather I talk about something else. Or with someone else. That’s how it is with tennis, right? Sort of an addiction. Sort of a high. I am a national columnist at and a FoxSports1 TV insider, and have been a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times. In 2010, I was the only American sports writer to cover the full two weeks of all four majors, and also to cover each of the U.S. Masters series events. I’ve seen a lot of tennis, talked with a lot of players, coaches, agents. I watched from a few rows behind the line judge as Serena rolled her foot onto the baseline for the footfault, a good call, at the 2009 U.S. Open. I sat forever watching a John Isner marathon, leaving for Wimbledon village to watch an England World Cup soccer game at a pub and then returning for hours of Isner, sitting a few feet from his wrecked coach. I got to see Novak Djokovic and Robin Soderling joke around on a practice court on the middle Sunday at Wimbledon, placing a small wager on a tiebreaker. Djokovic won, and Soderling pulled a bill out of his wallet, crumpled it into his fist and threw it at Djokovic, who unwadded it, kissed it, and told me, “My work is done here.’’ And when Rafael Nadal won the French Open in 2010, I finished my column, walked back out onto the court, and filled an empty tic tac container with the red clay. I’m looking at it right now. Well, I don’t always see the game the same way others do. I can be hard on tennis, particularly on the characters in suits running it. Tennis has no less scandal and dirt than any other game. Yet somehow, it seems to be covered up, usually from an incredible web of conflicts of interest. I promise to always tell the truth as I see it. Of course, I would appreciate it if you’d let me know when I’m wrong. I love sports arguments and hope to be in a few of them with you here. Personal info: One-handed backhand, serve-and-volleyer. View all posts by gregcouch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: