@@ism7588 I see what you mean. Both are good ball-strikers, and the movement is similar to an extent. But Clijsters had much more variety, touch, creativity, and basically was superior in every department - the shots, the footwork, the speed, the flexibility, the tactics...
@@LuLu-nw6bi Yea, superior, and that's why Iga already had more achievements at the age of 22, same ammount of slams, WTA Finals won, and much more weeks at no.1 than Kim
@@SmithyPL No, that's not why, superior means better. Swiatek has those results because her competition is WAY weaker than Clijsters'. You are welcome.
In the end too much power from Kim, and also her defensive and improvisation skills were too solid. Radwanska couldn't play cat and mouse as succesfully as she does against other players. Point at 10:40 is the perfect example, Kim still reaches that shot and hit an amazing running short BH cross for a winner.
These two are a joy to watch. Creativity, shot-making, mobility... Wish we had this kind of tennis today.
Iga plays a lot like Kim imo
@@ism7588 I see what you mean. Both are good ball-strikers, and the movement is similar to an extent. But Clijsters had much more variety, touch, creativity, and basically was superior in every department - the shots, the footwork, the speed, the flexibility, the tactics...
@@LuLu-nw6bi Yea, superior, and that's why Iga already had more achievements at the age of 22, same ammount of slams, WTA Finals won, and much more weeks at no.1 than Kim
@@SmithyPL No, that's not why, superior means better. Swiatek has those results because her competition is WAY weaker than Clijsters'. You are welcome.
More Clijsters highlights please!
In the end too much power from Kim, and also her defensive and improvisation skills were too solid. Radwanska couldn't play cat and mouse as succesfully as she does against other players. Point at 10:40 is the perfect example, Kim still reaches that shot and hit an amazing running short BH cross for a winner.