The Sharapova Shift:  Less Love for Clijsters & Co.  (Part two in a series)

Part one can be found here.  In it, I address the theory that media covers Maria Sharapova so much that it detracts from the achievements of other women athletes.  Part one also covers Kim Clijsters' historic U.S. Open win in 2005 and some reasons why she deserved more votes for the 2005 AP Female Athlete of the Year.

 

THE STORY

One the rise in 2003, Clijsters had reached world number one in singles and finished the year ranked second.  She was either semi-finalist or finalist in the four Grand Slams and won the year-end, round-robin WTA Tour Championship -- in which only the top 8 tour players of the year are invited.  Clijsters' $4.4 million in tournament winnings still stands as the highest year total on the WTA Tour money list.

She continued her form in January 2004 by contesting the Australian Open title, losing to fellow Belgian Justine Henin-Hardenne for the third time in a Slam singles final.  Clijsters had beaten Henin-Hardenne several times for titles on smaller stages.  She had chances in all the Slam singles finals she'd reached, but never made good on them.  Aside from her doubles Slam titles, her mental game seemed shaky when it came time to be a champion.  She was known as the best player never to have won a singles Slam.

Clijsters then had to pull out of the French Open in May, hampered by injury.  She was often seen in the friends' box of Austalian men's number one Lleyton Hewitt, her fiance.  A month later, she withdrew from Wimbledon.  Surgery was required to remove a cyst and repair a tear in her left wrist.  Doctors told her she might not play again.  Unable to compete in the final Slam of 2004, she watched tournaments from the stands in a cast -- but believed she would be back on court in the fall.

Given the go-ahead, Kim attempted a comeback in September and reinjured the healing wrist.  Looking at her MRIs, several doctors told her they would not have let her start competing when she did.  Fortunately, she didn't need more surgery.  But she did have to cope with the end of her relationship with Hewitt.

She released a statement saying she would focus on rehabilitation and wouldn't play until 2005.  When the calendar turned to January, she withdrew from the Australian Open.

By the time Clijsters returned to competition in February, her world ranking had fallen to 133.  Clijsters entered tournaments unseeded, but she quickly showed she belonged back on top in Miami and Indian Wells. She won those back-to-back Tier 1 titles, in the process defeating five of the women ranked in the top six at the time:  then-reigning French Open champion Anastasia Myskina, Elena Dementieva, Sharapova, Amelie Mauresmo and world number one Lindsay Davenport.

She had returned convincingly, with an improved forehand.  Clijsters had practiced hard in her off-time, learning to make adjustments in her game.  She will always have to be mindful of her wrist, but acknowledges her injury gave her perspective.

Clijsters' nine titles, including her historic U.S. Open Championship*, lead the WTA Tour in 2005.  It was the feel-good, comeback story of the year.

KIM KONG:  Perhaps you only know Clijsters as a destructive force.  No other player owns Sharapova the way Kim does.  Lifetime head-to-head?  4-0, Clijsters.

THE HONEY

I doubt Clijsters would say she is lacking for attention.  She won Belgium's Sportswoman of the Year for the fifth time.

The tennis community piled accolades on Clijsters for her year in 2005.  The International Tennis Federation named her World Champion.  Along with Player of the Year, the International Tennis Writers' Association also honored her with the Ambassador for Tennis Award.  The latter honors the players who go out of their way to promote tennis globally.  And the Lawn Tennis Writer's Association selected Kim for their inagural Stella Artois Award -- for the player who goes above and beyond to represent tennis in the highest manner.

Basically it acknowledges her phenomal year and her efforts with the media and public.  Clijsters enjoys her time with reporters and fans; she sees it as an important contribution to the sport.  Like the ATP's Roger Federer, who also won the men's ITF and ITWA awards,  Clijsters speaks multiple languages.  Her English is very good.

And by all accounts, Clijsters deserves her Miss Congeniality nickname -- she really IS that nice.  She has been voted as friendliest on the tour by her peers and was one of the first players to donate to the tsunami and Katrina tragedies.

 

---

 

"You don't have to hate an opponent to beat them." 

- Kim Clijsters

 

---

 

In terms of the tennis players considered, I find little rationale for the AP Female Athlete of the Year voting.  Sharapova and Venus Williams are quality, exciting players that bring much to the sport.  No need to detract from their contributions and performance.  Sharapova deserved her awards in 2004 and Venus' return to form was a crowd-pleaser.  But 2005 belongs to Kim.

Clijsters doesn't have the name recognition here in America that the other two players do.  Media and its consumers have a symbiotic relationship.  Sharapova ranks as the most searched athlete, woman or man, on Yahoo! Top Searches 2005.  Anna Kournikova ranks second.  Though Anna K. continues to play tennis in charitable events, I suspect most searches aren't looking for her philanthropic contributions.  So I surmise that not all searches are based on recent athletic accomplishments.  (Another athlete on the top ten list is Michael Jordan.)  Interest in Sharapova is partly based on her appearance and frequency in the press.

So, if more of the general public were aware on Clijsters' significance in 2005, would she have made that list?

In the last two years,  women's tennis has not had a player dominate the way Federer rules the men's tour.  The Grand Slams have crowned seven different women as winners; only Henin-Hardenne won two Slam titles in that time.

Sharapova may be the most "popular," but several women on the tour deserve some additional press.   Media attention and marketability affects sponsor and endorsement oppotunites and athlete can get.  Top -- and poular -- players get center court preferences.  Larger venues allow for larger audiences... feeding more interest in a player.

Currently, of the eight women left in the Australian Open singles draw, only Sharapova has played every one of her matches in Rod Laver Arena, home of the finals and the largest venue in Melbourne.  Sharapova is seeded fourth for the tournament.  Seeds 1-3 (Davenport, Clijsters and Mauresmo) are still in the hunt; they have all played on other courts at least once.  Sharapova's quarterfinal opponent  is Nadia Petrova, the sixth seed.  Petrova hasn't even played a match in Rod Laver Arena once this tournament.  Neither has Patty Schnyder, the seventh seed. 

I don't envy tournament organizers.  They have to scedule matches day-by-day, based on results and guessing at possibly intriguing matchups.  Center court and night matches bring in more revenue.  They bow somewhat to public interest.  The public is apparently demanding Maria. 

Who's in control here -- media or public --and is it fair?  Rod Laver (and other center courts) offers a bigger atmosphere than any other court in Melbourne.  Finals are played and Champions made there.  There is a mental advantage to have experienced the atmosphere before a big match.  To Maria, it must feel like home. To Petrova, it's another hurdle.  Petrova's a player on the verge, is the public aware of her?

Surely there is enough media love to go around.  Last fall, Federer -- who manages his own career more than other players -- enlisted IMG to handle his marketing.  Not to increase his appearances; he feels he is already booked up.  Fed entrusts IMG to keep his year simple, so he can focus on winning.

I don't intend a sweeping condemnation of the media.  For example, Sports Illustrated's Elizabeth Newman profiled Clijsters as her Sportsman of the Year (award went to New England QB Tom Brady). And fans -- regardless of level or purpose of interest -- are certainly allowed to choose their favorites based on decibels of grunts or glamour girl photos.  Given more information, though, they might make different choices.

I expect more depth of interest and knowledge from the AP sports editors.  I cannot help but think Clijsters' place in history slipped by too quietly.  The predominance of Sharapova in the media may also be hindering careers of other players.  However, should Petrova top Maria, no doubt it will be big news.

 

Note: There will possibly be a third installment in the series, with more focus on Sharapova and other athletes.  If so, I will link it here.

*detailed in Part One of the series