The Firekitten in France

I’ve been accused of neglecting Martina Hingis this week. I understand the sentiment, although my colleague, Pennsyltucky’s own Steve Tignor, dedicated The Wrap to Hingis’s win in Rome.

In any event, the biggest question developing on the women’s side of the draw as Roland Garros looms is: Can Hingis win? Think what a story this would be: in 1997, Hingis comes within one stinking match (yes, I thought about the adjective) – the French Open final - of becoming just the sixth player in the entire history of the game, and the first woman since Steffi Graf in 1988, to complete a Grand Slam.

Granted, a win in the Roland Garros final would not have ensured a Slam; the pressure on Hingis with a potential Grand Slam in the offing at Wimbledon and especially the the U.S. Open would have been unbelievable, and its effect unpredictable. . . Still. . .

I’m more sanguine about Hingis’s chances than many of you appear to be, for a variety of reasons. One of them is that Justine Henin-Hardenne, she of the mystery virus, seems to be writing off her own chances - and in her own diary, no less! (Samantha: you touch that keyboard and I shoot the dog!).

It’s funny, earlier today I thought about posting this diary entry as a breathtaking example of the fine art of using a remarkable number of words to say absolutely nothing. But then it struck me: there’s a vein of negativity a mile wide in here, even though it couldn’t be presented in a more inchoate, abstract way.

I think The Little Backhand That Quit is preparing her fans for the worst. This is noteworthy, because I decided while writing my last post (“A Tin of Caviar and a Good Book”) that Henin-Hardenne, on form, probably has the best (and certainly the most attractive) clay-court game of this era. She is the closest thing the women have to a Gustavo Kuerten, in the sense that she also has these three key clay-court assets: liquid, seemingly effortless movement, tremendous stroking versatility, and a physical, well, can we agree to call it “lightness”, or is that too obtuse?

Now, who is the next most famous player who has those three qualities?

I know what some of you are thinking and let me ask you this: if size is so important, why did I have to put in so much time being bored to tears watching Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario at Roland Garros? Clay is the surface on which size matters least. That Hingis, four times a semifinalist and twice in the final, never won in Paris is nothing less than an unfortunate, historical aberration, like Bjorn Borg never having won the U.S. Open.

So, with Henin-Hardenne showing signs of physical as well as psychological fragility, Venus Williams looming lean as a human question mark, Amelie Mauresmo haunted by her fickle French fantoms, Mary Pierce off the radar, Elena Dementieva having to serve and Petrova sailing into uncharted psychic territory – well, why not?

I can think of only two words: Kim Clijsters.

If Not So Li’l Kim is firing on all cylinders, she can really rough up the Firekitten. Her sheer physicality is a powerful advantage, and she has the strokes and clay-court savvy to dictate the tempo of the match, and also to bring stamina and power into the equation. But that’s about it. She’s the only woman I can see neutralizing Hingis’s strategic and shotmaking abilities.

So Hingis is well-positioned to make a strong run in Paris. While everyone else has been struggling with injury, and grappling with personal drama or Hamlet-esque ambivalence, Hingis has piled a lot of match capital into her account. Her game is very squared away; she knows who she is, and she knows exactly what she’s doing with her life, and why.
Plus, she brings both a boatload of experience and a lingering aura of unifinished business to Paris.

I see only one question that has nothing to do with an opponent’s game hanging over Hingis’s status as a contender: will she have the patience to grind, if grind she must?

For to me, one of the areas in which Hingis was relatively weak is patience; she doesn’t really like to sit back and wait out an opponent the way you sometimes must on clay. This is great for spectators, because she really forces the action and creates compelling strategic and shotmaking situations. But it - and has - caused problems for her, on days when she may not be completely on top of her game.

But if she can show a little more Sanchez-Vicario – when required – Hingis can win it.