If so many people picked Kim Clijsters to win Down Under, why do I still hear the women's tournament called, essentially, the Wide Open Open?
Maybe it's because the No. 30 and No. 25 seeds made it to the final eight. Maybe it's because the top two seeds still have so much to prove. Or maybe it has something to do with Cljisters herself. A two-time defending U.S. Open champion shouldn't let a 5-0 first-set lead evaporate on her way to losing a match. Clijsters didn't do that today—it happened a few weeks ago in the Sydney final, against Li Na, who Clijsters could face in the Oz final—but the gush of errors that led to that collapse lingered in her night match with Ekaterina Makarova. Luckily for Clijsters, the episode was quickly contained.
Clijsters started this match perfectly, breaking and holding serve. Makarova appeared overwhelmed by the moment—she was facing Clijsters, in Rod Laver Arena, in the second night match—and I almost expected her to go all Dinara Safina on us. To her credit, she did not. But some of that must be credited, in a negative light, to Clijsters. The Belgian missed net approaches, forehands and routine rally exchanges. She was incapable of playing winning, aggressive tennis. Her opponent's inexperience was the only thing that saved her. Makarova offered Clijsters many opportunites to recover her break advantage, but the No. 3 seed locked up. It wasn't until a tiebreaker—which Clijsters, by the end of all this, was somewhat fortunate to get into—that Makarova went awry. It was much closer than it should have been, but Clijsters took the first set.
And then, as if on command, Clijsters indeed looked like the concensus pre-tournament favorite. The transformation took place at 1-1 in the second set; from the first backhand she struck that game, you could tell Makarova was in for it. Locked in, Clijsters won five of the next six games for the match. It was the kind of finishing sprint that reminded us why we like Clijsters' chances so much. At the end of the day, it was a win. But she's not invincible—which, I guess, makes the draw wide open.
—Ed McGrogan