Wimbledon 2011: Why Serena Williams Can Make a Deep Run in Her First Major Back
Serena Williams will make her long anticipated return to the WTA tour this week at Eastbourne. However, it is her return to Wimbledon next week that everyone is looking forward to.
After winning Wimbledon last year, Williams has not played a single tournament due to an injured foot she suffered last year and then the pulmonary embolism (lung issue) she suffered earlier this year.
Despite this being her first major back, there is no reason Serena can't make a deep run.
The women's tour is so topsy-turvy that tying to pick a winner is like trying to pick between Marisa Miller or Brooklyn Decker; it just can't be done!
When you look at the top 10 players (rankings wise) on the WTA, there are nine major titles combined. Seven of those nine belong to Kim Clijsters and Maria Sharapova.
Serena, of course, has 13 major titles, four of those coming at Wimbledon. This should give her plenty of confidence despite the limited preparation.
She knows that many of the top women are struggling to win their first or multiple major titles, and with her experience, she must feel a good sense of confidence.
She may have lost some of her conditioning due to the long lay off, but if her shots are still there, her potent forehand and serve will be as good as any other players in the field.
There will be no fear, and if anything, Serena should come into this feeling at ease.
Look what Kim Clijsters did in her first major back. If Clijsters could win the U.S. Open after two years gone, why can't Serena win Wimbledon after a one year absence?
The main questions are where will she be seeded, and what will her draw look like. These will be big factors in what she will be able to do.
I don't see Serena winning the title. I do, however, see an extremely good run coming. Expect Serena to make at least the quarters with the semis being an extremely good possibility.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?