Analysis Of Li Na And Kim Clijsters At The Australian Open Against Technology

This paper takes Li Na and Kim Clijsters in2011and2012two edition of theAustralian Open tennis tournament in the two games as the research object, Expressionused literature, expert interviews, video statistics, and statistical method for Li Na inboth games and Kim Clijsters were studied. Careful observation and analysis ofreal-time war games, careful analysis of the failure factors of Li Na in the two games,points out the weakness of tactics, in order to facilitate the future for our other women’stennis players are more specific training; At the same time as they providecorresponding theoretical guidance in training and competition in the future, to improvethe competition level, help them to strive for greater breakthrough in the next game.The results of this study are as follows:1Li Na in2011, in2012two edition of the Australian Open tennis tournament tocompete with Kim Clijsters, the distribution general points: service stage, receivingstage, stalemate stage.2The service stage:in2011,in the Australian Open tennis tournament, Li Na’s1stserve of success ratio is much higher than that of Kim Clijsters, but the1st serve win ismuch lower than Kim Clijsters; Although she has1ACE ball, but has4double faults,and whether1st or2nd ball velocity are significantly lower than that of Kim Clijsters.The effects of normal racing because of Li Na’s scoring rate are much lower than theopponent in this game.The Australian Open tennis tournament in2012, similar to the2011. Comprehensive technical statistics of three disc, Li Na’s1st serve of success ratio(55%),2nd serve of score rate (59%),1st serve win (44%) serving winners (15) waslower than that of Kim Clijsters. Although the ACE sphere and serve speed higher thanKim Clijsters, but the service link instability is an important reason leading to Li Na’sdefeat.3The receiving stage: Li Na’s score was lower than that of Kim Clijsters. AlthoughLi Na’s service level is good, but the encounter of the players such as Kim Clijsters hadto bow to her superior skill.In the break rate, The2011Australian Open women’s singlesfinal, Li Na’s break rate is50%, only41%of Kim Clijsters. But Kim Clijsters was morethan Li Na the1break points, Li Na break5less than the opponent. This shows that LiNa in the return of serve should also further strengthen training.In the2012Australianopen, Although Li Na first set victory over Kim Clijsters but the company lost two disc, eventually missed the top8. Li Na and the success rate of only47%is far lower than the55%Kim Clijsters, let Li Na in passive situation on the service, not only can notachieve break also seriously affected the confidence of the game.4The stage of stalemate: The2011Australian Open match due to Li Na’s unforcederrors (40) was much higher than that of Kim Clijsters (26). This is also caused her tolose another key factor in the game. The winners and the volley technology, Li Nahigher than Kim Clijsters. The Volley times is not much higher success rate and let LiNa occupy a great advantage in the stalemate phase.But in the2012Australian open, LiNa’s online scoring rate and winners are far higher than Kim Clijsters, and unforcederror is below the Kim Clijsters. This fully shows Li Na’s volley technology andbackhand drive technology are more prominent.