In terms of physical talent, no woman on the professional tennis tour has more going for her than Svetlana Kuznetsova.

While Maria Sharapova’s impeccable strokes and good looks have captured the lion’s share of attention these last three years, Kuznetsova has performed almost as well as her more-heralded Russian counterpart. The 19-year-old Sharapova has a career winning percentage of 79.6%, compared to 69.7% for the 20-year-old Kuznetsova. She’s won 11 titles to Kuznetsova’s six; each of them owns one major (Wimbledon for Sharapova and the U.S. Open for Kuznetsova, both in 2004). Kuznetsova leads 3-2 in head-to-head meetings, with her latest victory coming in straight sets earlier this year in the final of the Nasdaq-100 Open.

Sharapova certainly possesses the better groundstrokes – her swings are smooth and consistent, compared to Kuznetsova’s more abbreviated and violent (and sometimes mistimed) hacks. Beyond that, Kuznetsova is Sharapova’s equal or better. Her first serve is as good, and her second serve has more kick. She is faster, stronger, and quicker around the court (despite being five inches shorter than Sharapova, she weighs 30 pounds more, much of it in legs befitting a world-class sprinter).

Kuznetsova volleys quite well, too, a skill she has honed during years of doubles with the likes of Martina Navratilova and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario. In more than 200 doubles matches, she has won 12 titles (including the U.S. Open), and reached the finals of the other three majors; Sharapova has played 39 doubles matches and won three small titles.

So why doesn’t this well-rounded and supremely athletic woman win more often? To have a thorough understanding of Kuznetsova’s problems, one need only to have watched her lose 7-5, 6-2 to Kim Clijsters yesterday in the final of the J &S Cup in Warsaw, Poland.

In two less-than-inspiring sets, the Russian took chances when she should not have, and did not take many that she should have. Despite the excellence of her serve, she was broken in all four of her second-set service games, largely because of terrible unforced errors and confounding strategic decisions. Whenever Kuznetsova put Clijsters in tough spot, she would give points away rather than making Clijsters work.

Take the first set. Clijsters won 44 points, 22 of them on Kuznetsova’s unforced errors. It’s too simple to say that Kuznetsova should make fewer mistakes; she is a powerful hitter, and should be expected to make more errors than her opponents – so long as she also hits more winners. It’s the kinds of mistakes she makes that are frustrating. At 1-1 in the first set, she flubbed three routine backhands and lost her serve. At other times, she took full cuts at running forehands and off-balance backhands when there was no chance for a winner and when Clijsters, who hardly ever approaches, was not pressing her to hit a stupendous shot.

Unforced errors are a measure of mistakes that land outside the lines; the stat does not encompass all errors in judgment. It’s judgment that troubles Kuznetsova most. Down 6-5, she wasted a break point by taking an unnecessary risk. Clijsters kicked a second serve to Kuznetsova’s backhand, and the Russian tried to step around it and pound a forehand return winner, a remote possibility against the speedy Clijsters, and too aggressive with a tiebreaker just one point away. She framed it for an error.

In the opening game of the first set, Kuznetsova approached on a short slice backhand, giving Clijsters an opencourt winner. For a woman with an average slice, it was not a wise play. Trailing by a set and down 0-40,it was downright stupid. As the match slipped away in the second set, Kuznetsova’s brain froze again as she attempted a drop shot on break point at 2-4 (Clijsters hustled and hit a winner).

After the match, Kuznetsova admitted her chief shortcoming of the afternoon: not approaching the net nearly enough. The tournament offered no statistics in that regard, but this viewer counted five volley winners to one miss. Kuznetsova’s backhand volley is firm and she can angle it precisely. The one volley she did miss was an awkward half-volley after a poor approach.

With so much skill at the net, so much experience in doubles, and so much athletic ability, the 10th-ranked Kuznetsova should be separating herself from the bashers who populate the women’s tour by moving forward. The fact that this match occurred on red clay is no excuse. For one, Kuznetsova trains in Spain and is comfortable on the surface (this was her third straight runner-up finish in Warsaw). For another, volleys can work great on clay – witness Roger Federer.

Speaking of Federer, it’s interesting to note that many of these criticisms were leveled at him before he won his first Wimbledon (you’ll remember that he defeated Pete Sampras in the fourth round at Wimbledon in 2001,only to lose to Tim Henman in the quarterfinals and then Mario Ancic in the first round ). Kuznetsova is no Federer in waiting. Though her speed is incredible – as evidenced by the Clijsters drop shot she retrieved from a foot behind the baseline yesterday – her footwork is at times suspect, leaving her in awkward positions as she swings. It’s difficult to imagine that she’ll strive to become an all court player rather than spend most of her time slugging balls from the baseline, which works just fine on the women’s tour right now.

Still, if Kuznetsova could take a page from Federer’s book by cutting down on dumb errors and moving forward a little more often, she might find that she can rattle an incredibly consistent player like Clijsters. She has made strides this year, but yesterday Clijsters never doubted that patient tennis would result in a Kuznetsova error. The Russian should not give her opponents time to think that waiting is an option.

***

In last week’s column, “The Evolution of Tennis Will Not Be Televised,” we incorrectly stated that no U.S. television network broadcast Rafael Nadal’s victory over Roger Federer in Dubai earlier this year. The Tennis Channel added the final to its schedule at the last minute. Credit to them, and to several readers who pointed out our mistake.

tperrotta@nysun.com