Why Wimbledon still matters in tennis world

SI.com tennis producer Kristin Green Morse checked in with Sports Illustrated senior writer S.L. Price, who is covering Wimbledon for the magazine. In part II of their Q&A Price weighs in on why Wimbledon still matters, whether the Williams sisters still care about tennis and who he thinks will walk away with the 2004 title.

Click here for part I.

After his first-round Wimbledon loss, Marat Safin professed, "I love tennis, I just don't like grass." Clive Rose/Getty Images

SI.com: Players seem to have strong opinions about Wimbledon. Some love it (Serena Williams, for example) and others have less than positive feelings toward the grass-court Slam (Marat Safin). What is it about this Major that inspires such emotions?

Price: On paper, it shouldn't be nearly as important as it still is because very few tournaments are played on grass, and nobody grows up on that surface. Almost always, with a few exceptions like Conchita Martinez, whoever wins Wimbledon matters in the long run in the game. Wimbledon's place as a certifier of tennis greatness has not been undermined by the fact it is a grass-court tournament.

Because Wimbledon is played on grass and because it is a short season, it creates the illusion in some players' minds that it is a tournament that can be dismissed. For certain "rebels" it's an early right of passage to say, "Wimbledon, who cares?" It is, of course, what Andre Agassi said years ago. It was his persona to be a rebel. He thought he didn't need Wimbledon to be a great tennis player. Then he came in and donned the whites. It's one of those great ironies in Agassi's career that the first Slam he won was Wimbledon. It's perfect -- even the ultimate post-modern rebel ends up getting certified at the one Slam he insisted didn't matter.

So for Safin to say he's giving up on Wimbledon is absurd. For clay courters to pass on it like they have in the past is ridiculous. Everyone knows with all of Wimbledon's idiosyncrasies, it is still the absolute necessary Slam. It is the one Major you need on your resume if you want to certify your career and prove that you are one of the greats. That's why Ivan Lendl tried to go after it year after year and ultimately failed. He understood how important it was.

SI.com: But why is it so important?

Price: First of all, it's tradition. Real tennis was basically invented here in England. It has the most historical resonance in a sport with very little historical resonance. The records are shoddy, and the sport was fractured for so long -- split between pre-Open era and Open era -- that it's hard to compare players of different eras. It's not like baseball with these great traditions and numbers used for historical comparisons.

It is the largest anchor to history the game has. Pete Sampras -- a guy who made his name from start to finish at the U.S. Open -- consistently referred to Wimbledon as the Super Bowl of our sport. He's right. It's the showcase. The fact is the surface doesn't get in the way of certifying a player's greatness. If you win Wimbledon, you are obviously a great player and probably on your way to some sort of mark in the game.

The other thing is it's the one time of the year when there's no distraction from other sports in the United States. There's nothing on the docket to distract you from Wimbledon. By virtue of the calendar, it's the most important tennis tournament because there is almost nothing else to talk about during those two weeks.

Also, people who don't care about tennis, care about Wimbledon. The French Open is a connoisseur's Slam. If you love the game, you'll be interested in what goes on in Paris. But people who don't care about the game still want to know who won Wimbledon. And if you win Wimbledon, they think you are important.

The question is do the Williams sisters still care about tennis? AP

SI.com: What do Serena and Venus Williams need to do if they want to dominate again? Or, for that matter, do they want to dominate again?

Price: That's the biggest question: Do they care? Serena came to her press conference Tuesday and all she spoke about was her fashion line and her acting. There's a fine line. Ten years ago we were dealing with burnout cases at 16, so when the Williams sisters came on the scene, they were a breath of fresh air because they were interested in the rest of the world.

It is possible to be involved in the world and committed to tennis, but at this point, they don't appear to be all that interested in devoting themselves to dominating the game again. They seem to be using the game to get out, do their fashion, be a celebrity and have fun acting.

Doing what they did was hard. Remember they didn't pick tennis. It was chosen for them. Right from the start they were going to be tennis champions. That was a charming part of their story, but now they are old enough to choose for themselves. And the choices they're making don't suggest that they want to be great tennis champions. Their choices are telling people they are interested in the world and want to be fashion designers or actors or interior designers. That's well balanced and nice, but there's a point where they can do all that and their tennis will suffer.

The best thing for the women's game would be if the Williams sisters became fully committed to the game again. This sport follows the tone set by its biggest stars, and the women's game is in the doldrums. A large measure of that follows the mood that surrounds the Williams sisters. They seem lethargic about their commitment to the game, and as a result, their mood has filtered throughout the tour. The women's tour is lacking a certain verve and that compelling nature of what it had just a few years ago. The best thing would be for Venus and Serena to redeem their interest in the game and really go for it.

I think it would take Venus getting interested first to inspire Serena. If Venus decided she wanted to squeeze two more years out of this, Serena would follow suit. Every indication is that when Serena got committed, Venus opted out and made way for her younger sister. It was a strange psychological thing. For the two of them to get fully vested again, Venus has to lead the way and then Serena will follow. Venus is the lynchpin. If suddenly the two of them started competing again, it would revitalize the women's game.

SI.com: Your picks? Women? Men?

Price: I pick Serena. The competition is simply not there.

But I would like to see Venus win it. And I would like to see Venus beat Serena in a great match. That would be a great thing for exactly the reasons I just mentioned.

For the men, I think Roger Federer will win. One part of me wants Federer because I want great tennis to be rewarded, and he's playing the best tennis -- men or women -- in the world right now, and he has a beautiful game.

But if Goran Ivanisevic were suddenly to go on a run here, not only would I be happy, but you'd find a press room of overjoyed people. It would be such tremendous story. He's hilarious, and it would be fun. That scenario, though, is less serious -- it's not going to happen.

What I want and what the men's game needs is for Federer and Andy Roddick to produce a great match. I'll take either one in the end. Federer needs to be pushed in a way that forces him to show he's not only a great player but also a great champion and a great fighter. If Federer and Roddick were to have an outstanding match and start a great rivalry here, it would be great for the game.