
Here come the Fashion PoliceWhen it comes to style, what happens on the court is all that mattersPosted: Monday September 6, 2004 3:52PM; Updated: Monday September 6, 2004 3:52PM Answering a few questions between the day and night sessions at the U.S. Open ...
What is it with these fashion statements? Serena Williams in boots and a mini skirt? I've seen that look before, but it wasn't on a tennis court. Are we so easily bored with everything that we need this MTV-type visual displays to grab the attention of viewers? Tennis is a great sport and these fashions look inappropriate. Or is it me? It's you. The players' attire was a hot topic last week, both at the tennis center and in Bagville. Me? I go full libertarian on this. If a player wants to perform wearing a kilt and bagpipes -- or, to get really ridiculous, a studded Daisy Duke top, a sausage-casing-tight denim skirt and Harley boots -- let them. Anything so harmless that has the effect of building a player's image, creating self-expression and injecting "personality" ought to be permitted. Thanks in part to having 32 seeds, the first few days of matches tend to be blah. Serena won her first match in roughly the time it takes to read this sentence. If she is wearing a white-pleated skirt, what's there to talk about? Same for Andy Roddick. His subway map attire might be tennis' biggest fashion faux pas since Ivan Lendl tried to make argyle hip, but it's conversation fodder. Lighten up, guys. And be glad the catsuit is in mothballs. What's up with Nike's clothing marketing strategy? I realize tennis needs to reach the masses, but the Tony Soprano-style shirts for men and Serena's biker chic suggests Nike is taking tennis to the trailer-park crowds. It is one of those unnatural fits, much like when George H.W. Bush says he eats pork rinds. In the interest of bipartisanship, we could also liken this to Michael Dukakis in the tank. I sort of agree with you. If Nike wants to appeal to "the trailer-park crowds," as you delicately put it, that's fine by me. Here's what I don't understand: Why outfit players in apparel that isn't available to the regular consumer. Serena's outfits, for one. It's like debuting a car at an auto show that isn't mass produced. What's the reasoning behind the 32 seeds? I hate it. I go back and forth. You hate it during the first week when upsets are few and far between, and the top seeds often face opponents with rankings in the triple digits. On the other hand, this "added layer of protection" pays dividends the second week when you have matches such as Venus Williams-Lindsay Davenport, Serena-Jennifer Capriati and Roger Federer-Andre Agassi. Tournaments -- and their television and corporate partners -- like big-time matches and hate it when seeds lose early. Doubling the seeds also rewards Nos. 17 to 32 for their efforts, ensuring they won't play a highly ranked opponent until the third round. I can imagine it was immensely frustrating to be ranked, say, No. 20 and having to face a high seed in the first round, particularly when you're so dependent on the Slams for a paycheck. As it stands, a player ranked between 17th and 32nd who lives up to his seeding is guaranteed $40,000 for reaching the third round. Speaking of earnings ... How much money do players earn per rounds, including the finals of the U.S. Open? Here are the totals for tennis: First round -- $14,000 So, out of the blue, I started thinking about Magnus Norman today. What happened to him? I know he had some injuries, but I didn't think he had retired. Word from the ATP is Norman underwent double-hip surgery in Nashville on Jan. 23, and was expected to be out six months (but we're moving in on eight now). He has not retired. He is, however, a possible victim of the "Curse of Chucky." Take a look at the various players with whom Martina Hingis has been romantically linked: Norman, Justin Gimelstob, Julian Alonso and Ivo Heuburger. Then plot their careers on a graph before and after the romance. It's pretty scary. Maybe I'm biased towards Venus Williams, but I was shocked to see the scheduling of her first-round match on Louis Armstrong Stadium, as opposed to Arthur Ashe. Is there a method used to determine who plays on what court? And please don't say it's based on ranking, because the following day players ranked outside of the top 10 were scheduled for Ashe. I wouldn't read too much into it. It was strange seeing Venus perform in front of a sparse crowd on Armstrong while Maria Sharapova played to the masses in the big house. But a) Venus was the 11th seed, and b) she kicked off the night session on Ashe 48 hours later. Is Alicia Molik the new Brenda Schultz, a player with a big game, capable of beating anyone but also capable of losing early? That's not a bad comparison. Molik has had an awfully nice year, nearly cutting her ranking in half from No. 35 in January to No. 18 heading into the Open. But her play in the majors leaves something to be desired. If she wants to take that next step -- and she has the percussive game to do it -- she needs to find a way to win matches like her second-rounder at the U.S. Open against Daniela Hantuchova. Speaking of Hantuchova, what a peculiar (if fittingly peculiar) tournament. She barely beats lucky-loser Camille Pin in the first round, winning a shaky third-set tiebreaker 11-9. Then she rewinds the clock to 2002 and takes out Molik. In the third round, she has Patty Schnyder on the ropes in a third-set tiebreaker: Schnyder frames a lob winner, Hantuchova gets rattled and loses. Agassi has long been my favorite player, and since he has now amassed half of his career Grand Slam titles at the Australian Open, I was wondering why so many players from the previous generation lacked success at the Aussie Open? (Jimmy Connors won once, while Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe never won Down Under.) Scheduling, money, lack of prestige? Please fill in the gap. All three. Until recently, the Australian Open was the red-headed stepchild of the Slams. Consider that Borg only ventured to Melbourne once. When the organizers upgraded the venue, changed surfaces and moved it from the end of the year to the start of the year, good things happened. Though the prize money still lags behind the other majors, it's come a long way in terms of prestige. Do you think we will ever see a talented collegian break the top 10 in rankings? It seems that all of the top-tier pros skip college, and that the best collegians never amount to much in the pro ranks. Matt wrote this question while driving back and forth from the A&W Root Beer franchises on the opposite side of his Wyoming town. No wait, that's someone else. Anyway, a collegian breaking into the top 10? Yes. A college graduate? No. In recent years, Lisa Raymond (Florida) has come reasonably close. Same for James Blake (Harvard). If his play at the Open is a sign of things to come, Amer Delic (Illinois) has a shot. If you're 18 years old and you don't know if you're ready -- physically, emotionally or financially -- for the tour, playing college tennis is a good way to see how you stack up and how much the sport means to you. If, however, you wait until you're 22 to start your career, you're really playing catch-up. Do you know if any videos exist of a Yvonne Goolagong match, and if so, how I could obtain one? Can anyone help out Robert? Who is Al Trautwig? Does he have an extensive background with pro tennis? Every time I see him interview players, something doesn't seem right. The other night he botched Maria Sharapova's name. It's one thing to mispronounce her name, but to call her "Shaparova" more than once was embarrassing. What's your take on Al? Trautwig is a long-time and well-respected sports TV personality in New York. Many of you probably also know him from the gymnastics coverage at the Olympics. So his credentials are legit. But a number of you wrote in with similar gripes, and I think they're well-founded. Apparently Trautwig claimed that Sharapova was French, and I happened to catch him butchering Anna Chakvetadze's name beyond recognition. Look, you don't need to know Janette Husarova's record against lefties on clay to do a good job in that "host" role. But when you mispronounce Sharapova (and, according to you guys, that was hardly the only gaffe) you lose credibility. Seems as though there's a new host every year (Bill Patrick, Chris Myers, etc.) Maybe they ought to give the job to an insider such as Jim Courier or Tracy Austin or the Tennis Channel's Geoff Grant. Todd Spiker of Hedgesville, W.Va., writes: Interesting trivia question of the week: Who was the last woman --- not named Williams -- seeded outside the top three to advance to the U.S. Open final? Answer: 12th-seeded Helena Sukova in 1993. The times the Williams sisters have done so: Serena in '99 (No. 7) and '01 (No. 10), Venus in '97 (unseeded) and '01 (No. 4). For those interested in reading Agassi's speech for Steffi Graf during her induction into the International Hall of Fame, please click here. It's a great read! Thanks. A lot of you referenced this. Daniel Andersen of Richmond, Va., referenced this site. You can also go here. What's up with Geico and Dunkin' Donuts endorsing some of the lesser ranked players? Is this a deal the players have specifically made for the U.S. Open? What do the players get for promoting Dunkin' Donuts and Geico? Money? Free breakfast donuts? A gecko? It's nice to see the journey folk -- the ones who really need the sponsorship -- getting some love. But I, too, don't quite get Dunkin' Donuts. "Wear a patch and get all the free crullers and frothy coffee drinks you want." If I'm a world-class athlete, I'm not sure that's an ideal product association.
I had a shocking "siblings" revelation: Elena Dementieva and Amber Frey. Enjoy Week 2, everyone!
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim covers tennis for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com. |
| ||||