U.S. Open star Oudin still needs work to reach next level; more mail

PRINT EMAIL FACEBOOK DIGG TWITTER RSS SHARE

Melanie Oudin remains feisty, but the teen will need more work on her game to take the next step forward in her young career. AP

WTHIGOW Melanie Oudin?
-- Tom, Riverwoods, Ill.

• For those new to the show, WTHIGOW is short for What The Heck Is Going On With. Oudin had a terrific U.S. Open. That's beyond debate. She competed fiercely. She beat a host of top players. And she handled an unexpected onslaught of pressure and scrutiny with aplomb and grace. The machine, however, went into overdrive. Suddenly, she was being hailed as the savioress of American tennis, the second coming of Justine Henin. One of you suggested she be granted a wild card at the WTA year-end championship.

There's plenty of reason to support Oudin. But right now she is what she is: a feisty and fierce player, with a strong will to compete, better-than-average strokes, a below-average serve and a pleasant off-court disposition. Games aren't stagnant and she could well get to the next level. But the expectation that she would replicate her U.S. Open success, especially at the end of a long season, just isn't realistic.

While I don't condone Andre Agassi's drug use and lying, I find the tennis pros' outrage and condemnation hypocritical and sanctimonious. If the reporting is correct, tanking matches is fairly common and taking appearance fees and losing in the first round is common -- all of which is dishonest. Serena Williams practically admits she doesn't try very hard in regular tour events even though promoters sell tickets using her name. Where is the outrage over practices that seem far more harmful to the tour than Andre's admissions? Appreciate your thoughts on this.
-- Sharon Newell, Houston

• As I said on my podcast, some of the player responses should be considered in context. Rafael Nadal gets asked about Agassi on the first day of the media blitz. He hasn't read the book and doesn't know the details. I suspect Nadal was blindsided. (Best-case scenario: A few seconds before the press conference, an aide or ATP operative tells him, "Hey, Agassi has a new book and admits to drug use. You might get asked about it.") He can either side with Agassi and condone drug use -- headline: Nadal says crystal meth no big deal! -- or he can say something similar to what he said.

In other cases, the outrage does indeed sound sanctimonious. Marcelo Rios is taking shots at Agassi? Really? Marat Safin is suggesting Agassi make a contribution to the ATP? For real? Ilie Nastase is now popping off? I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a code, more solidarity here. But this tells you plenty about how fiercely gladiatorial a sport tennis is. There's no omerta here. The prevailing sentiment seems to be: Agassi lied and played when he should have been banned. He took food off my table!

But this absence of honor among thieves goes both ways, too. Whether it was Michael Chang's piety or Pete Sampras' essential dullness or Boris Becker's preening, Agassi sure let fly. Say this: What happened in the ATP's inner sanctum sure didn't stay in Vegas.

About a month ago, I picked up Sampras' autobiography and re-read it, not knowing Open was soon to hit the shelves. Sampras has battled the "too boring" charge his entire life, but it seems to me that when you read his autobiography next to Agassi's, it puts any defense out of reach. And I'm not talking about Agassi's bombshell revelations, or the family dynamic he was born into. Agassi simply seems to have noticed more and done more thinking about it. Your thoughts?
-- Doyle Srader, Eugene, Ore.

• You know how in other sports, the fans of the winning team will yell, Scoreboard! to quell any protests or antics by the losing opposition? At some level, this ought to be Sampras' defense to all this. As much as I've defended Agassi in recent weeks, I thought his treatment of Sampras was pretty shabby. Sampras did not return my e-mail seeking comment, and I don't entirely blame him -- not sure what there is to be gained. But I wonder if he isn't thinking: Did we come here to be deep thinkers and make interesting observations and amass dramatic stories? Or did we come here to win tennis matches? Assuming it's the latter, I stand by my record. Scoreboard, dude.

All well and good that Agassi can position himself as more self-actualized, more dharma-prone. Sampras won more majors and I suspect that's good enough for him.

I was wondering if your interview with Andre while he was in New York will appear in Sports Illustrated or on the Web. Thanks.
-- Gerry Koppe, Newington, Conn.

• Here you go.

What do you make of Novak Djokovic playing almost 100 matches in 2009? You often talk about the schedule being too long. But it doesn't seem too long for some players.
-- Charles, Virginia

• The other players must feel like John Lovitz chastising Josh Baksin/Tom Hanks in the movie Big. "Psssst. You're working too hard. Pace yourself. You're making the rest of us look bad!" I give Djokovic a lot of credit. Especially for a guy who hasn't always been the model of durability, good for him for playing so well this late in the season. That said, this is the rule rather than exception. Just survey the field: Roger Federer is wearying. Nadal still doesn't look 100 percent. Andy Roddick is out for the rest of the year. Andy Murray is playing through wrist pain. The players are asked to play a schedule that is simply not physically sustainable over the long haul.