 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Sampras may be spent Posted: Tuesday June 18, 2002 12:34 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question. Just back from vacation. Check in later this week for my Wimbledon seed reports ... No matter how much respect I have for Pete Sampras, it's getting painful to watch him. He's getting more and more miserable taking bad losses every week, and his "next week's tournament may turn it around for me" has gone from desperate to truly hollow. Are you weakening at all on your "Pete should play as long as he chooses to" stance? It really just seems to be crushing both his own spirits and our memory of his dominance.
Let's be charitable toward one of the sport's pillars and reserve judgment until after Wimbledon. The All England has always been Sampras' personal grass playground. If he can right the ship anywhere, it's there. (Conversely, a bad loss at the event that he's essentially dominated for the past decade and you have to believe ... well, at the risk of getting all Yevgeny on you, you know where I'm going.) A few of you asked what I make of Sampras' epochal collapse, and I honestly don't know. It's not as though he is losing to elite players and simply relinquishing his grip to Generation Next. Falling to Lleyton Hewitt at the U.S. Open or Marat Safin in Australia would be understandable. But we're talking about (arguably) the greatest player of all time getting his hat handed to him by the likes of Fernando Gonzalez, Felix Mantilla, Andrea Gaudenzi, Alex Corretja and Nicolas Kiefer (on grass). Bad, bad losses, by any measure. Several readers noted that Sampras has never had Andre Agassi's work ethic or his devotion to conditioning. Now that Sampras is north of 30, it's catching up with him. True to a point, but I think the problem is far more about confidence than about huffing and puffing. Sampras always had that swagger, good for a few games a match, and always had a sixth sense for summoning his best tennis when he needed it most. Both have vanished. Part of what makes this particularly "painful," to use your word, is that Sampras had always been keenly aware of his legacy and, for years, has spoken of "going out on top." If he packed it in tomorrow, he would hardly be leaving at the pinnacle of his career. On the other hand, how many more demoralizing losses can his pride handle? We media types are duty-bound to suppress our rooting interests. But it's impossible not to wish some good fortune on Sampras next week. He deserves better than he's gotten lately. Now that Martina Navratilova has returned to singles play, I need to see it print. Say it, Jon. Navratilova vs. Kournikova: Who wins?
Beauty before age. Since a few of you asked, I hate to sound like a grump but am I the only person who thinks Martina's singles comeback is -- for lack of a better word -- lame? I'm all for her playing doubles; it's a chance to stay in shape, have some fun and give fans a chance to see a "lege" as Jennifer Capriati once memorably called her, live and in person. But when she takes a wild card and plays singles because she lost a bet it trivializes women's tennis. If she treats the sport as a lark, why should we take it seriously? Besides, she is depriving another struggling full-time player of a spot in the draw. It seems to me that if she loses, she is revealed as a hubristic old-timer who's lost to Father Time. If she wins, it's even worse: How many critics will chortle that the field in women's tennis is so threadbare that a fortysomething player who hasn't won a Slam in more than a decade can still hold her own? Why is it that clay-courters do not even attempt to play Wimbledon? French champ Albert Costa, with what has to be his highest-ever ranking, would not only have gotten his best draw (possibly), but also wouldn't he have been showcased more on the bigger courts? Yet he is skipping the tournament along with many others. Why is this so?
Lots of you ranting at the clay-courters for bailing on Wimbledon. The dirtballers have their reasons: They hate grass, they hate the subjective seedings, they hate those nasty English breakfast sausages. But I agree with you guys. It hurts the game when champions on one surface can't even be bothered to play a surface that suits them less well. Say what you will about Sampras' shortcomings in Paris: At least he tried. Though I'm reasonably sure this has been brought up already, I'm going to ask it anyway. Perhaps it's the kind of nonsensical question I can get answered here: Why is it considered bad form not to apologize after benefiting from a net cord? It's seems ridiculous. I mean, if you're going to apologize, why not say, "Hey, my bad. Let's just play this point over." Otherwise, why bother? The players aren't really sorry. Did Franco Harris apologize for the Immaculate Reception? Did Robert Horry apologize for receiving Vlade Divac's errant tip? You get the idea.
Donald? Is that you? Anyway, I don't have much of an answer. The mea culpa after the net court/net cord/let court winner is the least sincere gesture in sports. (Have you noticed this has been extended to mis-hit winners and lucky stab volleys?) I suppose it's become ossified as "etiquette" so that a player's failure to apologize is seen as a breach of civility. But I'm with you: Why not go all out and gesture apologetically for every imperfect winner? Gee, sorry for hitting that trifling service winner. What I really meant was to hit an ace on the line. Someone recently asked about entry into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. What do you think Todd Martin's chances would be should he retire in the next year or so? Although he hasn't won any majors, he has come close a couple of times, and he has been such a big name in the Davis Cup. I understand that he's one of the nicest and most well-liked players on the men's tour. Does he have a chance at the Hall?
Good question. Martin, of course, has never won a Grand Slam singles title, usually a prereq for enshrinement. Big Head Todd's career is nothing to sneeze at -- the odd Grand Slam final, success spanning more than a decade, Davis Cup reliability -- but it probably fails to meet Hall standards. However, given the precedent created by Pam Shriver last year -- and it's a good one, in my opinion -- perhaps Martin could overcome on-court shortcomings with his overall good-guyness and his off-court contributions to tennis. Much like Shriver, he is the proverbial "credit to the sport," and one suspects he'll figure prominently in some executive capacity once his playing days are done. The difference between Martin and Shriver is that she was one of the most accomplished doubles players of all time. Barring an early-round exit by Serena Williams, she will take over the No. 1 spot from Venus at Wimbledon, and it's possible that she won't give it back this year. If, as many assert, Serena is the more talented, seemingly more driven and less distracted by other interests sister, is it reasonable to believe that Venus's reign at No. 1 might be prematurely and permanently over?
I don't disagree with you in theory -- given the buckets of points Venus is defending, Serena ought to finish the year at No. 1. But your prediction assumes way too much order and rational acting. The House of Williams has never done anything by the book. For all we know, Serena will take a hiatus from tennis after Wimbledon to pursue a career in lumberjacking and become a Habitat for Humanity volunteer in Belize. A minor quibble, too: Serena may well be the better player, but I've always thought that Venus has more focus and Serena is more prone to distractions vis-a-vis outside interests. What is your assessment of the new Indonesian sensation, Angelique Widjaja? Do you think she's top-20 material? I think she will go further than Yayuk Basuki; Angie is only 17 and already she has in hand both a singles and doubles title.
Widjaja has had some nice results in the juniors, but as we have seen with curious frequency lately -- Maria Emilia Salerni and Tatiana Perebiynis are two names that come to mind -- that doesn't necessarily presage success as a pro. Widjaja has all the strokes but she is lamentably slight, something that, in all likelihood, will keep her from the highest echelon. Top 20 is a reasonable destination. She's probably a better player than Basuki, but she is competing against a much stronger field. The comparison between 2002 Slammers Albert Costa and Thomas Johansson is striking: They both previously had never played very well at Slams, their opponents (Juan Carlos Ferrero and Marat Safin) were expected to win, their opponents brought their B games to the match, etc. So what's next for Wimbledon and the U.S. Open? Greg Rusedski over Pete Sampras and Olivier Rochus over Lleyton Hewitt? It's kind of nice to see underdogs winning Slams, but the ATP must hate seeing their New Ballers choke on the big stage.
Interesting comparison. Here's more grist: In the Slam subsequent to his title, Johansson didn't exactly build on his legacy. In fact, he quietly flamed out in Round 2 in Paris. Likewise, don't look for Costa to build on his Roland Garros achievement (he's not even entered in Wimbledon). I have to believe that order will prevail eventually and a "name" (Hewitt? Roger Federer? Dare I say "Our Tim" Henman?) will win at SW19. You raise a good point, though. Plenty of ink was spilled over the New Balls campaign, which, in and of itself, I suppose, makes it a success. But an awful lot of those guys -- from Mariano Zabaleta to Mark Philippoussis to Jan-Michael Gambill -- haven't done much since being tapped. I realize that star power is essential for marketing a sport these days, but one wishes the ATP sold the actual quality of play. Qualitatively, the sport has never been better. But as long as upsets reign and, as you note, the New Balls come out flat, it's easy for the casual fan to come away with the misconception that the men's game is in the proverbial loo. Given last week's Hall of Fame question, what's your take on the women? There seems to be quite a few out there that should make it. First and foremost is Monica Seles: nine Grand Slams, a ton of titles and the No. 1 ranking (and to think what could have been sans stabbing). The rest of the locks:
Martina Hingis: Five Grand Slams and No. 1 ranking.
Who else do you think has a shot? I'm with you for the most part. Seles, Hingis, Davenport, the Ranch, Capriati, Venus and now Serena, too, are all locks. Here's a sleeper: Mary Pierce. She has two Grand Slam singles titles and overcame a fairly horrific backstory to be a solid top-10 player for years. A few of you were confused about this. Just so we're on the same page, we're assuming the player in question retired today, right? It wouldn't surprise me a bit if, say, the Belgians were Hall of Fame-bound by the end of their careers. But as things stand today, they don't make the cut. Tennis factsFinally, many of you wrote in with your favorite tennis accomplishments. Chris Evert's 125 straight wins on clay stretching about seven years.
Between the 1981 French and the 1988 French, either Martina Navratilova or Chris Evert played in every Grand Slam final (27 straight finals or almost seven years). From 1987 to 1990, Steffi Graf played in 13 straight Slam finals (winning nine).
One of my favorites (which I was fortunate enough to see -- at a very young age!) was the tournament where one player defeated all four reigning Grand Slam champions en route to the title. In 1966 at the Pacific Southwest Championships (played at the Los Angeles Tennis Club), Allen Fox defeated Roy Emerson (the Australian champ), Tony Roche (French Open winner), Manuel Santana (Wimbledon champ) and Fred Stolle (U.S. Open winner). Now THAT'S something to put on your résumé!
What about Monica Seles winning 41 Grand Slam matches in a row ('91 Australian to '92 Wimbledon), 55 of 56 ('91 Australian to '93 Australian) and 68 of 70 ('91 Australian to '96 Australian)? I also like her 33 wins in a row in Melbourne.
You want a stat? Check out Serena Williams' 6-3, 6-2 dismantling of Martina Hingis in the 2001 U.S. Open semifinals. During the second set, Serena did not miss a single first serve, despite an average speed of over 100 mph.
Steffi Graf winning at least four Slams on each surface.
In the 1988 French Open final Mats Wilander missed only two first serves and never double-faulted against Henri Leconte.
Ivan Lendl committed only seven unforced errors in a match at Wimbledon in 1983 -- and lost to John McEnroe in the semis. Richard Krajicek served something like 49 aces against Yevgeny Kafelnikov in a 1999 U.S. Open five-set quarterfinal -- and lost. Think about that: Over 12 games of aces (not even including unreturnables or weak, easy-putaway returns), and Krajicek still found a way to lose.
Have a good week, everyone, and keep Tommy Haas' parents in your thoughts and prayers. Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim is a regular contributor to
CNNSI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
