 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Missing in action What keeps young guns from consistent Slam performancesPosted: Monday July 01, 2002 11:34 AM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question. WIMBLEDON, England -- Keep checking back daily for more reports from the All England ...
After watching Roger Federer lose the way he did at Wimbledon, I'm convinced that we will continue to see different winners at every Grand Slam. Federer has more talent than almost anyone on the tour, but he does not take advantage of it. Federer and Marat Safin should be in the final of every tournament they play. What do he and Safin lack that Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi had when they dominated their era?
In addition to making an ass of prognosticators (John McEnroe picked him, too), Federer needs a serious lesson in how to compete. For all the "Baby Goran" hype accorded his opponent, Federer had no business losing that match to Croatian qualifier Mario Ancic. There was no evidence of a backup plan, no attempt to change tactics, no grinding out points. And before he knew it, he was in the locker room (no doubt stealing one of those sweet towels before packing up). It's hard to continue to be considered a breakout star when you've gone two Slams without winning a set. Safin, on the other hand, is proving himself to be a classic headcase. He has more talent and more charm than a Yevgeny Kafelnikov, but right now it looks like his career is heading in the same directionless direction.
For all the abuse he takes here in the Mailbag, how about some well-earned kudos to Olivier Rochus for taking out Marat Safin in Wimbledon 2002?
Abuse? Sometimes I feel like this has become the Rochus family's unofficial Web site. Anyway, he does indeed get well-earned kudos. I watched the Safin match in fits and starts, and Rochus plain outplayed the second seed. Our man isn't going to win many free points on his serve -- as was the case when they played in Roland Garros, Rochus had zero aces against Safin the other day -- but once he gets in a rally, he can compete with anyone. Great hands, great touch, great speed, great anticipation. His lack of power will prevent him from becoming a top-10 player, but, like the NBA's 5-foot-7 Spud Webb in the '80s, Rochus has gone from a winsome novelty to a serviceable player.
Do you think a third-place game before the final (like in the World Cup) would bring more excitement to tournaments and give players more exposure? Also, do you think the upset winners of Grand Slams have affected the World Cup?
Not a bad idea. One problem is scheduling, particularly in the case of a rain delay. The other is convincing the dejected losing semifinalists that a third-place match actually has some meaning. (Though an extra $50,000 could make the argument a lot more persuasive.) As for your second question, without a doubt, countries like Senegal, Korea, the U.S., etc., drew great inspiration from the unexpected success of Thomas Johansson and Al Costa. Such is the popularity of tennis. (Yeah, right.)
I must confess that I have not yet read John McEnroe's book nor seen Tatum O'Neal's interview on 20/20. However, I wanted to get your thoughts on McEnroe's telling it all as he sees it in his book, then disparaging his ex-wife after she offers her side of the story. Didn't McEnroe open up the proverbial Pandora's box by writing the book in the first place? Gimme a break!
I'm in complete agreement. First, you would think that McEnroe would have consulted with the mother of his children before publishing the book to start with. Look, Tates, they're not going to pay me the big bank if I gloss over this stuff entirely, but I'm going to try and do this as delicately as possible. Any suggestions that will minimize embarrassment to both of us? Truthfully, the section on Tatum was, I thought, sensitively written. Or at least far more sensitively than it allegedly could have been. But McEnroe's behavior was classic hypocrisy. Trash your kids' mother in your book, that's OK. But when she fires back, suddenly she's the ingrate? No less hypocritical was McEnroe's reaction to the firestorm. Part of his appeal is his candor, his brashness, his disdain for spin. He writes a tell-all that, as promised, throws darts left, right and center. When issues that he's ultimately put into play get redirected his way, he goes so deep into hiding that he may as well be in Tora Bora. Tell-it-like-it-is Johnny Mac releasing a statement through IMG to quasi-deny an allegation? Straight-talking Johnny Mac giving evasive, Clintonesque answers to direct questions in a teleconference? Mr. Overexposed Johnny Mac laying low in the BBC lounge because he doesn't want to face the music? You cannot be serious.
Why is Wimbledon still seen as the Super Bowl of tennis, when so little of the season is devoted to grass (and so few people legitimately can play on the stuff)? I mean, there are no grass-court Masters Series events! I'm not one who thinks we should pave over the entire All England Club. But I do think grass (and clay) should have a season equal in length to the hard-court campaign. Lengthening the seasons and adding top-tier events would provide the rest of the world an incentive to develop its lawn-tennis skills, which in turn would validate the hype Wimbledon receives.
As it happens, we batted about this issue in the Scorecard section of last week's Sports Illustrated. Click here to read.
What faraway tennis universe was Gabriela Sabatini describing when she said that prior to the Williamses' arrival, the game had more artistry? She criticizes them for upping the standard on power and athleticism; from Chris Evert to Martina Navratilova to Steffi Graf to Monica Seles, how is that so different from what other champions did to the game? Graf and Seles dominated the past decade with power games, only approaching the net to collect the check (à la Thomas Muster). So shouldn't venom have been thrown at the rest of the current field for not being more competitive? I don't recall any champions being criticized for being too good for the game.
Lots of you asking about this. I, too, saw those remarks from Sabatini, and I couldn't agree more with you. Upping the standard for power and athleticism? Horrors. Women's tennis would obviously be much more popular if players pinned themselves to the baseline and hit loopy topspins for a few hours. If the women hit their second serves under 40 mph, all the better. (Just look at the international appeal Conchita Martinez courts.) A bonus: If women's tennis reverted to this style, it would do wonders for the equal-prize-money debate.
In a recent 'Bag, you mentioned Pam Shriver's dedication to the WTA. Who among today's active players are most involved with the ATP and WTA boards, respectively? Are there any pioneers out there?
"Player pioneers" is pushing it. This is one of the sport's current problems. The top players usually have neither the time nor the patience (who does?) to involve themselves in tour politics. Thus, the players' voice is often represented by a journeyman (-woman) whose interests are different -- if not outright adverse -- to the stars. Even a player like Todd Martin, who has sat through his share of numbingly boring meetings, does not need/want what Sampras, Agassi and Hewitt do. Anyway, among the men, Todd Woodbridge is the head of the players' council. For the women, Lindsay Davenport, Amélie Mauresmo, Sandrine Testud and Venus Williams represent players ranked 1-20; Lisa Raymond represents 21-50; and Nicole Pratt 51-100.
Since Pete Sampras is so determined to rediscover his game but isn't getting enough match play because of frequent early-round losses, do you think it makes sense for him to enter some doubles competitions? It might help him regain his timing in a less pressurized environment.
I say the same thing for all players about grass. If there comes any good from the rash of upsets and the dearth of grass-court experts, perhaps more players will be lured into playing doubles and improving their volleying. As for Sampras, if he really felt he needed matches, I think it's more likely (if still a loooong shot) that he would play a Challenger event than doubles. In doubles, one only, obviously, covers half the court, and the mentality is different. He needs a better physical workout and he needs to resurrect his confidence -- I honestly believe I will this win this match! -- which can't be done playing alongside a partner.
Is anyone else excited that Chanda Rubin is ripping through the Wimbledon draw with a vengeance (both singles and doubles -- with Anna K., no less). If she's at 100 percent after her injuries, does she have what it take to go toe-to-toe with the Big Babes?
Her match against Serena Williams would indicate otherwise. Rubin has the ability to return to the top 10, but I fear she lacks the weaponry to hang with Jennifer Capriati and the Williamses. (Incidentally, with Kim Clijsters in a tailspin, Mauresmo as professionally unreliable as she is personally likable, Mary Pierce still a shadow -- albeit a sizable one -- of her former self and Davenport out for the time being, the Big Babe sorority needs a new pledge class.)
Now that Roger Federer is out of the draw, do you want to take a second crack at picking the men's champion?
Thanks for the out, but I made a miserable pick and I have to live with it another week. Only fair. One prediction: I have hard time seeing Tim Henman -- he of the 85 mph second serves -- taking out Hewitt. Which, of course, means that Hewitt will lose in straight sets. Enjoy Week 2, everyone! Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim covers tennis for the magazine and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
