 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Compare and contrast Posted: Monday September 23, 2002 12:52 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question. This week's honorees are the Davis Cup teams for France and Russia, who advanced to the finals by beating the U.S. and the Argentines, respectively. The skate rats, Sebastien Grosjean and Arnaud Clement, won the singles points for France, playing in front of a packed maison at Roland Garros. ... Had the French duo of Fabrice Santoro and Michael Llodra won the doubles point, U.S. captain Pat McEnroe would have been subjected to all sorts of second guessing for passing over the Bryans and even the Don Johnson-Jared Palmer coupling. But the U.S. pair of Todd Martin-James Blake won, so let's give the captain credit for playing his cards right. ... Just to clarify, the U.S. Davis Cup team practiced at Saddlebrook, not Bollettieri's, before heading to Paris. ... Idea: Could the U.S. retain Jose Higueras as a consultant before the next tie held on clay? ... Marat Safin seldom stands accused of having an outsized heart. But let's give him props for winning his singles match, playing a doubles match that he and Yevgeny Kafelinkov lost 19-17 in the fifth, and then recovering the next day to close out the tie with a singles win. ... Assuming you're over the age of consent, check out the photos of Anastasia Myskina, Daniela Hantuchova and Elena Dementieva in the current GQ. Remember these, ahem, photo spreads the next time the WTA keeps a straight face and makes the claim that it doesn't traffic in sex. The soft porn comes a few pages after an article about "Why Pete Sampras has fallen so fast, so hard, so willingly." (Whoops. In fairness, the article, while essentially moot, is a great read and validates the "marriage hypothesis" we've been discussing at this address for years.) ... The WTA Tour came out with its gold and silver exempt lists for 2003. The "winners" were Anna Kournikova, Amanda Coetzer, Alexandra Stevenson and Arantza Sánchez-Vicario, who all made the list despite being ranked outside the top 20. This didn't sit well with Patty Schnyder, currently No. 18, who responded in an e-mail to tour officials: "Very funny. Perhaps in the next year Michael Jackson [can get] a gold exempt and Donald Duck a special silver exempt." ... Fresh off her quarterfinal appearance at the U.S. Open, Elena Bovina, a future top-10 player, won her second title in Quebec City. ... Serena Williams won her seventh title of the year, beating Kim Clijsters in the Toyota Princess Cup final. Onward ... More on AgassiLots of you wrote in with thoughtful and measured responses to the question of where Andre Agassi ranks among players of the past 25 years, and how he matches up against Bjorn Borg. Let's say this up front: Comparing players from different vintages is the most inexact of sciences. A million variables come into play. How much better would Rod Laver have been had he been forced to embrace fitness and nutrition or had he played with a high-tech thunderstick? How much worse would he have been playing against opponents who stood 6-foot-6 and could serve him off the court? Would Sampras have won 14 Slams playing with a wooden racket? Traveling in coach class (or by bus) to tournaments? Or would he have won more than 14 playing foes who had pot bellies and couldn't jump over the net? In hopes of lasso-ing the discussion a little bit, I'll lay out some factors to consider: On the other hand, he never had to play Sampras. Perhaps more important, he never had to play journeymen in the early rounds of Slams -- guys like Wayne Arthurs, who bombs in 130-mph lefty serves, or Guillermo Cañas, who has the endurance of a Kenyan marathoner. By my count, Agassi has won 14 Masters Series events -- on all surfaces, no less. This is such an underrated achievement. These events entail winning five (sometimes six) matches in a week against the world's best players at a time when the field has never been deeper. Let's call this "deuce." FINAL ANALYSIS: So who ranks higher in tennis' pantheon, Borg or Agassi? We'll take Borg, but it's a three-setter. A sampling of your thoughts. Sincere thanks to everyone who wrote in: Borg went a combined 100-6 at the French Open and Wimbledon, dominating for his entire career two of the three Slams that really counted in his era (the Aussie wasn't played by most of the top players). His winning percentage in Slam matches was 89.8 percent, by far the best in the modern men's game. By the way, here is how other greats of the Open era compare in Slam winning percentage:
Pete Sampras: 84.2 percent
Borg would have eaten Agassi alive. One thing people forget about tennis is the difference that modern equipment has made; Borg used wooden rackets his entire career. Borg was supremely fit, had flawless ground strokes, had a better-than-adequate serve, could volley at Wimbledon, and, last but not least, had nerves of steel. The only edge Agassi has would be on the forehand, and not a big edge at that. Six French Opens and five Wimbledons in a row are a tremendous total, and the only reason he did not win a U.S. Open was two losses to McEnroe and two to Connors, at their peaks. Plus, Borg played the Aussie Open just once; people don't remember that in those days most players didn't consider Melbourne worth the trip! So discount the Aussie Open, and their Slams stand at 11-4 in favor of Borg.
I was disappointed not to see the name of Stefan Edberg in your discussion of Agassi's place in history. Edberg made it to the final of all four Grand Slams, outclassed Becker 2-1 in three Wimbledon finals, and won six in all. Not to throw in another feeble argument, but Edberg also won the junior Grand Slam. I still consider Sampras' loss to him in the U.S. Open final many years ago as Sampras' worst whipping (never mind Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin). By omitting Stefan Edberg, you have committed tennis blasphemy!
I humbly repent. Edberg does indeed deserve more than passing mention in any discussion of the best player of the last 25 years. But I was just answering the question posed. You lay a convincing case for Edberg's enshrinement and add another: His 18 doubles titles are more than Lendl, Borg and Andre Kirk combined. Further, Edberg gets subconscious bonus points for his aesthetically pleasing style and his general good-guy-ness. (Remind me to tell you my childhood Edberg story sometime.) Still, all things considered, I give the nod to Agassi. Borg won on the slowest and fastest surfaces. He showed he was more adaptable to surface than Sampras. Borg actually had to PLAY the points to win his matches. He never had a serve that would allow him to get away with not playing 33 points per match. Borg won 11 Slams before the age of 26, and played the Australian Open only once. He also made an interesting point about Grand Slam totals: If Sampras had played three out of four Slams on grass like Rod Laver did, Sampras would probably have 20 Grand Slam titles. Likewise, if Borg had played three out of four Slams on clay, he would have about the same amount.
This would be a great match between two of the all-time best. My analysis is as follows:
Grass: Borg.
Agassi has more power on his strokes and more of an attacking baseline style (better equipment helps him). Borg simply had the best groundstrokes of anybody at any time, period. Plus, Borg had a better serve than people realize, and he improved his net game enough to win a mere five Wimbledons. In terms of the history books, I rank Borg at No. 3 behind Laver and Sampras. (Laver gets No. 1 with two Grand Slams.) Borg's five consecutive Wimbledons (something Sampras never did) and six French Opens (four consecutive) speak volumes, especially since they came on two completely different surfaces. If Borg had won a U.S. Open, he might get the nod for the No. 2 spot. Borg is the MAN. Thanks. Especially since you're unsparing in your analysis of your former doubles partner, McEnroe. There has always been this huge American bias against Lendl. Agassi better than Lendl? That's some kind of a joke. Lendl won eight Slams and made 11 other finals, was No. 1 for more weeks than anybody save Sampras, and won more tournaments than anyone except Connors. So to recap, Lendl has more Slams than Agassi and his rivals in terms of dominance in tournaments and weeks at No. 1 are only Connors and Sampras. The top four players of the past 30 years would have to be Borg, Connors, Lendl and Sampras (though not necessarily in that order).
I'm with you that Lendl gets the short shrift. To some extent, I think that indifference about Lendl's personality bled over into indifference about his achievements. (Agassi probably benefits from the converse.) Another point against Lendl in the court of public opinion: He had a losing record in Grand Slam finals (8-11). It's a pretty meaningless statistic (he did get there, after all) but when you hoist the runner-up trophy more often than the winner's trophy, it affects public opinion. (Any Atlanta Braves fans out there?) I agree that it's tight, but I'll stick with Agassi here. Lendl never won Wimbledon, which, for better or worse, is still the sport's holy grail. Agassi's career was longer, too. We can debate whether there was more competition at the top then vs. now. But unquestionably, there is more competition in the middle now. No way were there unseeded floaters with the dangerous game of a Max Mirnyi, a Greg Rusedski, a Clement in Lendl's day. It's nice to see Andre Agassi get the credit he deserves for a career of historic proportions. However, I am dumbfounded at your failure to even mention Laver, still considered by many, if not most (including McEnroe and Sampras), as the greatest of all time.
A few of you wrote in about this. Again, just to lasso the comparisons a bit, we're sticking to the past 25 years. To me the Sampras-Laver debate is getting perilously close to apples and drywall (nevermind oranges). I think Andre Agassi is a far more interesting player to watch than Pete Sampras. Sampras may have won more tournaments, but only because of his serve, which is like watching grass grow. Sampras can't win on clay, whereas Agassi can win on any surface, which makes him a better overall player in my mind. Also, Agassi has to work much harder to win, whereas Sampras relies on his serve to preserve his energy. Who do you enjoy watching more, Sampras or Agassi?
Interesting question. In terms of watching an individual athlete, I prefer Sampras. When he was in his prime (two weeks ago?), the ease and grace and utter efficiency he betrayed were mesmerizing. Once he entered the zone, the opponent was almost irrelevant. Sure, there were lots of blink-and-you-miss-it aces, but each match also provided a five-star tasting menu of sick stab volleys, running forehands and whipsaw backhand passes. In terms of watching a player compete, I'll take Agassi. Particularly against bigger servers, his style matches up well. While Sampras often looks to be coasting, Agassi is a laborer -- more gritty than he's given credit for being -- who moves his man side-to-side. As you note, his matches last longer and often entail more of a battle. Other questionsUp until recently, I would have said that Gabriela Sabatini was the most popular player of all time on the women's side. Of course, now both Anna Kournikova and the Williams sisters are immensely popular. As for men, it is tough to beat Andre Agassi's popularity. Who do you think are the five most popular male and female tennis players of all time?
Did I miss the memo that this is inter-era comparison week? This, too, is a tough one because of the different standards. Tennis isn't as popular as it once was, but access to players is so much better. In the Internet-less world of 10 years ago, Kournikova wouldn't have been nearly as popular as she is now. Today, anyone with a browser and a mouse (insert joke here) can see thousands of her images. Also, a lot of players -- Althea Gibson, for one -- become more popular and revered as the years go by. Today, Billie Jean King is an icon; in her day she was waking up at 5 a.m. on the day of her matches to promote the tournament, with hopes that a few hundred fans would show up. So how about top five today? Totally unscientific, my votes, in no order, go to: Agassi, Venus, Serena, Kournikova and Sampras. Next five? Monica Seles, Jennifer Capriati, Pat Rafter (even in quasi-retirement), Andy Roddick and Gustavo Kuerten. Call me premature, but I think the pairing of Serena Williams and Martina Navratilova at The Princess Cup marks the beginning of a new chapter for the Williams sisters. I'm going to call this one The Road to Healthy Individuation: Sisters Doing It for Themselves. Do you think I can further read into this small move by Serena that we won't be seeing Venus on a tennis court till January?
Premature. With the big win Pete Sampras had at the U.S. Open, how would you compare his and Andre Agassi's rivalry to that of, say, Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe or even Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova?
The dirty secret about the Sampras-Agassi rivalry is that it ain't much of one. Sampras leads the head-to-head 20-14, including 6-3 in Slams. (The only time Sampras lost to Agassi in a Slam final was at the 1995 Australian, when Sampras was beset by tragic news about his coach, Tim Gullikson.) Sampras has won twice as many Slams, nearly twice as much prize money and spent far longer ranked No. 1. In part because Sampras has no one else even close to being another consistent nemesis, in part because they are contemporaries from the same part of the same country, and in part because of their contrasting personalities, we probably overstate this as an epic rivalry. I'm curious to get your take on tennis agents. How do they compare to agents in other sports you cover? Who are the five most honest agents in tennis?
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. For a second there, I thought you had asked about "most honest agents." That's in the same oxymoronic vein as tallest midgets, nastiest Minnesotans, funniest Jay Mohr jokes, most promiscuous nuns, and underpaid USTA executives. Seriously, as far as agents go (a hell of a qualification, I realize), the ones who work in tennis are a cut above those in other sports. For one, most tennis agents played at a reasonably high level (college or above), so they know the game and really empathize with their clients over the nodes and crests, the big wins and upset losses. Also, tennis players tend to come from fairly sophisticated families who aren't seduced by slick recruiting pitches and under-the-table payments. A lot of the dirtbag agents in other sports are able to thrive on families who aren't wise to asset management and the like. In tennis, the vast majority of players pledge their allegiance to one of three behemoth agencies: IMG, Octagon or SFX. The power of these firms presents plenty of problems and creates a conflict-of-interest-o-rama that is to the sport's detriment. But it also keeps the standard of representation high. If Player X feels as though he is being shortchanged or mistreated or ignored by one firm, another is right there, able to offer comparable services. A competitive marketplace also leads to cutting fees. Perhaps above all, the financial structure of tennis keeps the agents above board. There are no guaranteed contracts, no option years, no free agency, no holdouts, no salary cap and no draft picks. Tennis players make their money the old-fashioned way: They earn it. The job of the tennis agent isn't to negotiate a salary with management so much as it is to find endorsement opportunities and haggle with promoters for appearance fees. So a lot of the roots that make other sports fertile ground for corrupt agents simply don't exist in tennis. (Now if only they could stop wearing their cell phones on their belts.) FINALLY, it's dessert time. In keeping with our theme this week, the Long Lost Siblings Are: Andre Agassi and Colin Farrell. With a shaved head, Farrell looks exactly like Agassi.
Andre Agassi and Mr. Clean.
Andre Agassi and Moby.
Andre Agassi and Mini-Me.
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.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
