 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Ladies' might Presenting the top women players of the last 25 yearsPosted: Monday October 07, 2002 1:47 PMUpdated: Monday October 07, 2002 3:49 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question. Parity rocks. Of the four winners from last week's events, not one was seeded. The honor roll: Maggie Maleeva turned back the clock and beat three top-10 players (Venus Williams, Amelie Mauresmo and Lindsay Davenport) en route to winning the Kremlin Cup in Moscow. After declaring this victory the pinnacle of her career, Maleeva had an interesting quote: "For me, Lindsay is the player I would want most to beat, so this is something special. Her game and her personality, I have always looked at her as the top player." Bulletin board fodder for Venus and Serena, perhaps? ... Qualifier Paul-Henri Mathieu won the men's event, beating Marat Safin in the semis and Sjeng Schalken in the final. ... Jill Craybas, the pride of Rhodie, won the AIG Japan Open. In the final, she was down 0-4 in the third set to Silvija Talaja and rallied to win the next six games. This is the first career singles title for Craybas, a journeywoman who was the 1996 NCAA champion at Florida, and you almost get misty-eyed reading her quotes. "Words can't even describe how I feel at the moment," she said. "I can't stress how important it is to believe in yourself, no matter what you do, if you have this belief you can do anything." ... In the men's draw, Kenneth Carlsen of Denmark beat Sweden's Magnus Norman in an all-Scandinavia final for his first title since 1999. Still, nice to see Norman, a top-five player not all that long ago, turn in such a strong result. ... Likewise, nice to see Thomas Blake win a main-draw match, which he did in Tokyo, beating Spain's David Ferrer in the first round. As long as we're dispensing props, nice to see The Sopranos bounce back so strong after the previous week's dismal episode. ... It was a little disappointing to see Serena Williams turn off the engine until the year-end championships. "The past five months have taken my career to new heights," she said, "but this has also been a physically and mentally taxing experience." (Physically taxing? Isn't this a player who won the U.S. Open without dropping a set?) Similarly, when Venus lost to Maleeva, she promptly blamed fatigue as well. "I didn't play for three weeks and I'm really tired," she said. Anyone else confused? ... Word on the street -- Lancaster Ave., to be precise -- is that a Tier II women's event is headed back to Philadelphia. Details to come. ... Pete Sampras announced that he was shutting it down for the year, but he reportedly has committed to play the Australian Open. I talked about Sampras last week with John Lucas, the Cleveland Cavaliers coach, a former tennis All-America at Maryland and an all-around great guy. For what it's worth, here's his take: "He's like Michael Jordan. He loves the sport so much and he loves the challenge so much. Here's a thirtywhatever-year-old man serving and volleying and winning the U.S. Open. You know how much energy that takes? If you're able to do that, physically, how can you then walk away?" ... Speaking of being out for the year, 2002 might be ova for Anna Kournikova, who injured her left ankle in Moscow. ... Honk if you've bought a ticket (or sponsorship) to the WTA Tour Championships in L.A. (Don't worry, there's still time. But act now.) GQ&ALots of thoughtful responses, both pro and con, to last week's discussion on the GQ photo shoot and the role the WTA played in it. Thanks to all who took the time to write in. A sample from tennis' vox populi: There is a line between artistry of the human body and crass, semi-pornographic imagery. To be blunt, the WTA deals in smut. And you are correct to point out that the age of the players makes this even more disturbing.
We disagree on one very important point: I think each one of those young women knew exactly what she was doing and continues to do so all the way to the bank. They watched Anna (will never a tournament) Kournikova become a multi-millionaire showing T&A and very little game. They know they have an even better chance of becoming wealthy because they can actually play tennis and will continue to win tournaments. I can't believe all this sermonizing about the female tennis players posing in GQ. I think it's time to acknowledge what all red-blooded males know but seldom say: If attractive female is also a good athlete, that's an extra turn-on for men. Do you really think that Anna Kournikova would be a famous model if she wasn't also an athlete? She would probably just be another obscure model, assuming she could even get work. You have to ask yourself to whom the sport appeals with these tactics? Not true tennis or sports fans, but a subsection of the male population (I hope a very small one) which is incapable of valuing women for anything but their sex appeal. Most men I know don't care for the kind of trash GQ hawks, and if they are fans of women's tennis, it's because the Williamses, Jennifer Capriati, Martina Hingis, Kim Clijsters, et al. have raised the standard of play in recent years, not because they want to ogle nubile lassies from Eastern Europe. If anything, this current wave of sex marketing is turning me off to women's tennis, because I'm losing respect for some of the players as athletes. The fact that the WTA "represents" both women AND children, the only proper action for the organization would be to make it loud and clear that it will not be complicit in this sort of thing and would even attempt to discourage it. Responsible agents should do the same but unfortunately money doesn't talk---it howls.
Seems to me that the WTA does not care if there is a woman out there who can actually play the game, just as long as she looks good trying! I'm all for looks, it is what makes us human, but to pose this way ... just to make what point?
As I sit here typing in this little box, a little box right next to it keeps flashing a picture of a bikini-clad model, promoting Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue. I forget now. What exactly does that issue have to do with sports?
Publicity is better than no publicity. If Anastasia Myskina laying naked on a horse is going to get men to watch WTA tournaments, then the WTA has done itself a favor.
Is the sport so commercial and ego-driven that people at their most basic level have stopped looking out for each other? The whole situation is a sad indictment on hierarchy, gender, sport and capitalism.
Personally, I might not watch Anna Kournikova, or even women's tennis, were it not for the "tart" factor. The Williams sisters and Jennifer Capriati aside, I don't think the level of play is all that spectacular.
These "Eastern Bloc Hotties" are not naive peasants who stumbled into New York slurping their bowls of borscht. They knew what they were doing and are free to have fun playing model for GQ; they joined the WTA Tour, not a nunnery. My concern is that Vogue will someday try to exploit male tennis writers with a similar photo spread. For the sake of horses everywhere and the eyes of Vogue readers, let's pray this never happens.
(Amen to your second point.) You are a self-righteous, leftist windbag. If you've got it, flaunt it, and Daniela Hantuchova's got it.
You just don't get it, do you? Well, naturally you don't -- you're a liberal. Answer this question: Why are sportswriters just as liberal as the rest of the press? Anna Kournikova, Daniela Hantuchova and Ashley Harkleroad will get rich in spite of your ignorance and political correctness. If it's OK for Jim Palmer and Jason Sehorn to model underwear, why can't Anna model bras? Are you really that naive? It must be the liberal indoctrination. I know you won't print this because you certainly won't put up with the liberal stereotype. Except that in the modern-day press, the stereotype fits. You're just too dumb to know it.
The women were just doing their jobs as professionals, which is to promote themselves. They were giving the media what they wanted, what they could understand, what they would report -- i.e., sex over tennis.
One last point, before putting this issue to bed. Lots of you asked why there was no righteous indignation and moral outrage about the ATP's "New Balls" campaign. Fair question, but I guess my response is that there is a vast difference in taste. "New Balls," indisputably, had a sexual undercurrent, but at least the purpose of the campaign was to sell tennis. The GQ shoot had next to nothing to do with the sport or the athleticism of the subjects. Further, Tommy Haas (or whoever) may have been shirtless, but he sure as hell wasn't naked on a horse (a shout to all the Freudians in the house) or in S&M leitmotif. On to the questions ...You've done the men, so let's compare the best women of the last 25 years. I guess the debate comes down to who the greatest overall player is and who would've beaten whom on their best days on a hard court. I figure Steffi Graf has to be the greatest with a long career and a bucket full of Slams. Martina Navratilova is a close second, although I think she beats Steffi at their respective best. Chris Evert is third in my book. Monica Seles would be first or second but for the stabbing. On her best day on a hard court, I think Monica beats any of my top three.
I suppose we should have braced ourselves for this question. Quick disclaimer: We run into the same problem as last time. No one is saying Serena Williams is the greatest champion of the past 25 years, but is there any question that, on a hard court, she beats all comers in their respective primes? God bless Steffi, both Martinas, Monica and Chrissy, etc., but we're talking about an utterly different level of athleticism, power and ballstriking. My top 10, using the composite of factors we discussed a few weeks ago (titles, glaring omissions, longevity, absolute ability, etc.) and sure to elicit spirited disagreement: 1. Graf: Pretty hard to argue otherwise. 2. Navratilova: Bonus for her doubles play and longevity. 3. Seles: Two-year window of unsurpassed dominance. 4. Evert: Admirable consistency, but, boy, would Serena and Venus bludgeon that serve. Keep in mind, too, that "last 25 years" means we're not accounting for her six Slams pre-1977. 5. Serena: One year does not a career make, but high marks for absolute skills. 6. Venus: See No. 5. 7. Hingis: Five Slams is nothing to sneeze at, but her legacy is slipping. 8. Davenport: Like Williams sisters, gets bonus points for caliber of play. 9. Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario: Plenty good, but so was her timing. We saw what happened when the big guns arrived. 10. Capriati: Over Tracy Austin. Could that be right? What are the possible circumstances under which a player would have to qualify for a tournament, but then be seeded in the main draw?
You are super-hardcore, as they say in Civil Way re-enactment circles. Here's the scoop, courtesy of ATP vice president of officiating Gayle Bradshaw:
Several years ago we had the case of Andre Agassi inquiring in Bercy about a wild card into the event (this was prior to automatic entry). No wild cards were available in the main draw, so he said he might come and play the qualifying. This caused a lot of discussion, because the main draw historically is made on Friday night at 6 p.m., before the Monday start. Agassi would be the second seed if he qualified and if we waited to make the draw. Tournament officials decided not to delay the draw. Thus, if Agassi qualified, he would just be drawn into one of the qualifying positions like any other qualifier. In the end, it did not matter because Agassi did not come for qualies. I found your Stefan Edberg story in last week's column incredibly touching, and it only reinforced his place as one of my favorite players of all time. Along these lines, are there other players, past and present, whom you feel were as classy and generous as Stefan?
Wait till next week when we reveal our contest winners. I suppose this is typical of celebrity culture in general, but it's amazing how a player's small act of graciousness or kindness stays with the recipient for years. Can Pat Cash's autobiography Uncovered be purchased in the U.S.? Neither Barnes and Noble nor Amazon offers the book online.
That should probably tell you something, no? If anyone knows how to uncover Uncovered, please pass it on and I'll share it next week. I'd like to know your opinion on the WTA tier structure. For a tour struggling for real depth, this seems like an awful system. Given the gap between Tiers II and III, don't most lower-ranked players keep competing amongst themselves, never getting a chance to taste what the top level requires (especially given the 28-player field at many events)? Who came up with this system?
Interesting question, but it's like the old Winston Churchill adage on democracy: "It's the worst possible system, except for any other." Keep in mind the competing interests at play: 1) The top players don't want to overplay, so you are unlikely to have many 32- or 64-women draws at Tier IIs. If, say, Venus Williams had to play five matches a week, no way does she enter both Stanford and San Diego on successive weeks. 2) Promoters want to attract the stars but don't want to shell out prize money and lodging to players who don't sell tickets. So they want as few "lower-ranked players" as possible in the draws. 3) The money and points are so marginal that it seldom behooves a top player to dip down and play a Tier III. (Some are even prohibited by the terms of the exempt lists.) 4) The tour wants to sanction as many events as possible. If some promoter is willing to pony up the fees even if the draw won't feature a top player, all the better. 5) In theory, the qualifier spots are a way for lower-ranked players to break through and compete against the cream of the crop, even at the most prestigious events. If you're still reading (and I understand if you're not), the bottom line is that it's hard to conceive of a better system that would still appease the body-conscious players and cost-conscious promoters. I read that Andre Agassi beat Pete Sampras in an exhibition match in Philadelphia. Do you have any funny stories about how competitive these matches can get even though they are "exhibitions"? I assume that players have a lot of pride no matter the circumstances, and rivals like Andre and Pete would not want to lose.
Re: tennis exhibitions, I always think of that scene from Rocky III when the eponym does a charity event with Hulk Hogan. Sometimes the players agree in advance to go easy or, more likely, something to the effect of "Let's just keep this to straight sets." Other times, one of the participants is deadly serious and, at the risk of getting shown up, the other then has to follow suit. The result: Every now and then, exhibitions feature surprisingly competitive play. (Other times, they can be actual dogs: One of you wrote in last winter about watching Kournikova take a cell-phone call during a changeover.) My friend and I were arguing over what state has produced the most tennis pros. He says Florida, I say California. Can you help?
Nothing authoritative, but my gut says California and Florida, in that order. (Maybe someone blessed with abundant free time has done the actual research.) The Williams sisters seem to embody this. Leaving them out of the equation, imagine a Florida-California all-star game that would pit Sampras vs. Andy Roddick, Davenport vs. Capriati, Vince Spadea against Glenn Weiner, etc. Anyway, I'm thinking that third place goes to an unlikely state: Michigan. In the past, say, 20 years, the Glove has produced Mal and Mashona Washington, Amy Frazier, Aaron Krickstein, Carrie Cunningham, sort of Todd Martin, Meredith McGrath, Annie Miller, Steve Campbell and those wacky Jensens. We should also point out that Serena Williams was born in Saginaw, Mich. (From the Useless Trivia Dept.: The mayor of Saginaw, aka Saga-nasty, is the mother of Milwaukee Bucks forward Darvin Ham.) Contest updateA quick housekeeping note: Last week's contest drew scores of excellent responses, but I'm on the road doing NBA assignments and have been too busy to read through all of them. Therefore, we are extending the competition another week. Again, the topic: In 150 words or fewer, tell us about a chance off-court encounter with a pro. A new Dunlop 300G to the winner. FINALLY, it's that post-coitus cigarette, Long Lost Siblings. How about Nick Bollettieri's disturbing resemblance to a certain damn dirty ape by the name of Dr. Zaius?
Andy Roddick and Seann William Scott.
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.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
