 |
| |
|
 |
 |
A Sampras return seems possible Posted: Monday November 25, 2002 2:57 PM
Just when the tea leaves seemed to indicate that Pete Sampras was retiring, file this away: The 2002 U.S. Open champ is said to be performance-testing new models of Wilson rackets. He even experimented with a Yonex. ... Anna Smashnova will marry her coach, former ATP player Claudio Pistolesi, next month. For the sake of chair umpires and scoreboard operators everywhere, we hope she either keeps her name or takes his, but decides against hyphenation. (Actually, a tour source believes that she will take his name.) ... The New York Daily News ran a piece the other day about Yannick Noah's son, Joakim. The Noah fils is a 6-foot-10 senior and star center for the Poly Prep basketball team in New York. ... Also from the Daily News prep section: Alert reader Rocco Moretti of New York sends in this link about up-and-coming junior Selifu Mohammad. ... Tim Henman is recovering nicely from shoulder surgery, but it remains to be seen whether he will play the Australian Open. ... Since last week's restaurant recommendation generated so much passionate mail -- including a missive from Oakland's Art S. (or was it A. Spander?) claiming that there is no good Mexican food east of the Rockies -- here's another tip for New York readers: Check out Pintxos, a great Spanish joint at 510 Greenwich Street. ... You'll be relieved to know that the tennis fashion police will allow Tommy Haas to wear that risquŽ sleeveless Nike shirt next year. ... In what could be the swan song for Yevgeny Kafelnikov, the Y-Man and his Russian teammates (Marat Safin, Mikhail Youzhny and Andrei Stoliarov) will play France in the Davis Cup finals this coming weekend. Sebastien Grosjean, Arnaud ClŽment, Nicolas EscudŽ and Fabrice Santoro make up the French team. Onward ... With all the controversy over Augusta National not allowing women members, I'm wondering if any ATP events are held at clubs with an all-male policy? If so, is anything being done to protest?
Quite the contrary. According to the ATP, no tour events are held at venues with all-male membership policies. But it really goes beyond that. One hopes the tennis leadership is paying close attention as this controversy play out. Regardless of where you stand, it throws into sharp relief the fact that tennis' greatest asset might well be its progressive stance on gender. For the most part, fans follow both men and women players. The six biggest events on the calendar feature both male and female pros. They even play together. (While they count for little in concrete terms, mixed-doubles events carry all sorts of symbolic weight.) In contrast not just to golf but to virtually every sport, tennis ought to be marketing this unique feature to the max, and make the year-end championships a mixed event as soon as legally possible. What is your opinion of the Williams sisters McDonald's ads? I saw them the other night and think they are stupid. I always thought those girls had a lot of class. Why would they do those ads, especially since hamburgers are probably not so good for their tennis games anyway?
Why would they do it? Uh, Ray, it's not a public-service ad. My strong suspicion is that a few dollars changed hands before the cameras started rolling. I agree that the ads are heavy on the McCheese. But are they any less tasteful than, say, Kurt Warner shilling for Chunky Soup or Jason Alexander for KFC? Quick point: I thought it was interesting that Venus and Serena are never identified by name, only a subtle tennis prop is used and they're not dressed in their familiar outfits. Corporate America clearly thinks that the general public knows them by sight. How many other athletes can you say that about? Considering your mention of Mark Starr's column (you say insightful, I say hogwash), I was disappointed that you failed to cite Jill Nelson's equally insightful (my words) and compelling article, also on MSNBC.com, which chronicled the long tradition of racism, hypocrisy and double standards experienced by minorities upon their ascent to the top. Of course, this tradition impacts black stars not only in the tennis world, but in virtually every other aspect of American life. A link to Ms. Nelson's column might be a much-needed education to the many, many Williams bashers who have yet to embrace their dominance and blackness. Maybe they will one day, but I'm not hopeful.
Here's the link. At the risk of getting all Fox News on you: Readers, you decide. Recently I read an article about Venus Williams' missing a chance to be one of the all-time greats because of her "flawed" serve. I know that Venus' serve is the subject of much conjecture; Pete Sampras' disdain for her placement notwithstanding, what is your opinion of her service motion and what could she do to improve it? I know other players' serves are considered more effective (Serena's, Lindsay Davenport's), but how important is the motion relative to the outcome?
Venus' serve does have a weird hitch. She pauses for a split second midway through the motion, and commentators long have pointed out this technical flaw. Still, the notion that Venus' serve will prevent her from becoming an all-time great is bizarre. It may not be the most fluid motion, but her serve is the most powerful in the history of women's tennis. Hard to see how that could work against her. I think consideration should be given to changing the distribution of prize money at tournaments, particularly at the Grand Slams. Does the winner's performance really merit twice as much money as the runner-up's? Most of the top players already make plenty of money in appearance fees at smaller tournaments. By equalizing prize money, some of the less-known players would be able to make a healthier living.
Fair point, and for the most part I agree with you. But here's the devil's advocate perspective: The top players are driving ticket sales, sponsorships and television coverage. As was vividly depicted in Los Angeles, the also-ran players -- even good also-ran players -- generate revenues that barely cover the cost of tennis balls. Proportional to the money they bring in, aren't the top five or six seeds really subsidizing the rest of the field? Look at the U.S. Open. I was probably one of 20 fans who sat on a back court and watched Ramon Delgado beat Alex Bogomolov Jr. in the first round. The loser took home more than $10,000. Yes, Serena Williams won a whopping $900,000 for the women's title. But given her economic impact on the event, her rightful haul probably should have been 10 times that. As for winners making crazy money even compared to losing finalists? The fatter the champion's check, the more prestigious the tournament looks. Where has Anastasia Myskina been since turning pro in 1995? It seems as if suddenly she realized she's on tour to play tennis or something.
Did Myskina really turn pro in 1995? She would have been 13 or 14 at the time, so I'm skeptical. Anyway, insider types have been touting her for years. She has had some injuries and other setbacks but really hit her stride this year. It's clear that she can play A-level tennis. The question now is whether she can take that next step and crack the Williams-Williams-Kim Clijsters-Amelie Mauresmo-Jennifer Capriati axis. After not seeing one single tennis ad on TV for two months, I began to wonder why commercials for Master Series events aren't being plastered over several channels. Who runs advertising for the ATP and WTA? I completely missed every event after the U.S. Open because I didn't know the exact dates, channels and times matches were going to be aired. This lack of publicity would never happen in the NBA, NFL, etc. Why does it happen in tennis? Also, sports like basketball, baseball and football are successful because they have such great mass appeal. What steps (if any) are the ATP and WTA taking to promote tennis to people who normally would not pick up a tennis racket? If more people were exposed to tennis and grew to like it, then maybe embarrassing fiascos like the one in Los Angeles would never happen.
Even here on the information superhighway (has anyone used that phrase since, like, 1998?), there is not sufficient space to address this question. Here's the one-paragraph answer: Let's just say that you've touched on the great structural flaw of tennis. It is so Balkanized and such a jumble of alphabet soup that there is no simple answer. In part, promotion is the job of the respective tours, but it also is the responsibility of the local promoter. At some level, the country's federation figures into this, too. And, of course, the ITF shares some promotional responsibility for the Grand Slams and the Davis Cup. At least in the U.S, it also falls largely on said federation to cultivate general interest and "grow the sport," as they say. Got that? Bottom line: Tennis has to centralize and streamline and raze this Tower of Babel in order to grow beyond a niche sport. With all due respect to Tarik Benhabiles, who has shepherded Andy Roddick to this point, would you say that this is a make-or-break(up) year for Roddick and his coach? Brad Gilbert is a tennis genius (see: Andre Agassi, read: Winning Ugly) who is just waiting for a project like Roddick.
First, for the sake of perspective: Roddick didn't live up to his clippings in 2002, particularly at the Slams. But he won 56 matches this year, more than $1 million in prize money and finished 10th in the Champions Race, an improvement of six places from 2001. And did we mention he doesn't turn 21 until next August? Not exactly "ship be sinking" territory. As we've discussed in the past, a player-coach relationship is really more personal than professional. Roddick feels comfortable with Benhabiles and clearly trusts him as the caretaker of his game. So long as that's the case, I don't think we'll see a coaching change. From a technical standpoint, remember that Benhabiles was a scrappy, undersized player who got to the upper reaches precisely by playing "ugly tennis." Let's see if Roddick can betray more focus and patience on the court. That would serve him far better than a coaching change. Do you know of a place (online or elsewhere) where you can purchase old tennis matches on video? Whenever I see a classic match referenced or one pops into my mind for some reason, I get the urge to watch it again.
I get this question a lot and don't know the answer. If any of you have suggestions, please send them in. As far as I know, tennis pros have to be retired five years before they're eligible for enshrinement in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. Why, then, did Boris Becker get the call before Stefan Edberg? Their credentials are roughly equal (Becker won 49 singles tournaments, Edberg 41, including six Grand Slams each). Edberg retired after the 1996 season, a good six years ago. Becker, on the other hand, went into "semi-retirement" after Wimbledon in 1997, played sparingly over the next two years, and only completely stopped playing professionally in 1999, a mere three years ago. I love both these guys, but what gives? Why wasn't Edberg inducted after his fifth year of retirement? Are his credentials not strong enough? Why was Becker ushered in after only three?
This is another question that comes up at least once a week. I haven't gotten a response from the good folks at the Hall of Fame, so if, perchance, any of you know the answer, please clue the rest of us in. (And if you want an additional challenge, try and write the preceding sentence without ending it in a preposition.) Long Lost SiblingsPaul-Henri Mathieu and Ryan Philippe.
Todd Martin and Oakland mayor (and former California governor) Jerry Brown.
Alberto Berasategui and Dermot Mulroney.
Have a great week, everyone, and happy Thanksgiving! 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.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
