 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revisionist history Winning the Australian is harder than you might thinkPosted: Monday February 03, 2003 1:50 PM
Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question. One of you suggested that we reinstate our Annual Player of the Week award, and we aim to please here at the Mailbag. So how about a tip of the chapeau to Lindsay Davenport, who won the Pan Pacific Open, her first title since returning from knee surgery. ... Congrats are also in order for Dutchman Martin Verkerk, who beat Yevgeny Kafelnikov in three sets to win the Milan Indoor title. ... In keeping with our New Year's resolution to give doubles some increased virtual ink, Elena Bovina and Rennae Stubbs beat Davenport and Lisa Raymond for the two-woman title in Tokyo. In Italy, Czech mates Petr Luxa and Radek Stepanek beat Tomas Cibulec and Pavel Vizner. ... Congrats to the 2003 Hall of Fame inductees: Boris Becker, Françoise Durr, Nancy Richey and former ITF president Brian Tobin. We're still doing some digging re: the curious omission of Stefan Edberg. More to come. ... Audience participation: FOM (Friend of Mailbag) Eugene Whitlock of California is in the market for an adult tennis camp. Any of you have suggestions? ... Speaking of FOM, a happy 32nd birthday to tennis convert Vernon Forrest, who, we are confident, will regain his full complement of belts before long. ... It's not often that you hear about a positive drug test from the player in question, but last week Bohdan Ulihrach said he tested positive for the banned steroid nandrolone during a tournament in Moscow last October. Ulihrach told the daily Sport that he was shocked by the test result and denied taking any banned substance. He said he had received results only from the A sample and was still waiting for a B test, which should come soon. Earlier this year the ATP announced it would double out-of-competition testing and increase in-competition testing by about 20 percent. ... Another big winner last week: Lowell, Mass. Seems that both Venus and Serena Williams have announced their intention to play in the Fed Cup tie April 26-27 at Tsongas Arena. Onward ... And so it begins: Time once again to slam Andre Agassi for winning half of his Slams at the Aussie. In my view, the Aussie is the most wide-open major. For the past 10 years virtually every ranked player has ventured Down Under. Players hit the ball cleanly and matches are frequently grueling. The surface is fair to both clay and hard-court players, and thus anyone can reach the final. Don't these factors make the Australian that much more difficult to win? At each of the the other majors, perhaps five people can win the tournament, based on surface and/or environment. Would you support my theory that, over time, Agassi's four Australian Open titles will gain merit and Pete Sampras' seven Wimbledons lose a little luster?
Agree, agree, a thousand times agree. Owing largely to its history and tradition, Wimbledon is seen as a more prestigious Slam than the Australian. But in many ways, the Australian is more difficult to win. As you point out, it is a far more democratic surface: Baseliners can stay back, yet it plays fast enough for volleyers to head netward. Because the field includes so many different styles, a player who can win seven matches has really proven his mettle. Another reason the Australian should be accorded more weight: the conditions. The short points and mild weather mean that fitness and resolve are seldom an issue at Wimbledon; in Melbourne, where temperatures can eclipse 100 degrees and a blanket of humidity lingers over the courts, matches are often battles of attrition. If Agassi weren't in superior shape, no way would he have won there four times. On a related note, a few of you, including Scott Urista of New York, asked whether Agassi would eclipse Sampras as the best of all time if he somehow won the Grand Slam this year. Admittedly this is a loooong shot, but if, somehow, Agassi ran the table, you could certainly make a strong argument. Yes, he would still be trailing Sampras in Slams, 14-11, but, jeez, he will have won each a minimum of twice; he will have won the Grand Salami at a time when, qualitatively, men's tennis has never been better; and he will have won half his Slams after hitting age 30. The glaring argument against him: Head-to-head, Sampras owns Agassi and has, for the most part, dominated the "rivalry." (Zen riddle: Can there be a rivalry if one party dominates? Whoa, deep, man.) Anyway, it's almost ridiculous even to indulge this scenario with just one major in the books, but it does make for a good barroom debate. What's your take on Marlene Weingartner? After she beat Jennifer Capriati at the Australian Open, I was excited to see her play. But by the time the weekend rolled around, Weingartner was already out of the tournament. Contender or pretender?
You know how when two people become involved romantically, they sometimes start to bear a physical resemblance to each other? (Memo to self: We ought to do a Separated at Birth with Lleyton Hewitt and Kim Clijsters.) There's a corollary with tennis pros: They tend to play alike. Weingartner used to be involved with Andrew Ilie, and she seems to have co-opted his wildly erratic ways, both point-to-point and match-to-match. On one point she's unleashing a sick winner from yards behind the baseline; on another she's slamming a short ball into the Kia signage. Likewise, in one tournament she's getting double-bageled by Ashley Harkleroad (it's not often that we see a player get double-bageled by a lower-ranked opponent); then a few events later she's beating Capriati, the two-time defending champ, at a Grand Slam. The skinny: Weingartner has loads of talent, is first-team all-shotmaker, and when she's on -- and she unmistakably was on against the Capster -- is fun to watch. But until she finds more consistency I wouldn't put her in the contender category. How come these days top players don't really have a weak shot? If you look at the rankings from the late '70s and early '80s, several top-10 men and women had, relatively speaking, a very weak forehand or backhand, but still were able to win tournaments. Has there ever been an uglier shot than Pam Shriver's forehand? (Sorry, Pam.) On the men's side, Vitas Gerulaitis (God rest his soul), basically got by without a topspin backhand (granted, he was one of the quickest guys around). In addition, the John McEnroe and Stefan Edberg Continental-grip forehands also were a bit weak. Do you think the lack of power generated from wooden rackets was why one could flourish with a weak wing?
I was speaking with a former Grand Slam champion in Australia (it was a casual conversation, so I'd better not offer up her name) who was speculating about how Steffi Graf would have fared against the Williams sisters. The conclusion she drew: Steffi was sounder technically and a more fluid player, but both Venus and Serena would pound, pound, pound it to her backhand and not give her the requisite time to hit that forehand. The short answer to your question: Consider this part of the game's evolution. Players are much better (and the equipment is so much more advanced) that if you're weak off one flank, you'll be made to pay the price. I'm interested in your perspective on the One-Slam Wonder phenomenon: A talented but obviously inconsistent player reaches the pinnacle by winning a Slam, but then is unable to recapture this magic at any other major event. Why? Is it a once-in-a-lifetime combination of incredible luck, out-of-body playing and a good draw? Why is it that players like Iva Majoli have difficulty repeating their success?
We use the term One-Slam Wonder fairly broadly, but like Tolstoy's unhappy families, each is different in his/her own way. Some, like Albert Costa at the French or Goran Ivansevic at Wimbledon, are surface specialists who are credible candidates to win year in, year out and finally break through. Other times the stars are simply aligned for solid if unspectacular players. At last year's Australian Open, Thomas Johansson (no slouch of a hard-court player to start with) got on a roll, received a few breaks from the draw gods, faced a mentally infirm Safin in the final and, presto, suddenly his name was being engraved on the trophy. Perhaps the saddest case: Players with loads of potential hit paydirt and A) start to believe their own press clippings, B) succumb to the pressure of being a Grand Slam champ, or C) see their motivation become blunted. Exhibit A is Majoli who, of course, won the French in 1997 and within two years was a sherpa-trek away from the top 100. Admittedly she had some injuries, but, still, she was a teenager already in the top 10 and her future seemed bright. Now she can barely get out of the first round or two. There is a feeling in some corners that Marat Safin fits this description, too. I think that's a bit harsh (he did, after all, reach the final in Australia last year and finish at No. 2). Still, given his level of native talent, it's high time he followed up on his 2000 U.S. Open title. Check out the Web site for the WTA Indian Open. The site, which the WTA links to on its home site, is more than a little over the top. From the way it reads, you would think it was promoting a Hooters-type wet T-shirt contest and not a professional tennis event. The tournament is calling itself the "Glam Slam." The front page describes the "fluid grace of Serena Williams" winning points with her "thighs taut." From the Gallery page: "For your exclusive downloading and drooling pleasure, here are some of the best images of your favorite women tennis stars in action. Women in superb shape. Shapely superwomen. However you look at them, you will look at them. Check this page from February 3rd onward. You'll find lots to drool over. And download." It's one thing to sell tennis using sex as an angle, but the Indian Open site forgets about the tennis!
A few of you wrote calling our attention to this site. (Surprisingly, you can enter without first giving a credit-card number and confirming that you're over 18.) The WTA Tour has bigger fish to fry right now than hormonally driven promotional material. But at some level, this illustrates the problems we discussed a few weeks ago about the tour's structure. The individual promoters have a lot of autonomy about things like advertising, onsite entertainment and sponsor recruitment. If, say, an NBA team transgressed the bounds of good taste like this and all but prostituted the players, the league office and commissioner David Stern would put his taut thigh down, threaten to fine the offending parties, and that would be that. The WTA doesn't have this kind of authority. On the other hand, this is an event sanctioned by the tour. You'd think officials would contact the tournament to express their feelings and request that promotional material be a tad more tasteful -- or, at the very least, refrain from linking to it on its own site. This, of course, presupposes that the tour takes issue with the passages you quote. I'm not sure there's much to indicate that this is the case. A little hypothetical for you: You are a fabulous tennis player. You've lost the last four Slams to another fabulous tennis player. You are evenly matched with this person in ability and talent. The one less-than-stellar aspect of your astounding game (as recognized by tennis wags the world over) is your serve. Technically, it leaves much to be desired, but you have done great things with it. Do you: A) continue along with your current coaches, who are not technicians but who have brought you this far; or B) hire as an adjunct the greatest serving coaches of all time (since you are rich as Croesus)? Seriously, what is the deal?
How about this for choice C: Given that you have lost to the same equally matched opponent five matches running, and given that your matches against said opponent are freighted with all sorts of dissonance and emotional ambivalence, you hire a sports psychologist and work out your issues. Your point is well-taken, but if I'm the hypothetical player in question, I hire a forehand guru before I retain an adjunct coach to help me with my serve. Andre Agassi's performance throughout the Australian Open was just about the most dominant exhibition of men's tennis at a Slam I've seen since I started watching the sport. Where would you rank it in the pantheon of men's Grand Slam performances?
Interesting question. Certainly, on paper, there have been comparatively dominating performances. Thomas Muster won the French Open in 1995 without dropping a set. During some of his Wimbledon runs (1995, too, I believe) Pete Sampras was virtually untouchable. John McEnroe at Wimbledon in 1984 wasn't a bad seven-match run either. But I'm with you: In Australia, Agassi was simply playing another sport from the rest of the field. Haters will point out that he defeated precisely zero top-10 players en route to winning the title. But I would submit that he would have Panzered any opponent last week. There must be a curse that comes with winning warmup tournaments. How else can you explain none of the tuneup winners (Gustavo Kuerten, Paradorn Srichaphan, Stefan Koubek, Nikolay Davydenko and Hyun Taik-Lee) advancing past the second round of this year's Australian Open? Is this a case of peaking too soon?
It's probably worth pointing out that this doesn't merely apply to Australia. Take a look at how the Hamburg men's winner, for instance, has fared at the French. To be sure, there are instances of players peaking too soon (and, perhaps, peeking too soon). But take a look at the fields of these warmups, and you have your answer. FYI, neither Agassi nor Hewitt played an ATP event prior to the Australian. How long before Patrick McEnroe includes the Bryan brothers on the Davis Cup roster? Although they lack Davis Cup experience, they did finish the year ranked third. Any thoughts?
A few of you wrote in about this. My gut says that you're right and the captain ought to give the twins a shot. They're good kids and certainly among the world's elite teams. (Plus, their inclusion would be a nice endorsement of the ATP doubles rankings.) But playing devil's advocate: 1) Pat Mac has said in the past that he likes the flexibility of having players who can compete in both singles and doubles. As strong a team as the Bryans are, right now neither is in the same league as a singles player as a James Blake or even a Mardy Fish. 2) Right or wrong, there is a sense that the brothers are a package deal. If you pick them both, suddenly you're left with only two real roster openings. 3) The captain has yet to be burned by cobbling together a doubles team rather than using an established team. If Blake-Fish or whoever falls to the Croats, maybe McEnroe will change his philosophy. Speaking of Pat Mac, a note to our New York-area readers: His talented wife, Melissa Errico, will be performing at Joe's Pub in the Village next month. Check your local listings. Last year you came out rather strongly against Martina Navratilova's return to competitive tennis. The stated reason for your disapproval was that she had come back as a result of losing some sort of bet, and that she shouldn't be stealing younger/lesser-known players' spots in tournaments for such frivolous reasons. Given two recent developments -- 1) Navratilova winning the mixed-doubles title at the Australian, and 2) Steffi Graf perhaps playing in the French Open as the result of losing a bet -- what is your take on this issue now?
First, in my defense: I took exception to Navratilova playing singles on a bet. I was, and am, all for her return to competitive tennis. When she started playing doubles again in 2000, she had trained diligently, made a commitment to a full schedule, and acquitted herself admirably. I felt that she undercut the tour's credibility a bit when, on a lark, she took a singles wild card. (As long as I'm in a confessional mood: A lot of you made compelling arguments supporting her return to singles, and I suppose you convinced me that I was wrong.) Anyway, mixed doubles is a lot of fun for players and fans alike. But it is basically a sideshow, a glorified exhibition that fills up the schedule. (I think it is Mary Carillo who refers to it as the "funny cars of tennis.") No one is a "mixed-doubles specialist" and no players rely on their mixed-doubles paychecks to subsidize their careers. Martina? Great. Steffi and Andre? Super. As far as I'm concerned, if Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt were handed a wild card, good for them. Why don't you talk about Gustavo Kuerten anymore? I know he was hurt last year, but now he is OK. I remember when Marat Safin was hurt and struggling you talked a lot about him and his back injury. I'm sure if Lleyton Hewitt were going through the same situation that Guga is going through now you would be talking about him. I think that the former No. 1 deserves more respect. You can show that you respect him by writing more about him. Things like: What should we expect from him? Can he become No. 1 again?
We went through the same thing a few years ago with Kuerten. There's a hitch to this whole Q&A format: If you guys don't ask about Player X, I tend not to write about him/her much. If I received more Kuerten-related mail, there'd be more Kuerten-related chatter. I swear. Your question comes at an unfortunate time. Your man was bounced in Australia in the second round; never has he made it past the round of 64 in Melbourne. But, assuming his health holds, Guga could easily return to the top 10. Love the ground strokes, love the aptitude on clay, love the samba band. And as long as he plays Roland Garros, he is on the short list of threats to win. No. 1 again? That might be pushing it. His game tends to tail off once he leaves the clay, and I think there are some lingering doubts about whether his body can endure playing a full schedule. But I could be wrong. Lord knows, it wouldn't be the first time. Long Lost SiblingsRoger Federer and actor Henry Thomas.
Fabrice Santoro and Emilio Estevez.
Jennifer Capriati and Monica Lewinsky.
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.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
