Retired or not, Hingis' legacy is secure

Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question.

This week's Annual Player of the Week award goes to Ivan Ljubicic, who almost singlehandedly carried Croatia over the U.S. in the first round of Davis Cup. Ljubicic has an amazing backstory; suffice to say that when he was in a refugee camp 10 years ago, he didn't envision himself as a national hero one day. ... Mad props, if you will, to our friends at the ITF for running an outstanding Web site (www.daviscup.org). Real-timing scoring, well-done capsules from the various ties, vivid graphics. Check out this site for all the results from last weekend's ties. Then bookmark it. You'll be happy come subsequent rounds. ... Serena Williams picked up where she left off in Australia, beating Amelie Mauresmo to win the Open Gaz de France in Paris. It was the 10th final Williams has reached in her last 11 tournaments, and her eighth title. Since last year's Italian Open, Williams has won 50 of 52 matches (her only losses were to Chanda Rubin at Manhattan Beach and to Kim Clijsters in the Tour Championships). ... We feel for ticket holders who attended Saturday's matches in Paris. In one semifinal Williams waxed Eleni Daniilidou 6-2, 6-0 in 46 minutes; in the other Mauresmo double-shmeared Elena Dementieva 6-0, 6-0 in 42 minutes. ...

For my next impression, Paradorn Srichaphan. In India, Thailand's Tamarine Tanasugarn won her first career title by beating Iroda Tulyaganova in the final. Tulyaganova and Elena Likhovtseva beat the ambidextrous Evgenia Koulikovskaya and Tatiana Poutchek to win the doubles. ... He may have been left off the Davis Cup team, but Bob Bryan defeated his longtime friend and rival, Kevin Kim, 4-6, 7-5, 6-2 in the final of the Joplin Challenger. Bryan won three matches in the qualifying draw and then five in the main draw, losing only one set. ... Speaking of qualifiers going goal line-to-goal line, in Midland, Mich., Germany's Bianka Lamade qualified for the main draw and then won the Dow Corning USTA Championships, beating Laura Granville in the final. In an All-American doubles final, Teryn Ashley and Abigail Spears beat Bethanie Mattek and Shenay Perry 6-1, 4-6, 6-4. ...

On the 10th anniversary of the death of Arthur Ashe, the ATP has chosen Israel's Amir Hadad and Pakistan's Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi as the 2002 recipients of its prestigious Arthur Ashe Humanitarian Award. The doubles team's partnership generated massive media attention and sent a message of peace and tolerance throughout the world. ... Chris Evert announced her retirement from broadcasting. ... Pete Sampras announced that he was leaving the William Morris Agency and returning to IMG. In a completely unrelated story, William Morris announced that it would be doing some representational work for Andy Roddick, who is an SFX client. ... Faithful reader Chick (or maybe Chuck; I accidentally deleted his e-mail) Davison of New York reports that Kirsten Dunst was spotted on Manhattan's Lower East Side last week filming a tennis scene for the upcoming movie The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. ... The WTA Tour announced some (much-needed) changes to the year-end championships. The singles winner will earn $1 million, the most lucrative prize in women's sports history. Starting this year, the championships (Nov. 5-10, 2003, at Staples Center in Los Angeles) will change its format from a 16-player, single-elimination event to an eight-player, round-robin tournament. The doubles field will be cut in half, from eight to four teams, but remain single elimination, with the winning pair sharing $250,000.

Swiss Miss-ing

Before we get to the Q&A, a bunch of you sent in questions about Martina Hingis, who told a French newspaper last week that a return to tennis was "inconceivable," and then reiterated those sentiments to The New York Times' excellent columnist George Vecsey. Maybe it's simply wishful thinking, but I'm still reluctant to write a tribute/requiem for Hingis. She is, after all, only 22. If it takes four years to convalesce her feet, she could make a comeback at 26. (I know, I know: She said a return was "inconceivable." Remember, though, that it was "inconceivable" that Wallace Shawn would drink the poison in The Princess Bride. And look what happened to him.)

If, in fact, this is curtains for Hingis, she should walk away with her head high. Sure, she was overtaken by the power hitters, but not before winning five Slams, establishing herself as a doubles player par excellence, and mesmerizing us with her cerebral style and a sixth sense for what ball to play in what situation. She will be sorely missed. To answer a few questions that have crept up repeatedly:

1. Yes, she unquestionably will be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Her résumé and Q rating (more on this in a few minutes) mandate such.

2. There no doubt is a mental component to her going on inactive duty (note the measures to which we will go to avoid using the word retired). It's no fun losing your throne and watching your former rivals dwarf your records. But anyone who has watched Hingis -- a once-speedy player suddenly slower than the last half hour of Saturday Night Live -- in the past few years could tell that her mobility has been greatly hampered.

3. No, she isn't faking this as part of her lawsuit against Sergio Tacchini.

4. Her blunt remarks over the years will indeed color her legacy, but not as negatively as many of you surmise. I don't think any of us agreed with every statement that came out of Hingis' mouth. Some -- I'm thinking here of the notorious "half a man" crack -- were offensive by any measure. But in this day of spin, gloss and talking points, there's something to be said for an athlete who was impervious to p.r. palaver and simply said what was on her mind.

5. No, if she came back in a few years, I doubt she could win another Slam. There simply are too many Big Babes out there. But the sport (and the top 10) will always clear space for a player with so much native talent and consistency. Bottom line: If indeed we've seen the last of Chucky, she leaves the sport in a much better position than when she found it.

Question time

This really has been bothering me: A lot of members of the media were critical of the Williams sisters when they started on tour. Now that Serena and Venus are No. 1 and No. 2 in the world, the media have jumped on the bandwagon. All the past criticism seems to have been forgotten now that they think Venus and Serena are the greatest things since sliced bread. Isn't this so hypocritical?
—Dave Serrano, Baltimore

Fair question, but I guess my response is that people (not just athletes) are fluid. Our personalities evolve and devolve. The quality of both our work and our character changes. We improve in some respects and slide in others. Your question is like asking, "Isn't it hypocritical that you panned Kevin Spacey in Pay It Forward but loved him in American Beauty? That in middle school you liked Michael Jackson, owned parachute pants and counted the days until the release of the Thriller video (just hypothetically, of course) but now you think Jacko makes Damir Dokic look like pinnacle of sanity?" Here's a tennis example for you: I came across an old Esquire magazine the other day and was amused to see that its editors called the dubious achievement honors in sports the "Andre Awards." Andre (yes, that Andre) used to be so obstreperous that an award for punkdom once was christened in his honor. Now, of course, Agassi is a model citizen.

As for the Williams sisters specifically, there unquestionably has been a shift in public opinion and in the reception they receive from the media. (Frankly, I'm sure that if you went back and looked at old Mailbags, you would see clear evidence of this arc.) But this is not so much a matter of people climbing aboard the bandwagon as it is a response to a new reality. Time was, the sisters were talented players who had a knack for questionable withdrawals, routinely disrespected the opposition, and, of course, had their careers orchestrated by Richard. Remember also that for all the buzz they generated, until Wimbledon 2000 the sisters had a combined one Grand Slam title between them while Martina Hingis had five and Lindsay Davenport three.

Over the years they've eliminated a lot of the controversy, taken pains to avoid confrontation, and ceased the trash talk*. (As someone once said: "There's a name for this process -- life, I believe they call it.") And, of course, their play is now beyond reproach -- it's more than a year now since someone not named Williams has advanced beyond the semifinals of a Grand Slam, an achievement which still hasn't been fully recognized. If attitudes -- both among the general public and media -- haven't changed, then there's a real problem.

*An example: Remember a few years ago when Serena brayed that Hingis puts her foot in mouth because she lacks a "formal education"? No way does Serena ever think about saying something that incendiary today.

In your response to a letter about the Bryan brothers playing Davis Cup, you opined, "The captain has yet to be burned by cobbling together a doubles team rather than using an established one." Jon, take a look at the U.S. Davis Cup doubles record for the past 12 years. It's horrendous! We've used almost every combination of singles players possible for doubles -- including Pete Sampras, who obviously is not known for any doubles prowess -- and we rarely win the doubles match in any given tie. The U.S. captain has repeatedly been burned by cobbling together doubles teams as opposed to using established ones. Since the U.S. has a very successful established doubles team that has been playing together virtually since birth, selecting the Bryan brothers should be a no-brainer for all Davis Cup ties. How could a James Blake-Mardy Fish combination be a better choice for an important Davis Cup doubles match than the Bryans?
—Colin Mitchell, Houston

When I wrote what I did, I was referring to the current captain, not captains past. Heading into last weekend's tie, the last time the U.S. lost the all-important doubles point during Patrick McEnroe's stewardship was when he called upon the established team of Jared Palmer and Don Johnson. (In fairness, Palmer and Johnson's loss was to the Indian Express, Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi; no shame in that.) In all three ties last year, just-add-water teams like Todd Martin-Blake and Blake-Fish have done well. Of course, Blake and Fish fell apart and squandered a two-sets-to-none lead against Ljubicic and Goran Ivanisevic on Saturday, so it will be interesting to see if Pat Mac changes his philosophy next time.

Anyway, as I wrote last week, I do think the Bryans are worthy of being on the team. But I think the captain's reasons for not including them are legitimate. You like the versatility of Blake and, to a lesser extent, Fish. Plus, you'd almost have to pair the twins together, which would leave only two other spots. In a perfect world, the brothers would improve their singles play and this would become a moot point.

Check out what the esteemed Bud Collins had to say in The Boston Globe.

I'm a sportswriter for The Newport Daily News, and last summer I interviewed Tony Trabert, the chairman of the Hall of Fame nominating committee. He said the committee likes to nominate only one "big name" each year because it doesn't need more than one name player to sell out the induction ceremony. Hence, the committee last year decided to nominate Boris Becker and not Stefan Edberg. This is a direct quote: "If you had four quality singles players, you wouldn't use them all in one year," Trabert said. "We want those big names to carry the weekend." Edberg probably will have to wait a couple years to be inducted, because Steffi Graf is eligible in 2004. And I think the Hall of Fame wouldn't mind having Steffi and Andre Agassi at the 50th anniversary celebration.
—Eric Snyder, Newport, R.I.

Thanks for your insight. Over the past few months, not a week has gone by when one of you hasn't asked about the curious selection process. Your dispatch more or less confirms the rumor I'd heard. The twist I got: The induction ceremony will receive some built-in bang and publicity on the 50th anniversary, so why not use the less dynamic and personable players (i.e., Edberg) that year and load up on a more charismatic personality like Becker this year?

We finally got a hold of Mark Stenning, the Hall of Fame's CEO and the Newport tournament director (a gem of an event, by the way), who called Mailbag HQ and was kind enough to provide us with an answer to the Becker-Edberg chestnut. He explained that in 1987 a slew of worthy candidates came up for enshrinement. "Five or six top names were inducted that year and we thought it was a disservice to the players," he said. "Billie Jean King, for instance, could have the ceremony alone" but was forced the share the stage. In 1995 there again were several deserving candidates. In hopes of avoiding a repeat, the executive committee nominated Evert and then closed the ballot, insuring that she would have the day to herself. The following year, other candidates were inducted.

Anyway, Edberg retired at the end of 1996. And while Becker played until 1999, by the end of 1997 he was ranked No. 63. When a player falls out of the top 50, Stenning explained, he is considered "no longer active." Still, shouldn't Edberg have been eligible first? "I have to agree it should be Edberg, but it's close. Also, the committee said that they’re contemporaries and the [induction] should be one or the other this year, but not both," said Stenning. "So Boris will get in in 2003 and I have to believe that Edberg will be [enshrined] in 2004. I can't see why he wouldn't. That will be Steffi's first year of eligibility, too, as well as the 50th anniversary of the Hall of Fame."

Stenning added that he and Trabert both met with Edberg at the Stockholm tournament last winter. They told Edberg of the Hall's realpolitik, and he had no problem with it. "When the ballot came out we heard from the Stefan Edberg fan club, and they were worried that we had overlooked him," said Stenning. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

On a lark while using Netflix, I entered "tennis" as the search term and received the selection "Raising Tennis Aces: The Williams Story." The description reads as follows: "Documentarian Terry Jervis follows tennis phenomena Venus and Serena and their father Richard Williams during the buildup to the 2002 Wimbledon tournament. To get the inside story, Jervis also spent 2 months at the family's Florida home. The result is a revealing portrait that's completely different from the media's representation of the Williamses as a family driven by ambition and greed." Have you seen this film, and if so, what are your thoughts? Did the film capture the Venus and Serena you know? I must say I am surprised that the Williams would allow something close to all access, despite all the publicity they get.
—Shaila Kulkarni, Annapolis, Md.

Here's an item on the documentary that ran in last week's Sports Illustrated:

Just when it seemed Richard Williams had mercifully taken a backseat to his tennis-playing daughters, Venus and Serena, the DVD Raising Tennis Aces: The Williams Story (Xenon Pictures) reminds fans of the bluster they had scarcely missed. The just-released documentary has some nice moments, particularly home movies of the preteen sisters practicing at night on a public court in Compton, Calif., and cavorting at a family barbecue. But Aces is, unfortunately, the Richard Williams Show. The filmmakers have chosen to show Daddy uncorking such gems as, "I think people look up to me wherever I go," "I think [people] have meetings on how to beat Richard Williams out," and "I feel I'm the greatest father on Earth." The narration is equally grating about the "so-called controversial father," proclaiming, "his influence is something Venus and Serena have never questioned." Not surprisingly, the DVD's executive producer is Leland Hardy, the family's business adviser and a longtime confidant of Richard's.

I haven't seen the documentary so, to use every tennis athlete's favorite soundbite, "I really can't comment on that."

The United States is on the brink of an unpopular war with Iraq. Anti-American sentiment surely will rise around the world, especially if the war drags on for a long time or results in massive casualties. How is this going to affect American players who have to travel to far-flung corners of the globe to play tournaments? Will it make Americans afraid to travel?
—Raymond Stankowski, Lebanon, Conn.

Funny you should ask. I did a small piece for this week's SI about this very topic, noting that the WTA Tour will hold its Doha event this week. (Doha is basically the site of the U.S. military's nerve center in the Persian Gulf.) I spoke to a number of players -- some American, some not -- and the consensus is that tournaments are secure and that, while they may be cautious about what they do at night, once they're on site their fears abate. As Nicole Pratt told me (in so many words), for all intents Doha may as well be Indian Wells.

I guess your name is Mickey Ward, because the world's top two players will be playing Fed Cup for the U.S. in the first round. I watched Venus and Serena play and flourish after receiving some good tips (such as coming to net and improving the serve, which Serena really did well) from Billie Jean King, who I feel is a tennis genius. Do you think Venus may learn from her time spent with King and be able to beat her sister again?
—Edie, New York

Please, it's "Irish" Mickey Ward.

At the risk of sounding cynical, there's a big difference between committing to an event and playing an event -- just ask Barry McKay. That said, it would be great if both Venus and Serena show up in Massachusetts in April -- and it would certainly make the Fed Cup debacle in Charlotte a long, lost memory. I do think Venus will benefit from a few days with King and, unlike other Americans players, I think both sisters genuinely respect both King's legacy and her tennis acumen. Whether this will propel Venus to beat Serena is another matter. As I wrote last week, I think those matches are more a mental game than a physical or a tactical one.

So what's the real deal with Chris Evert's exit from broadcasting? The classic "I want to spend more time with my family" line is always used when execs are canned.
—Leslie Aguilar, Newark, N.J.

You'll notice that the day after the "Chrissy retires from broadcasting" story, there was a smaller item announcing that Mary Carillo is joining NBC's tennis coverage. Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.

What can you tell us about Stéphanie Cohen-Aloro? First she made it through the qualifying rounds in Tokyo and posted a pretty convincing victory over a top-25 player (Tatiana Panova), and then last week she beat Anna Pistolesi (relatively easily, too!). There's no information on her in the WTA Web site. All I know is that she's ranked 121st in the world, she's 19 years old (soon to turn 20), and she's French. According to the Open Gaz de France site, she's 0 cm tall and weighs 0 kg (whoa, she must be really tiny!). I'd never heard of her before and am interested in finding out what kind of a game she has. She must be a contender to post decent results two weeks in a row -- or is it just a fluke?
—Suzie, Irvine, Calif.

Though I suspect she may be taller and heavier than the stats listed, I confess that my knowledge of Cohen-Aloro rivals yours. I've noticed the same results you have, and it's worth pointing out that, on top of her singles results, she reached the doubles final in Paris last weekend. Clearly there's some game there. We'll try to catch her in Indian Wells or Key Biscayne and get back to you.

Meanwhile, say this: The French Tennis Federation deservedly receives a lot of credit for producing male players on the make (see: Richard Gasquet and Paul-Henri Mathieu). But the current crop of young femmes ain't half bad either. Virginie Razzano, Stephanie Foretz, Emilie Loit, Marion Bartoli (a personal favorite), and apparently this Cohen-Aloro character make for an awfully nice nucleus.

Camping trips

Regarding reader Eugene Whitlock's query about finding an adult tennis camp, a few responses:

My three favorites are Total Tennis (www.totaltennis.com) in the Catskills, Saddlebrook Resort (www.saddlebrookresort.com) outside Tampa, Fla., and of course the Vic Braden Tennis College (www.tennisflorida.com) at Star Island Resort in Kissimmee, Fla. ... where I am the director of tennis.
—Luke Wickham, Orlando, Fla.

I'd like to plug the Tennis and Life Camp (http://www.gac.edu/events/athletics/tlc/) at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minn. It might sound like an unlikely place, but I assure you that the camp is top quality, in the "life" stuff as well as in the "tennis" stuff. The adult camps are only on weekends. For those not in the know, Gustavus Adolphus consistently ranks among the top five or so programs in Division III men's tennis. I've been to the camp nine or 10 times.
—Barbara Beck, Rochester, Minn.

The best one I've heard of is John Newcombe's fantasy camp each year at his tennis ranch near San Antonio. It costs a pretty penny, but from what I've heard and read it is worth the price. Who wouldn't want to get to play with Newk and his boys all day, then throw back a few with your surf 'n' turf that evening? More cost-conscious patrons can always try the Nike tennis camps.
—Jeremy Plumley, McLean, Va.

Long Lost Siblings

Greg Rusedski and Ben Affleck.
—Rob, Burbank, Calif.

LONG LOST SIBLINGS? Rusedski Affleck

(Is it just me or has this whole J. Lo thing caused our man Ben to fall more than a few notches on the cool scale?)

Xavier Malisse and WWE superstar Chris Jericho.
—Robbie Scaf, Melbourne, Australia

LONG LOST SIBLINGS? Malisse Jericho

Have a great week, everyone!

Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim covers tennis for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.

 

Related information

Stories

Jon Wertheim's Tennis Mailbag Archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video