Don't give up on Hantuchova

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

Straight to the questions this week ...

You have written very nice things about Daniela Hantuchova, but it's clear that she cannot beat the Williams sisters, and I doubt she is a future champion. Are you still so big on her future, and if so, what is it you like so much?
—Don Dixon, Toronto

Hantuchova's inability to beat the Williams sisters notwithstanding (hardly a distinguishing characteristic), I'd say I'm still bullish on her future. What do I like? She does everything capably and has a lot of versatility in her game, though she doesn't always show it. She volleys well, she hits the slice, she can fire away from the baseline and she moves adroitly. What's more, she adapts well to different surfaces. She also competes fiercely. The court is not her catwalk; watch her play and you'll see a lot of fist-pumping and fierce looks at her coach -- with virtually no preening. She has had some bad losses -- to Ai Sugiyama in San Diego, for one, though there were extenuating circumstances -- but her upward trajectory has been awfully consistent.

Physically, she has the requisite height to be a Big Babe but still needs to add the bulk. Despite claims that she is improving her strength, she is still built like a net post; to the extent that we can trust the WTA media guide, Hantuchova weighs 123 pounds. She also seems to rush when the match tightens, particularly against better players. I recall watching her play Venus in Australia, and it seemed like Hantuchova had a plane to catch. If I'm picking the next player to win her first Slam singles title, the vote here goes to Kim Clijsters. But I'm tempted to pick Hantuchova ahead of the rest of the gang, i.e., Justin Henin-Hardenne, Jelena Dokic, Amelie Mauresmo.

Speaking of Hantuchova, a little story: I had the good fortune of spending last week in Madrid. (Boy, was Papa Hemingway right when he called it "as enchanting a world capital as there is.") Anyway, I'm walking through a department store one evening and I see a group of a dozen or so people crowded around TV set. I'm thinking that they must be revealing Joe Millionaire's pick a week early in Europe. As I get closer, I see that tennis is on the tube and that the assembled hombres and mujers are watching ... drum roll, please ... Hantuchova against Els Callens. I realize that many consider Hantuchova to have assets beyond her tennis. But, c'mon, we're talking about an early-round match in Antwerp. You witness a scene like this and you have to be optimistic that women's tennis will soon find a meaningful sponsor.

I am a huge fan of James Blake, but after watching the recent Davis Cup disaster, I'm left wondering if he really has the goods. Do you see a Grand Slam title in Blake's future?
—Terry House, Los Angeles

Another little story: I brought my wife with me to Indian Wells in 2001. It was early in the tournament, and on our way onto the grounds a kid playing on the back courts caught her eye. (But I'm OK with that. Really.) So for a few games we sat and watched Blake try to qualify for the main draw. Anyway, precisely one other fan was in the stands: the inimitable Lou Noritz, who moved to Blake's side of the court during each changeover and shouted hilarious exhortations like, "You're a champ and he's a chump, James." Despite this encouragement, Blake lost and, in fact, won just one main-draw match over the next four months.

I bring this up to point out that, two years later, our discussing Blake's chances of winning a major is, in and of itself, remarkable. He has really made staggering improvement, and he deserves an awful lot of credit for elevating his game so thoroughly. To answer your question, I guess we need to define "the goods." If "the goods" means winning a Slam, I think Blake is a longshot. His backhand is still easily exploited, and one fears that he is too intelligent for his own good on the court. On the other hand, if "the goods" denotes a solid top-20 player who will win the occasional title, make a run at the odd Slam and do honor to the sport with his perspective, sportsmanship and, not least, his sense of humor, Blake is your man.

One of my favorite players, Lina Krasnoroutskaya, finally appears to have her game back on track. She has beaten the likes of Nadia Petrova, Elena Bovina, Daja Bedanova and Monica Seles this year. How far do you see her climbing? She was in the top 30 two years ago; do you think she is top-10 or top-five material?
—Chris Bullman, Chicora, Pa.

I think it's more a question of Krasnoroutskaya getting her health rather than her game back. But, yes, she scored a big win over Seles the other day in Doha, one that ought to do wonders for her confidence. Krasnoroutskaya is a nice player whom we'll see more of in the coming years. But the top 10 is pretty tight right now (jeez, there must be at least, what, 10 players in it?), and bigger, more talented women (Bovina, Eleni Daniilidou, Anastasia Myskina to pick three) are knocking on the door.

I realize that prognosticating is a dangerous business, but I have a request: I would like you to pick the semifinalists, finalists, winner and maybe a darkhorse or two for every Masters Series tournament, like you do for Grand Slams. You don't have to do an entire seed report -- just enough so I can compare my predictions with yours. I am sure others would be interested as well.
—James, Nacogdoches, Texas

Sure. We'll say it again: We aim to please here at the 'Bag. Maybe I'll select one of you readers to pick against me -- someone suggested this a few months ago -- and if you outforecast me, you'll receive a prize.

You're damn right, though, about prognosticating being a dangerous business. The bulk of hate mail and bile-soaked "you're an idiot" communiques I receive usually pertain to those pre-Slam seed reports. We should be clear: Just as fortuitously picking a winner doesn't make you the second coming of Stephen Hawking, neither does bombing a pick make you dumber than Joe Millionaire. Unless you foolishly chose Roger Federer to win Wimbledon 2002, in which case you deserve to be heckled. Also, picking against Player A does not bespeak a personal bias (e.g., "I know you hate Kimmy!!"); it simply means that the prognosticator in question thinks Player B has a superior chance to win.

That said, James, you're up first. Send me your picks and a few darkhorses by the first Monday of Indian Wells; I'll post mine and we'll see whose ponies do better.

Is there any chance Jennifer Capriati will pull it together this season? I still believe that she is the best woman out there in terms of technique. I have always thought that the Williams sisters can play some awfully sloppy tennis.
—Sandy Clark, San Francisco

Jeez, it's hard to see that happening. As if there weren't enough indications that the J-Cap Midway Ride was on the descent, it now appears as though the eye surgery she had in the offseason is giving her problems. The Williams sisters can indeed play sloppily at times, but so can the Capster. Plus, by all outward appearances, both Venus and Serena are entrenched in her psyche.

All that said, Capriati still hits the ball plenty hard and, perhaps more important, she has a quotient of meanness that certain other top players sometimes seem to lack. She is also capable of turning it around in a hurry. As one of you was kind enough to point out, in January 2001 I "prognosticated" that Capriati would never win a Slam. (I'm telling you, these picks bite you in the butt.) What would have made me write something so foolish? I went back and looked at my notes from late 2000. Not only had she done little in the fall; in her last match of the year she was stomped by Anna Kournikova, which never bodes well, at the year-end championships. A few weeks later, of course, the Capster magically found her groove and won the first of three majors.

I have read various articles and reader feedback suggesting that Indian Wells is now a second-tier tournament because of what happened with the Williamses. 1) Could you explain the tier system used by the WTA Tour, and 2) Do you believe that the Williams boycott has caused the tournament to loose prestige and money? I also heard that if a tournament doesn't land a certain number of top players, the WTA has to pay its organizers; is this so?
—Jeneane Stone, Jacksonville, Fla.

Without inducing narcolepsy, I'll keep this brief. On both tours, the tournaments are classified on different tiers based, essentially, on how much prize money they disburse. Higher-tier tournaments (i.e., the ones that put up the most cash) are guaranteed more highly ranked players and distribute more rankings points to players who do well. Hence Venus Williams took home more cake last weekend for winning Antwerp (a Tier II) than Myskina made for winning Doha (a Tier III.) Sometimes tournaments are willing to increase their purses for higher tier designations. San Diego, for instance, recently was elevated to a WTA Tier I -- which caused all sorts of consternation, but that's a story for another time -- from a Tier II.

As for your second question, tournaments certainly benefit from having the Williams sisters in the draw. And, yes, it is disappointing when a big-ticket (and big-purse) event features neither of the top two players. On the other hand, women's tennis isn't the PGA Tour. A golf event that is Tiger-less is the athletic equivalent of fat-free cheese; it just ain't the real thing. Fortunately, the WTA Tour has enough other stars to make Indian Wells worth watching. Further, as a coed event, a full boat of ATP stars will further camouflage the sisters' absence. (Yes, here we have yet another benefit of combining ATP and WTA events.)

That said, it sure would be nice if the tour could prevail upon Venus and Serena to take the high road and return to the desert. When the WTA has cajoled an event (an IMG-affiliated event, no less) into disbursing mad cash and then can't deliver its two biggest players, the tour loses some cred.

Finally, yes, the WTA guarantees that a certain number of top players (and/or gold/silver exempt players) will show up at each event, depending on the tier designation. If the tour can't meet this guarantee, it has to pay the tournament a fee, though the money essentially comes out of the players' bonus pool. Got that? (Don't worry, it won't be on the final.)

Here's a new candidate for best name in tennis: Kirsten Flipkens. She lost in the first round at Antwerp. I've never heard of her. You?
—Audrey Thompson, Granby, Conn.

I did Flipkens when I heard that name. But right now, I'm in the Flavio (Flav) Saretta/Flavia (Flav) Pennetta camp. (Amazingly, neither is weighted down by the large clock he/she wears on his/her chest.)

Re: the mysterious Stéphanie Cohen-Aloro, reader Susan Ribas of Sarasota, Fla., was kind enough to write in:

I saw [her] play in the Eddie Herr a few years ago and she easily won the girls' 16s. She was a better player than the 18s winner, too, and she had all the shots then. She looked and played like a pro! She could drive the ball, backhand slice it, then dropshot her opponents to frustration. I am glad to see she is having success on the WTA Tour, but I had no doubt she would if she stayed healthy. In fact, I am surprised it has not happened sooner!

Long Lost Siblings

Juan Balcells and singer Robbie Williams.
—Rob San Jose, Burbank, Calif.

LONG LOST SIBLINGS? Balcells Williams

(To coin a phrase: "Who the hell is Juan Balcells?")

Chanda Rubin and singer Morcheeba.
—Matt, Mahwah, N.J.

LONG LOST SIBLINGS? Rubin Morcheeba

Mario Ancic and singer John Mayer.
—Claiborne Davis, New Orleans

LONG LOST SIBLINGS? Ancic Mayer

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