| |
Can Davenport conquer the
Open?
Posted: Tue August 18,
1998
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.
So long as
Richard
Williams, father of
Venus and
Serena, stays in the mix, we don't have to worry about women's
tennis getting boring. Asked last week whether Serena could
beat
Martina
Hingis in their quarterfinal encounter at the Acura Classic,
Richard had an eloquent response: "I think Serena will
kick her ass coming and going." After winning the
match, 6-4, 6-1, Hingis—never one to pass up the
opportunity to crow—countered, "He should
watch his mouth. Serena is a nice girl, but the people around
her talk too
much."
While the Hingis-Williams sisters rivalry continues toward
a rolling boil much to the delight of fans, sponsors and,
not least, the media,
Lindsay
Davenport, as modest and unassuming a player as they come, has
quietly climbed within striking distance of Hingis' No. 1
ranking. With her victory at the Acura Classic last
weekend, Davenport has now won three straight events and 12
matches in a row. Davenport,
who's nearly 6' 3", might be the worst natural athlete
in the top 20, but she's lost a ton of weight and is
getting to more balls than ever. Davenport has been
improving in Grand Slam events (she has reached the
semifinals in three of the last four),
though one can't help but wonder whether she's peaking too
early to sustain her hot streak through the U.S. Open. For
the time being, though, suffice to say, she's kicking ass,
coming and
going...
Why is it that every time I see Pete Sampras play a long
match he looks exhausted and out of shape? The fact that he
plays more matches than most players might be part of the
reason, but you rarely see Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios or
Patrick Rafter lose because of fatigue. How can a player
who is considered to be possibly the greatest ever, in a
sport which requires great endurance, lose matches due to
poor
conditioning?
Also, who is the best player you have seen if you were to
consider each at their 'A'-level game? I'd have to say
Andre Agassi, even though most people would disagree. When
Agassi is focused, which is rare, and he is in shape, which
is also rare, he appears
unstoppable.
—Ronnie Campana, Burlingame,
Calif.
Sampras' suspect conditioning has been the source of
speculation for a while. Sampras refuses to cite it as the
cause of his breakdowns, but he does suffer from
thalassemia minor, a form of anemia which can reduce the
blood's ability to carry oxygen.
The other explanation, as you note, is that he plays a lot of
matches and rarely, if ever, tanks. Say this about Sampras,
too: If he's physically frail, his mental game more than
compensates. Tennis' anti-choker has won 11 of 13 matches
in Grand Slam
finals.
Your 'A'-game question is interesting. One of the things I
like best about pro tennis—men's especially—is
that any player's 'A' game is good enough to beat his
opponent's 'B' game. I've seen, for example, a vastly
inferior player like
Fabrice
Santoro get in a zone and thrash Sampras in straight sets. All
things being equal, though, I'd have to say that Sampras'
'A' game is the best I've seen. It's almost like a video
game. He places his 130 mph serves anywhere he wants, hits
ridiculous angles, and
returns serves as if they're on a tee. Agassi actually might
be second—when he's on, he sees the ball so well that
he's thinking three or four shots ahead of his opponent.
What's wrong with Jim Courier? He's still in great shape
and can still hit the big forehand. Has the game changed or
has
he?
—Jerry Newton, Little Rock,
Ark.
It has to be tough to be a former No. 1 who's now ranked
68th and is often early-round fodder for the
Slava
Dosedels of the world. For nearly five years, Courier has been
suffering from
Hideo
Nomo syndrome. That is, players have figured out his game and
realized what they need to do to beat him. He, meanwhile,
has done little to adjust to the times. Courier's a scrappy
fighter who goes down swinging, but I'd like to see him
change tactics, try
serve-and-volleying, every now and then. Something to break
the baseline
monotony.
What do you think of Lindsay Davenport's chances in the
U.S. Open now that she has won the last three WTA events?
Can you tell me what's new with Lindsay's tactics and play,
since it seems she has reinvented herself all of a sudden.
—Danny Prado, Manila,
Philippines
Lots of Lindsay questions this week. The hottest player on
the women's tour has done little to change her tactics: hit
hard, flat strokes from the baseline and serve
consistently. The difference is that at age 22, Davenport,
one of the most
leaden-footed players on the tour, has finally gotten herself in great
shape. In losing 25 pounds, she gained an extra step in
quickness and is getting to balls she wouldn't have even
tried to retrieve a year ago. Not only is Davenport
trailing Hingis by "only" 444
points, but she's one of the WTA's top-ranked doubles
players—so she's playing an awful lot of tennis this
year. If her body doesn't betray her, I think she has a
real shot to win her first
Slam.
This may be a moot point, considering the amount of money
the USTA poured into Arthur Ashe Stadium last year, but
over the past 10 years there's been a great deal of talk
about the possibility of the U.S. Open changing venues, or
even alternating sites each year, to give Americans across
the country a chance to see a Grand Slam. What is your
opinion of this
idea?
—Jason, Carrollton,
Texas
| |
Arthur Ashe Stadium will be the site of the U.S.
Open final for years to
come.
(Steve Berman/USTA) | You're right on both counts. After building Arthur Ashe
Stadium, the USTA won't be moving the U.S Open any time
soon. So, yes, your question is effectively moot. But I'm
with you on the idea. Particularly given tennis' flagging
popularity in the U.S.,
rotating the site of the event from city to city—much
like every golf major, save the Masters—would do
wonders for the sport.
Indulge me a brief rant on Arthur Ashe Stadium. The USTA
talks a good game about ridding tennis of its elitist image
and bringing the game to those unendowed by privilege.
Then, to showcase one of the sport's premier events, they
build a stadium that
smacks of corporate greed. Unlike soulful Louis Armstrong
Stadium, which was reflective of New York's grit and color,
the new center court is a monument to antiseptic corporate
avarice. Unless you're in a skybox, eating $11 shrimp
cocktails and imbibing
gin and tonics, the players are scarcely visible. Most of the
seats are so high that they induce vertigo; worse still, in
order to finance this monstrosity, ticket prices are
criminally expensive. The message of his eponymous stadium
is antithetical to
Arthur
Ashe's legacy: Unless Mommy or Daddy has access to Goldman
Sachs' suites, tennis doesn't care about
you.
I really enjoy watching Mark Philippoussis play, but you
think he has the mental ability to win a Grand
Slam?
—A. Nayar, Windsor,
Ontario
I'm not sure Philippoussis has the mental ability to spell
his name correctly. When "Scud" first burst on
the scene, we loved his raw power and assumed that in time
he'd learn to play at a speed other than full throttle.
Three years later, the saucy
Aussie is 22, he has yet top crack the top 10, and his career
seems to be going nowhere fast. His results have been
particularly subpar this year. He's had a number of bad
losses, and fell out of favor with Aussie mates
like
Rafter
(who ditched him as a doubles partner) and
the
Woodies when he bagged the Davis Cup tie—which Australia
lost, amazingly, to Zimbabwe. Philippoussis still has one
the game's most ballistic serves and hits as big a ball as
anyone, but he'll never be mistaken for a thinking man. He
desperately needs to learn
that sometimes less is more, and that a slice or an angle is
often as effective as a
howitzer.
There was a reference on TV this week to Marcelo Rios doing
something strange in Cincinnati—like breaking up with
his doubles partner in public—but it was never
explained. Do you know what it was all
about?
—Don Engel, Petaluma,
Calif.
Didn't hear anything about a public breakup, but Rios did
not have one of his better tournaments in Cincinnati. After
officially taking over the No. 1 spot last Monday, Rios
promptly lost his opening match to
Daniel
Vacek, a player who's not even in the top 50, 6-2, 6-3. He then
defaulted his doubles match on account of "a sprained
finger." Make of that what you
will.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
|
