Pointing toward the future
Posted: Monday November 09, 1998 01:11 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.
If the tennis goings-on in Europe these days prove
anything, it's that the death of the "Best of 14"
ranking system is occurring none too soon. Under the
current format, a player's computer rankings are based on
his best 14 results over a rolling
52-week period. While this mechanism earns points for inherent
fairness, the underbellyof the system is that players who
should be winding down their schedules are cramming in
matches and groping for wild cards in hopes of undoing 10
months of lackluster
results. Not only does this cheapen the No. 1 ranking mantle, but
tournaments with deceptively strong draws are being marred
by a bevy of walkovers and halfhearted
efforts.
Starting in 2000, however, the tour is replacing the
"Best of 14" with a "points race"
similar to what NASCAR does with Winston Cup points.
Players will start the year with zero points and then amass
a ranking based on their results in the four Slams,
the Super Nine tournaments and their best results from five
other tournaments. Not only will this help ensure that the
biggest events draw all the top names but it should
eliminate the current confusion about how a player like
Pete
Sampras can continue to bolster his points lead even though his
results are largely
mediocre.
One of the few drawbacks of the points system is that the
player to win the first event on the calendar will assume
the No. 1 ranking. This year, for instance,
Lleyton
Hewitt , a 16-year-old qualifier, would have stood atop the
rankings after winning the Adelaide event in early January.
Todd
Martin , however, correctly points out that the golfer who wins
the first event of the year isn't suddenly anointed as the
best in the business. "We have to look at it the same
way in tennis," says Martin. "I don't think it's
going to take
Einstein to figure that out." Yet even he would be scratching
his head trying to makes sense of the current Best of 14
format.
Since discussion of the ranking system is an FDA-approved
cure for insomnia, let's go direct to the 'bag
...
In a country like Pakistan, tennis is followed without any
particular favor towards a player from a particular
country. With this perspective, I find it difficult to see
why Marcelo Rios does not receive as much praise and
recognition as does a Pat Rafter or even, for that matter,
a Venus Williams. Rios' winning percentage is, at over 80%,
the best on tour, compared with Rafter's winning percentage
of 76%. Rios has also won more titles than Rafter this
year. Why can't talent and results be prioritized as more
important to a player's repertoire than is his ability to
be commercially sellable (read: Andre
Agassi)?
—Ayaz Abdulla, Karachi,
Pakistan
It's not, of course, unique to tennis, but you're right
that too many athletes are stars because of their
marketability and not their talents. I probably harsh on
her too much, but I'd guess that a lot of casual tennis
fans would be shocked to learn
that pin-up girl
Anna
Kournikova has never even won a pro
tournament.
On the other hand, I think your example of Rios misses the
mark. Even if his winning percentage is a few percentage
points lower, Rafter defended his U.S. Open title, a far
greater feat than anything Rios has accomplished this year.
What's more, Rafter
is a consummate sportsman who respects the game, respects
his opponent, respects the fans and is cooperative with the
media. This is something other than crass Madison Avenue
commercialization; but if these traits make him a more
popular player than Rios
in the eyes of some fans, it may not altogether be a bad
thing.
This is a question on the long ongoing let-cord rule. As a
longtime fan of tennis, I always thought that the rule was
useless and slowed the game down, boring the spectators
while the players prepare for another serve. I believe that
it should be abolished. What is you opinion on the
rule?
—Susan An, Sydney,
Australia
With any luck, we'll be telling our incredulous grandkids
about the time when serves that clipped the net didn't
initiate some of the quirkiest, most exciting points in a
match, but, rather, necessitated a do-over. Not only would
abolishing the let
speed up matches and add an element of luck and whimsy to the
game, but it would provide
Bud
Collins that many more opportunities to unleash his raspy,
signature call, "Let cord." (Or is it "net
cord?" Or is it "let court?" I never can
tell.) Anyway, the purists maintain that eliminating the
let is changing the fundamental rule of the sport. But I
ask
you, sports fans, to compare the gravity of this change to
adding a three-point shot in basketball or devising a
two-point conversion in football.
I was disappointed that you left out one of the better
commentators and ignored one of the worst in your most
recent Mailbag. Luke Jensen is extremely bright, accurate,
honest and colorful in the broadcast booth. His
intelligence and love for the game are always evident.
Billie Jean King, on the contrary, appears to have a
rooting interest in each match and gets way too emotionally
involved. Her emotional reactions to missed shots make her
more fit for coaching and have no place in the broadcast
booth.
—Jon Rapkin, New York
City
I'm with you on King. As, it seems, are the network heads,
who are assigning her to cover fewer and fewer matches. But
as far as Jensen goes, to borrow a phrase from another
player-turned-commentator, "YOU CANNOT BE
SERIOUS." At the risk of sounding
like an ogre, I have a credibility problem with any commentator
who feels compelled to punctuate every sentence with the
word "Dude," and who wears a day-glo bandanna in
the broadcast booth. To his infinite credit, Jensen (along
with his brother,
Murphy ) does a great job trying to make tennis hip among kids and
refuting the sport's country-club stereotype. But when
tennis' answer to Hanson is on my television trying to make
serious observations, I have a sense of what
Clinton must have felt like when
Monica shared her thoughts on public education. Just as the
San Diego
Chicken never joined
Al
Michaels or
Bob
Costas in the broadcast booth, let's leave the Jensens to drum up
excitement by passing out free T-shirts and playing air
guitar on their
rackets.
I would like to know your view on how men's tennis players
who focus on singles are beginning to play more doubles to
improve their volleys. Pat Rafter and Jonas Bjorkman have
always played doubles at almost every tournament they
enter. But recent examples, such as Andre Agassi playing
doubles at the Eurocard with Boris Becker, makes it seem
that they are beginning to get influenced by the women.
Furthermore, perhaps Pete Sampras will start playing some
doubles soon now that guys such as Rafter are pressuring
him with volleys that are
superior.
—Jonathan Wong,
Vancouver
The men would never admit to copying any innovation from
the women's tour, but your point is well taken. It does
seem like a few more of the top men are getting smart and
supplementing their singles with some doubles play. When a
top gun like Rafter
plays doubles, he hits a ton of volleys, practices his serve
under match conditions, rarely plays for longer than an
hour so he doesn't much tax his body, and he gets paid some
decent
scratch.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it's a complete
mystery to me why every player on tour isn't entering the
doubles draw as well as the
singles.
Your commentary is a rare mix of great insight and healthy
cynicism (opening obsequious comment). Bravo. What are your
thoughts on Pete Sampras' dominance? Specifically, how much
longer do you think his body and mind (probably the more
fragile of the two at this point) will hold out? He is
still the most skilled player around, but his results seem
a little less consistent than in the past. Is this a
manifestation of Pete's diminishment, or is it something
else?
—Jerry Newton, Van Buren,
Ark.
See
below.
I'd just like to say that you have a great column and I
look forward to reading it every week. (Since you said an
obsequious comment will make a question more likely to get
posted, I decided to give it a shot. :)) Really, though,
it's not just flattery—I really do enjoy reading your
comments. I was just wondering, what do you see for Pete
Sampras at the end of this year and for next year? Do you
think he can rebound from a relatively disappointing year,
finish No. 1 and come out strong next year? Also, do you
think he will break the alltime Grand Slam singles record
before retiring? As one of Pete's most avid fans, I hope
the answer to all this is yes. I decided to ask you,
because you seem fair and I respect you more than most
other tennis journalists (one more sycophantic comment,
just for good measure :)
).
—Christine, San
Francisco
Oh Christine, you know how to make a man feel good. For all
you unfledged boot-lickers out here, that's how it's
done.
One gets the sense that Sampras is pressing too hard for
these records and would have infinitely stronger results if
he just trusted his regular regimen and tried his best to
ignore Father Time. Though his body is breaking down more
frequently than a
Pentium processor, Sampras ought to finish the year ranked No.
1, if only because he is cramming his schedule with events
this late in the year. And unless he is paralyzed by
self-applied pressure, he ought to be for good at least two
more Slams in the
next, say, three
years.
With the current logjam on the men's side for the
season-ending No. 1 spot, who in your opinion has had the
year to be most deserving of
it?
—Suzanne Low, Vancouver,
B.C.
No player on the men's side has been particularly
consistent this year. Rios started strong, winning both
Indian Wells and Lipton, but he's gone back to his old
erratic ways. Sampras won Wimbledon and had a strong
showing at the U.S. Open, but has
hardly had a banner year otherwise. Rafter rebounded from a
lackluster start to win two Super Nines and a Grand Slam in
the course of five weeks. Now all three are limping to the
finish line in Hanover. The short answer to your question
is that Sampras
probably finishes the year ranked No. 1 again, though Rafter might
deserve it more. What I'd really like to see is a fitting
good riddance to the "Best of 14" system and see
no one claim the No. 1
ranking.
Has Marcelo Rios ever played Pete Sampras? Who do you think
is a better player when he is at his best? Pat Rafter has
won back-to-back U.S. Opens; do you think he is of their
caliber? Personally, I think Rafter will be out of the top
eight next
year.
—Arby,
Indonesia
This doesn't sound right to me, but according to the ATP
Tour, Sampras and Rios have only played once: an early
round match at the 1994 French Open which Sampras won in
straight sets. When both players are on their game—an
increasingly rare
hypothetical—I think Rios is better on clay but Sampras takes him on
every other surface. I certainly think Rafter is of their
caliber. In fact, my prediction, customized for you, Arby,
is that Indonesia's economy will stabilize before Rafter
defects from the top
eight.
Can you explain Andre Agassi's popularity to me? He seems
to me to be an irritable combination of self-absorption and
childish defiance, but maybe there's some kind of hidden
secret that makes him more popular in America than, say,
Pat
Rafter?
—Sarah, Sydney,
Australia
Sarah, it's only a Tennis Mailbag. You'll have to take
questions like this to your clergyman, a trained health
professional or someone else you trust with profoundly
personal matters.
My question is about Conchita Martinez. She's often been
pitted against her compatriot Arantxa Sanchez Vicario. What
are your views about this rivalry and who do
u think is the better player? Also, what do you think
Conchita's chances are of winning another Slam or of going
up the rankings in
1999?
—Paul, Los
Angeles
First, has anyone out there noticed that every non-American
who writes in substitutes "u" for
"you"? Just an observation. Anyway, I'm not sure
what the dilly is (note: hip American slang for u citizens
of the world) with Conchita. After beating
Martina
Navratilova to win Wimbledon in 1994, she's been on cruise control,
maintaining a top-10 ranking but failing to win any
big-ticket events. And at this stage in her career, she's
not likely to win any more. Conchita certainly has the raw
talent of Arantxa, but
plays with so much less emotion, hustle and derring-do (I can't
believe I'm in my 20s and actually typed that word) that
I'd pick Sanchez Vicario to win a head-to-head match.
What has happened to Sergi Bruguera this
season?
—Habatwa Mweene, Lusaka,
Zambia
He could be chilling out in Zambia for all I know. A
clay-court specialist if ever there were one, Bruguera won
two French Opens, was once ranked as high as No. 3 and has
earned more than $10 million for his career. Today he is
ranked No. 120 and has a
won-lost record this year of
12-23.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
| 
