This talk is rank
Posted: Monday November 16, 1998 02:28 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.
Lots of questions this week, particularly about the new
ranking
system, so let's roll out the barrel. Surgeon General's warning:
If you find discussion of the rankings as boring as I do,
skip the first three
questions.
Under the new ranking system the ATP will use in 2000, how
will acceptance in the main draw and seeding be handled? If
the No. 1 player of 1999 fails to play the Australian Open
warmup events in 2000, will he have to fight his way
through qualifying? I suspect not, which leads me to
conclude that the present system of rolling 12-month
rankings will not be entirely supplanted. Can you
clarify?
—Jerry Balsam, New York
City
You're right. For qualifying and seeding purposes for the
events in early 2000, the ATP Tour will have to use the
rankings from 1999. The tour's company line is that
"details still need to be worked out," but I
can't see how tournaments can rely solely
on the "points standing" rankings until at least
mid-summer.
I have heard all year about the ranking changes on the
horizon. I, for one, cannot wait to see it implemented.
With all the talk I am surprised I have never seen this
year's, say, top 20 published as it would be under the
proposed system. Can you help me out
here?
—Justin Gannon,
Atlanta
At this time in the year, with only one event left on the
calendar, the top 20 under the proposed "points
system" virtually mirrors the top 20 computer
rankings. We'll do this exercise again in the spring,
though, and you'll see vast differences. For
instance, under the points system, heading into the 1998
Wimbledon,
Pete
Sampras wasn't in the top 10. Stay
tuned.
| |
Hewitt would have been No. 1 in the world earlier this season if the new ranking system had been used. Alex Livesey/ALLSPORT |
You indicated that the new system will improve the quality
of matches and eliminate the current ranking confusion. I
would like your opinion on the following comments: 1) It
will not improve the quality of play because you will still
have players entering all the year-end events to bolster
their points and ranking; 2) While eliminating some
confusion, it will create additional confusion because
there will be two player rankings -- one that is published,
and one used for seeding purposes. And the public will
never see the one used for seeding purposes; 3) Isn't the
best, most fair ranking system an "averaging"
system that would require a sufficient minimum number of
events (12 or 14) to achieve a ranking
place?
—John,
Hartford
Taking your objections one by
one....
- I think it will improve the quality of play because
players will have to score well in the Super Nines and the
Grand Slams. They will only have five "sliding"
tournaments so they won't be able to make up much ground
late in the
year.
- Good point, though ultimately it will be a small price to
pay. If, as was the case last year, unknown
Lleyton
Hewitt were to win the first event on the calendar, he might be
the No. 1—ranked player in the world and still have to
qualify for his next event. Though confusing, I'd rather
this be the case than make him the No. 1 seed at the next
event, even though his
"old" computer ranking wouldn't put him among the world's
top 100
players.
- There are several drawbacks to an averaging system.
First, a player has little incentive to deviate from a
surface other than his favorite -- so
Felix
Mantilla , for example, could rack up scads of points on clay while
skipping entirely more prestigious hard-court events.
Second, it would de-emphasize the Super Nine tournaments as
well as the Slams. Third, you'd be left with the confusion
problem we have now
where players are losing in the early rounds but then --
seemingly inexplicably -- moving up in the
rankings.
Who do you think is the best young American tennis
prospect? The times I have seen Jan-Michael Gambill play
have not left me impressed. Due to his two-handed style on
forehand and backhand,
I think he is a very limited player. Justin Gimelstob seems
to have a big serve but little else. I haven't seen Taylor
Dent yet but would be interested to see him since his
father, Phil, was a pro on the tour.
Comments?
—Bob Diepold, Charlotte,
N.C.
Assessing the brightest American tennis prospect these days
is akin to naming the least hairy
Bee
Gee . Slim pickings. The irony is that all the players you've
named have great personalities and would do wonders for the
popularity and marketing of the game ... if only they were
any good. Gambill, a down-to-earth kid with movie-star good
looks, will be a
solid player, but he will be lucky to replicate the success
of, say,
Todd
Martin . Gimelstob, in addition to being a former consort of
Martina
Hingis , is an intelligent, wildly uninhibited quote machine who,
unfortunately, is as mobile as a lamp post. The
Bryan brothers, Mike and
Bob , are great kids but unexceptional players. Dent may well
be the best of the lot. He's not exactly a model of fitness
right now but I've been told he's working with
Michael
Chang 's old trainer and will play more events next year. Though
only 17, Dent has a monster serve and no discernible
weakness -- aside from experience and
fitness.
Why is it that serve-and-volley players are by far more
popular than baseliners (with the notable exception of
Andre Agassi)? What separates Pat Rafter, Stefan Edberg,
Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, etc., from Sergi Bruguera,
Marcelo Rios, Thomas Muster, Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl,
etc.? And why is it that baseliners have very boring
personalities? By the by, are you a baseliner or
net-hugger?
—George Attokaran, Sunnyvale,
Calif.
Can't say I agree with your premise.
Jimmy
Connors less popular than Edberg? Rios less popular than
Jonas
Bjorkman ? Sampras less popular than
Greg
Rusedski ? Or are you alluding to the cork-popping personality of
Richard
Krajicek ?
Aesthetically, I think most tennis fans, self included,
prefer watching serve-and-volleyers. It's a riskier
strategy with the payoff of an easy winner and a short
point. But I'm not sure you can generalize much about
personalities.
And since you asked ... personally, while your term
"net-hugger" has me a bit troubled, I try to come
in as often as possible. I'm still at the level where I can
win cheap points putting pressure on my opponents and
getting them to shank passing shots.
What do you think has made the Spanish tennis program so
successful lately? Also, for a long time Spaniards were
thought to be clay-court masters only, but with Carlos
Moya's trips to the Australian Open final and U.S. Open
semis and Alex Corretja's indoor title in Lyon it seems
that they're even starting to rise up to the level of some
of the best hard-courters. What are their prospects in 1999
and in hard-court
events?
—Vic, Los
Angeles
Maybe too much has been made of this, but I genuinely
believe the Spaniards benefit from the camaraderie they
share. Guys like Corretja, Moya,
Albert
Costa and
Felix
Mantilla hang out together at tournaments, watch each others'
matches, and play soccer together during dead time. Also,
most of them are based in Barcelona so they always have
hitting partners in close proximity.
I'd be careful not to read too much into their success on
hard courts. Costa and Mantilla have underachieved,
Corretja has been erratic and even Moya's results are
deceptive. Yes, he made the U.S. Open semis, but he was
down match point to
Michael
Chang in the second round and would likely have lost his next
match to Gambill had the American not cramped in the fifth
set.
With Pete Sampras chasing points this late in the season,
do you think he might have either a letdown or a slow start
to the 1999 season? Don't forget that once this final
European swing winds down, the Australian Open will be
right around the corner. Historically, hasn't Sampras been
quite vocal in the past on the need for an
offseason?
—Michael Thatcher, McAllen,
Texas
Absolutely. Sampras bagged the Davis Cup in late September
because he wanted some beauty rest at the end of the
season. With his record of six straight years at No. 1 in
jeopardy, however, he has been a tennis savant, playing six
consecutive events in
Europe. For as big a deal as Sampras makes about surpassing
Roy Emerson's record for career Slams, one wonders whether
he'll be rested enough to play seven straight hard-court
matches in the Australian heat, just a few weeks after this
epic European
stretch winds
down.
I'd like to know who you think is the best
"big-match" player in the men's game
today.
—tenniscrazy, Madras,
India
It depends on your definition of "big match."
Sampras has won 11 of 13 Grand Slam finals, so he
definitely qualifies, but what do you make of a player like
Rios who's money at Indian Wells and Lipton but falls apart
in the majors? Same for Rafter, who
won, consecutively, two Super Nines and the U.S. Open this
summer but loses to players like Gimelstob at lesser
events. Also, there are a lot of dangerous players on the
men's tour whom the top guns hate to face, guys like
Jan
Siemerink ,
Jason
Stoltenberg and
Byron
Black . But the fact that these players are merely dangerous and
not denizens of the top 10 would indicate they're not
necessarily "big-match" players. Got
that?
As for the women, a changing of the guard is definitely
afoot. In her heyday,
Monica
Seles , for one, used to be a ruthless player in high-stakes
matches. Now, of course, she hasn't won a Slam in nearly
three years. Hingis used to be similarly unflappable but
the chinks in her armor are starting to show (to wit: her
abortive drop shot on
match point of the U.S. Open didn't exactly connote a reservoir
of confidence). On the other hand,
Lindsay
Davenport has become adept at closing out matches,
Arantxa Sanchez
Vicario may not always win but plays her best tennis in big-ticket
matches, and even
Venus
Williams is usually composed under
pressure.
Since you published questions about scantily clad teen
sirens on the women's tour and the chances of them wearing
more outlandish outfits, I think you owe the women one. It
is always a pleasure to watch Richard Krajicek (an
underrated sex symbol) for any reason, so it was great to
see him win the Eurocard because it gave us more time to
see him.
—S. Baxten, Mississauga,
Ont.
All I know is the collective sex appeal of men's tennis
will be severely reduced with the imminent retirement of
Petr
Korda . As for your man Krajicek, how's this for bodice-ripping
sexiness? At this very moment, he's undergoing ... knee
surgery.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
|
