| |
 On to the clay
Posted: Monday April 12, 1999 05:09 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. A lot of you took me to task for ripping Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi on their unexcused -- and, in my mind, inexcusable -- absence from Davis Cup. The argument many of you gave was that the Davis Cup is of little consequence to the U.S. sporting public. This is a fair point, but I think it's a chicken-and-egg conundrum. Which came first: the plummeting prestige or the fact that the top players don't make themselves available? If the two most popular players in tennis were to participate, surely the Davis Cup would generate more excitement. There's also an enlightened self-interest argument to be made: I guarantee Jim Courier will get more mileage out of his play against England than Sampras and Agassi will from winning any Super 9. On to the 'Bag ... What do you think about Gustavo Kuerten's future on the tour? Was Paris just
a fluke, or will he be more like the player he showed in Davis Cup against
Spain?
After one of the best Grand Slam runs in history at the '97 French, Kuerten fell off the map a bit. Now he's back and ready to party. His results this year have been pretty strong -- and his Davis Cup heroics rival Courier's -- and he's become adept at masking his inconsistency from the backcourt with a lethal forehand. If he gets hot, especially on clay, I don't think another Slam is out of the question. The one aspect of Kuerten's game that perplexes me is his play at the net. I've seen Kuerten play some first-rate doubles with a variety of partners. When he plays singles, however, his advances to the net, even on hard courts, are few and far between. If he volleyed in singles half as well as does in doubles, I think he'd have much better results. We started the European clay season this past week at Estoril so I believe it
is timely to ask who you think will dominate the surface this year? Or,
alternatively, who is the best clay-court player in the game
today?
You're right, clay-court season is upon us, culminating with the French Open, so let's size up the field. With the injuries and inconsistency on tour these days, I don't see any player dominating, but here are some names to watch: 1. Carlos Moya. Despite achieving the No. 1 ranking -- albeit for a mere nanosecond -- Moya has had a disappointing year overall. Still, he's probably the odds on favorite to repeat at Roland Garros. 2. Marcelo Rios. His health improving, Rios is coming back to life. 3. Alex Corretja. Last year's French Open runner-up is overdue for a good tournament. 4. Albert Costa. Winner of Estoril is probably the best pure clay-courter in the top 15. 5. Todd Martin. Don't laugh. At age 28, Big Head Todd is quietly having the best year of his career, and he's always been a deceptively good clay-court player. He made it to the finals of Estoril last week and, bolstered by solid strokes, preternatural patience and one of the best returns on tour, I wouldn't be surprised if he make a nice run is Paris. Here are some others worth watching: Hicham Arazi, Fernando Meligeni, Kuerten , Alberto Berasategui and Karim Alami. Patty Schnyder has effectively admitted that she tanked against Anna Kournikova at Amelia Island over the weekend. At least in my book, that constitutes match fixing. What about the people who paid good money to see the match? In 1993 Sergi Bruguera was investigated for allegedly throwing a match against compatriot Alberto Berasategui. Here we have a player who admits to tanking, and yet I hear nothing about this. Also, Schnyder said that she couldn't play Kournikova because she has no respect
for her since Amelia Island last year. If that were true, how would she explain
their match a week ago in the semifinals of Hilton Head? And if she is telling
the truth, then I can only say that she should grow up. One of the marks of
adulthood is doing your job even when you don't feel like it. She calls herself
a professional? She'd better start acting like one. What's your take on
this?
This is one of the most bizarre matches I've seen in a while. Schnyder and Kournikova are mortal enemies, but you'd think players really gird for battle when they face an opponent they hate. Instead, Schnyder genuinely tanked this match, making no effort to chase down easily retrievable balls, smacking groundstrokes that hit the back wall on the fly and refusing to rest during changeovers. The match lasted something like 40 minutes. Afterwards she dispassionately said, "I can't play against her," and made some vague reference to stalling tactics. This is only the latest chapter in what has been a bizarre year for Schnyder, the WTA Tour's most improved player last season. Remember, she fired her coach and severed ties with her boyfriend and family in order to take up with a self-styled "healer" who many suspect is a cult member. What makes all this triply weird is that Schnyder is -- was, anyway -- perhaps the most down-to-earth and personable player on the women's tour. Clearly, she is going through a trying time, so one can only hope she straightens out her problems and avoids banishment to the Jennifer Capriati corridor. As far as a punishment for tanking, the WTA Tour usually has all the teeth of Grandpa Simpson on such matters. But it seems that, at the very least, Schnyder ought to forfeit her prize money from that disgraceful "match." You said that the Richard Williams was a good coach and father to his
daughters, Venus and Serena, but you also said he was nuts. What is your basis
for making this
assertion?
This is verbatim from the transcript of his press conference during the Lipton: Reporter: You raised two young tennis stars. How is the business of being a tennis dad? Richard Williams: I think I could really capitalize off of Venus and Serena if I had more time. But I really do not, because I really do a lot of work for the Chinese peoples and the Japanese peoples and so on, and represent them. As a matter of fact, we're thinking now about buying Rockefeller Center for $3.9 billion so I don't have time to think about tennis no more. What about the Belgians beating the Czechs? Do we have to win the Davis Cup
before Belgium gets some recognition? Or is it because you can't pronounce the
names Xavier Malisse or Kristof Van Garsse? Sorry, I'm a bit
frustrated.
A rare perk, Mr. Perk, about doing this column online is that I never have to pronounce names. But mea culpa on the oversight. The Belgian team pulled off a solid upset last week, canceling the Czechs. As for that Zay-vee-er Malice fellow, he has top-10 potential. Can you tell me why Cedric Pioline seems to have Richard Krajicek's number at
the moment, since Krajicek normally plays his best games against the better
players on the tour (Sampras, Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov)? Pioline has cracked
the top 10 a few times but never settled as the force he is against Krajicek.
What should Krajicek change to get the upperhand against
Pioline?
I'm aware of Pioline's success against Kracker-jack, but, to be honest, I don't have much recollection of a match between the two. Pioline usually plays his best tennis against players ranked higher than him; he returns well and he handles power deftly. Also, Krajicek isn't known for his ability to chance tactics in mid-match. So, basically, Krajicek is hopeless and ought to default the next time the two are pitted against each other. A few weeks ago a reader pointed out that the Williams sisters are not
going to be as successful as they want to be because of all the injuries. But
Steffi Graf and Monica Seles also had their troubles early on and Graf is known
for her injuries. The player that looks very healthy is Martina Hingis. She
seldom gets injured (compared to Williamses and Graf) -- is this because of her
style of
play?
Before we bestow the ironwoman tag on Hingis, let's not forget that she's only 18. There are obviously exceptional circumstances surrounding Seles, but Graf didn't turn into the walking wounded until she hit her early/mid 20s. Your guess as to why Hingis has eluded the injury bug is as good as mine. She plays a lot of matches (80 last year), she travels all the time, she plays Fed Cup, and she's hardly the hardest trainer on tour. What's more, her serve lacks much juice, so she doesn't win many quick and easy points. Sounds a lot like simple good fortune to me. Why do you think Michael Stich didn't have the career he should have had? If
there was any player with the all-around ability of Sampras, it was him. I mean,
at his best, he was unstoppable -- even by Sampras. He had a great
down-the-line backhand, a good volley, a big serve -- but only one Wimbledon.
Why? Is it the old temperament
thing?
You're right: When Stich won Wimbledon in 1991, he looked as though he had chance to become one of the alltime greats. A big serve and precise volleys served him well on grass, but he was a good athlete, had an all-court game and a laser for backhand. Stich's problem was that he never seemed to have much passion for tennis and he had little use for the attendant drawbacks: travel, appeasing sponsors, never going unrecognized in public. He admitted as much, too, often wondering aloud how a player like Sampras could stay so focused for so many years. What's the deal with Greg Rusedski and all the foot faults in his Davis Cup
match against Jim Courier? I'm no expert, but isn't this a no-brainer (i.e.,
step back an inch or two from the baseline)? Can Rusedski achieve the top five,
or do you think he is destined to be a one-shot serving wonder? I'd just as soon
see him fade from the scene -- of the big servers, I personally find his game
the least interesting to watch (maybe tied with
Krajicek).
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of his game either. His serve is ballistic, but once the ball is in play, he's a pretty mediocre player. The converse, of course, is that when you can serve 135 mph at will and can score a few lucky breaks each match, a top-five ranking is hardly out of the question. As for the foot faulting, it tends to affect serve-and-volleyers more than baseliners. (Remember how badly Stefan Edberg was sometimes afflicted by this?) I'd hazard to guess that Rusedski was standing at virtually the same spot on all his serves, but his feet crossed the line because he was premature in making a headlong dash to the net. Why is the USTA against John McEnroe coaching Davis Cup or, for that matter,
holding a position on the board? No one in the world has showed the guts like
Mac and
Courier.
First, Tom Gullikson's job is plenty secure after the U.S.'s dramatic victory over the Brits. But the real reason Mac would hardly be considered is that captaining the Davis Cup team entails much more than standing on the sidelines for four weekends a year and making tough lineup choices like Courier over Justin Gimelstob. In addition to schmoozing with sponsors and doing every interview request that comes his way, Gully's position also requires that he work with USTA player development. Quite simply, McEnroe is entirely too unreliable and too much of a political firebrand for the job. Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
