| |
 Problems at the top
Posted: Tuesday May 11, 1999 02:08 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. With complete justification, lots of you were irate this week that Yevgeny Kafelnikov, in the throes of a six-match losing streak, inherited the No. 1 ranking. It's one those mysteries along the lines of "Why do we sterilize needles before we administer a lethal injection?" that yields no satisfactory answers. But I submit two possible reasons: 1) The ATP Tour's "Best of 14" ranking system, a method as asinine as it is convoluted, only considers a player's top 14 tournaments when it computes his ranking. In the past calendar year, Kafelnikov has played 32 events. So, in effect, he can mail it in 18 times and still maintain his ranking. 2) It's easy to see where appearance fees blunt a player's motivation to play his best tennis. At most events that are neither Slams nor Super 9s, promoters must cough up serious scratch to entice the top guns to play their events. When a player like Andre Agassi can command upwards of $500,000 simply to show up, why should he bust his ass for four or five rounds when the winner's check is 1/10th that amount? Anyway, on to your questions/screeds ... What's the deal with Yevgeny Kafelnikov losing to such low-ranked players
lately? What part of his game is lacking so severely that would cause him to
lose in 38 minutes? Is it the change in surfaces that gives him a tough time or
is he just not playing up to his potential? Sounds to me like we're going to
have to start calling him KaFELLnikov if he doesn't improve
soon.
I was thinking "Ungainly KaFAILnikov," but at least we're on the same page. Let's get the record straight, by the way. Two weeks ago at Monte Carlo, Kafelnikov lost in 38 disgraceful minutes to a player who barely made it into the qualifying draw, Ivan Ljubicic. Last week he lost to Richard Fromberg, a 29-year-old Aussie who joined the tour when Ronald Reagan was president. So this goes well beyond not simply playing up to his potential. The rap on Kafelnikov is that, perhaps because he grew up in Communist Russia, he is something of a mercenary, a player more interested in his prize money than his game. After losing five straight matches, you'd think that he'd take a week or two off and regroup before the French. But when the folks at the Prague Open waved a six-figure appearance fee in front of his face, he couldn't resist. By the way, these abominations were on clay, which might be his best surface. Why do tennis writers make a big deal about guys like Marcelo Rios, Carlos
Moya and Yevgeny Kafelnikov becoming No. 1 in the world? They only remain No. 1
for a week or two and usually are in the midst of playing mediocre tennis. I
would like to see writers wait for someone to be No. 1 for a while before the
player gets publicity for that
accomplishment.
I hear you. Writers make (or made, anyway) a big deal about the No. 1 ranking because, time was, it was a prestigious mantle. Look at the players who held the top spot before last year -- Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg -- and they represent the best players in their era. Now the quirky ranking system and the collective malaise of the top players have conspired to make the No. 1 position a joke. For better or worse, the prestige of the No. 1 ranking will take an even bigger hit next year when the ATP Tour goes to a points race. The concept of different champions every week has been compared to golf, but
golf has the luxury of keeping its players through the event, not sending them
home once out of contention. How long will the general public stay with a sport
that depends on personalities as much as talent, if the personalities are
eliminated in the first two rounds? Is there an end in sight to this trend? If
not, how does the sport need to change its structure or marketing to stay with
the
times?
Tennis? Stay with the times? This, remember, is a sport where allowing fans in the bleachers to walk around between games arouses a firestorm of controversy. I think the points race will help eliminate some of the problems caused by the Best of 14 system, but, since you asked, here are five ways for men's tennis to regain some respectability. I'm interested in your thoughts, so feel free to email your own suggestions. 1) Nix appearance fees. This, of course, will never happen any time soon, not so long as the sport is ruled by management firms. But it's absurd that the top players get more money to show up at a tournament than they do for winning it. Again, what is Agassi's incentive to give an honest effort in San Jose when he makes $500,000 for simply showing up? 2) Slash the number of tournaments. There are so many events on the calendar -- often two and even three in the same week -- that fields are diluted and players' bodies break down too frequently. 3) Mandate community-service and public-relations appearances. If the NBA can do this with its players, the ATP Tour can, too. The way it works now, the marginal players like Jason Stoltenberg and Richey Reneberg schmooze with the fans until they're blue in the face, while Sampras and Agassi run screaming from the sites as soon as their matches are over. You can't legislate vibrancy, but six or so years ago, someone should have sat down with Sampras and explained to him just how much more popularity (and lucre) he could have brought the sport, if only he had more personality than a netpost. 4) No service lets. 5) Play for third place. This idea actually came from a reader a few months back, but it makes a lot of sense. How would you feel if you ponied up hard-earned cash for a ticket to the Atlanta finals last weekend and saw Stefan Koubek take out Sebastien Grosjean in an hour? The guess here is that you wouldn't be rushing back to renew your box for next year. If, on the other hand, you got a full day of tennis that included a third-place match between losing semifinalists Courier and Magnus Larsson, you wouldn't feel so ripped off. Is there any hope on the women's tour for Jackie Trail? I watched her in high
school, and she seemed to be little more than a baseline backboard. What's your
take?
We don't get a lot of Jackie Trail these days. The best tennis player from Kentucky since Mel Purcell (damnation by faint praise?) made a splash in the U.S. Open junior draw in 1997, but has left a, umm, vapor Trail ever since. I, too, remember her as a fairly unimaginative baseliner who fought to the death but didn't have the foot speed, the serve or the hands to make a serious dent. Who do you think is the best active player on the ATP tour at the moment yet
to have won a singles
title?
That question is getting harder and harder to answer since every Stefan Koubek and his brother seems to be cashing one of those cartoonishly large checks these days. But I'll go with Marat Safin, who has played poorly of late but still is the best teenage player in the world. I've noticed that you frequently use the phrase "the where-are-they-now
file" when referring to players who have disappeared from the (proverbial)
public eye. Could you please enlighten me and others as to where this expression
comes
from?
I believe the phrase was first coined by a British mystic, Nigel Tufnel, who died in a bizarre gardening accident. Having closely followed the rather flamboyant career of Anna Kournikova, it
occurs to me that she is given a hard time for not having won a tournament in 52
attempts. That may be an outwardly shocking figure, but should one not also
consider the fact that she almost only plays in tournaments where the top-ranked
players of the world are competing? Do you not think that makes it even more
difficult for her to therefore be expected to win regularly considering that
this is only her second full year without restriction? She may not be ranked
higher than Patty Schnyder, who wins tournaments but mainly at the Tier II
level, but should that warrant negative comments about
her?
You actually raise a good point. If Kournikova played all those Tier III and IV events in places like Hobart, Linz, and Maria Lankowitz (wasn't she in The Sound of Music?) she would undoubtedly have won her first title by now. The flip side is that for a player who had signed with IMG and was known internationally before she was old enough to attend a PG movie, it's fair to say she's underachieved thus far. Kournikova doesn't arouse much sympathy, either, when she talks trash, unleashes boundless attitude and betrays a generally regal disposition. Here's a rules question for you: I was playing against my friend yesterday
and he hit a ball that was long. I was standing a full four feet behind the
baseline and I caught it. He said the point was his because I didn't let the
ball bounce. I say he's on crack. Who's
right?
Your friend might well be on crack, for all I know, but I'm afraid he's right on this one. I can't (read: I'm too lazy to) quote you from the rule book, but the ball does indeed have to bounce before it can be called out. If the ball touches the body of Player A in midair -- even if he's standing outside the court -- Player B wins the point. Having said all that, in a recreational match, it's inordinately uncool to claim the point when your opponent catches a ball that's clearly going to land out. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||
