Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

Wimbledon and Beyond

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Monday June 14, 1999 06:04 PM

Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.

Pete Sampras not only came out of hibernation last week, but he came to his senses as well. After having suffered through injuries, an apparent lapse of focus and a self-imposed exile conspired to make the first half of the year a borderline disaster, he won his first event of 1999 on Sunday. The fact that he reclaimed the much-devalued No.1 ranking in the process is of little consequence. The evidence that he's hitting his stride just before he plays at Wimbledon, his grass playground, is significant -- particularly for the 127 other players in the men's draw.

Perhaps more significant still, Sampras, to his everlasting credit, swallowed a fair portion of pride, and tacitly admitted he was wrong in bagging the Davis Cup last year. He graciously made himself available for the U.S. tie against Australia next month and, even more graciously, will not demand to unseat incumbents Todd Martin and Jim Courier and play singles. Still, Andre Agassi will wear a pony tail before captain Tom Gullikson decides to use the world's No.1 player as a doubles specialist only.

Lots of questions, so let's roll out the barrel...

First, a number of you asked why Martina Hingis was slammed when she served under-handed in the French Open final, but the crowd thought it was cute when Michael Chang tried the same tactic at the same tournament a decade ago. Here's my answer: when Chang tried a spin-laden ping-pong serve, he was cramping like crazy and was acting out of physical desperation. With Hingis, she was down match point and it was a last-ditch ploy aimed simply to get into Steffi Graf's head. Here's the other difference: Chang was, at the time, a 17-year-old no-name in the biggest match of his life, so we forgave his breach of etiquette. Hingis, by contrast, was the top seed and the No. 1 player in the world. She should have been above such cheap gamesmanship.

Hingis' reaction after her loss was truly shocking. Winning the French Open would have been a way to tell the world just how great a player she really is. A victory would have meant a personal Grand Slam, a Grand Slam final victory over a legend and an end to talks of her getting to be No. 1 by default... what are your thoughts on this?
-- Juan Bondad III, Sagada, Philippines

There's a popular perception that Hingis is plenty good, but her timing is even better. With Monica Seles' career dramatically derailed by a madman, Steffi Graf incarcerated in a prison of injuries, and the Williams sisters mere rumors, Hingis opportunistically filled a vacuum. In order to inherit the top spot, she needed only to squeeze out...who?... Lindsay Davenport ? Jana Novotna ? Arantxa Sánchez Vicario ? That all said, I'm highly doubtful that Hingis viewed her match against Graf as a chance "to tell the world just how great a player she really is." Time and again, Hingis has made it abundantly clear that she has no inferiority complex. I think for better or worse, she truly believes she is the best tennis player of all-time and was furious/flabbergasted that she let the opportunity to win a Grand Slam slip away.

Every year four Grand Slams come and go and it seems that the top men's singles players never play doubles, whereas the top women's singles players do more often than not. Is it that female players are more accessible and willing to try to forward their game any way they can? Is it that the higher prize money enables male specialists to make a living off of doubles? What's the deal?
-- David Degroot, Ottawa, Ont.

I've never understood this either. Instead of enduring a monotonous hitting session, when a player like Hingis or the Williams sisters plays doubles, they get match practice, a good workout and earn some extra cabbage in the process. What's the catch? The men's tour is indisputably deeper and there's no way a hastily cobbled together doubles team (like, Hingis and Kournikova) could reach a tournament final. Still you'd think especially after losing an early match, a player like Marcelo Rios , Sampras or Thomas Enqvist would want to stick around, play doubles and get the extra match practice. While a few top players like Patrick Rafter and Gustavo Kuerten do play with a partner, others like Sampras essentially say it's not worth their while, either in terms of lucre or prestige. Not unlike Davis Cup, my suspicion is that if the men could produce a final featuring four top 10 players (as the women did at Roland Garros), the attention paid to doubles would increase accordingly.

Don't you think the media should back off in crowning Sampras as the "best ever"? I realize players like John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors didn't win the French either, nor did Ivan Lendl get it done at Wimbledon, but at least they came close. It just seems absurd to call Sampras the best ever when he can't win a tournament on a surface that half the world plays on.
-- Michael Charlton, Chicago

That's essentially the same point Andrei Medvedev made last week vis-a-vis Agassi. It's true that Sampras' futility on clay is a conspicuous mark on his reputation, but otherwise, his achievements so far outstrip those of Connors, Mac, Lendl, that it's tough not to anoint him as the best player this side of Rod Laver. By the end of his career, Sampras will have broken Lendl's record for weeks at No.1 (270; Sampras entered '99 at 252); he came within a match from six-peating at Wimbledon, and he hasn't done too badly at the Open or in Australia either. As I think I mentioned last week, Sampras also gets bonus points for consistency. While Agassi -- and, to a lesser extent, Mac and Lendl -- have endured career undulations, Sampras spent all but a few months of the 1990s inside the top five.

What do you think about Tommy Haas? What's the major difference between him and Nicholas Kiefer? And who do you think is the better player?
-- Tiffany Lau, Los Angeles

The good news is that Hass has to be right up there with Mark Philippoussis as the best player in his early 20s. The bad news is that Haas, unfortunately tagged as "the next Becker" in Deutschland, has been a hot prospect for years. And, while he hasn't flamed out, he has hardly taken the tennis world by storm. He started the year strongly and had a great Australian Open, but has tapered off since. He has a lot of power and is improving as a serve-and-volleyer, but needs to be a more consistent player.

Kiefer, whom I maintain looks like Agassi's younger brother, is a compact player who hits less powerfully, but is steadier than Haas. He handles power pretty well and, for some reason, owns Pat Rafter. Kiefer won his third career title last weekend and crept inside the top 20 for the first time in his career. (He credits his strong play of late to his workouts with Russian pole vaulter Sergei Bubka .) A good summer on the North American hard-court junket and Kiefer could get a seed by the Open.

Although I'm a huge fan of Tim Henman, I have to admit that I'm surprised that he's ranked as high as No. 6 in the world. Considering that the top four ranked men each currently hold a grand slam title, and fifth-ranked Richard Krajicek won the Lipton (the next best thing) it would seem that the sixth-ranked player should be the one who's had the best overall performance during the last 12 months. I'm not sure if that man is Tim Henman. Maybe Alex Corretja? What do you think?
-- R. Lee, Birmingham, U.K.

Uh, you lost me there. The top five players have all won a big tournament, so the guy ranked No.6 must have had the best overall performance? Anyway, aesthetically I love Henman's game, but his track record in big matches is pretty brutal. He always acquits himself the first week of Wimbledon and, you're right, he's generally a solid player, but is too awkward on clay to be the Tour's best player over the past 12 months.

Corretja was the most consistent performer last year but has done disappointingly little in 1999. Rafter won the Open and played well this spring on clay, but had a horrible winter. Sampras, again, was in hibernation until last week. Kafelnikov is mired in a wild slump. Agassi, is, well Agassi. I think by process of elimination, Moya might be most consistent performer over the past calendar year. Frankly, that's depressing.

You answered a question recently about the idea of alternative ranking systems for different surfaces, specifically clay. In thinking about this, it seems this issue is much more relevant to the men's game than to the women's game. You rarely hear a woman player described as a "clay court specialist", though there are too many to count in the men's French Open draw. And though the best men's players often have trouble on some surfaces, the top women seem to do well no matter what court they're on. Is this impression true, and if so why do you think the women's games are more adaptable to different surfaces?
-- Michael Bianchetta, Boston

Depends who you ask. The folks at the WTA will say that the absence of surface specialists is proof positive that the women are more versatile and better all-round players. The good people in Ponte Vedra will respond that the abundance of Fernando Meligeni and his ilk is an indication of how much parity exists on the men's tour and much deeper the men's field is.

Assuming Jana Novotna is too injured to defend her title, does anyone besides Graf, Hingis and Williams the Elder have better than a 20-to-1 shot at winning Wimbledon? Does Venus have the necessary elements in her game to win Wimbledon, or is she basically a female version of Roscoe Tanner? For you younger readers, Tanner was sort of an American Mark Philipoussis.
-- Victor Venning, Congers N.Y.

I can't imagine a player other than the ones you've listed winning the tournament. If someone offered me 20-to-1 odds on Seles or Serena, I'd probably take it. I'd be much more surprised, though, if we didn't see a Hingis-Graf rematch the first Saturday in July. As for Williams, you've given quite a continuum, so naturally, I'll pick a spot in the middle. Venus has sufficiently proven that she's much more than a one-dimensional, Tanneresque powder keg. (Her groundstrokes are more powerful than her serve, anyway.) At the same time, at this point in her career, her footwork is still too awkward and she still misses too many easy volleys to win seven straight matches on grass.

We're halfway through the season, two Slams behind us. At this point, would you like to play the pointless game of who, at this stage, do you think will be the top eight (& two substitutes) to make it to the ATP Final? The two Slam winners, yes, they'll make it, but people like Sampras and Rafter, with lots of points to protect in the next months, could be like Moya, and fall right out of the top 10 with early exists at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Chance some guesses, and see how wrong/right you are in November?
-- Vincent Eaton, Los Angeles

Pointless game? You know the way to my heart.

• 1. Kafelnikov (based strictly on how few points he has to defend the rest of the year)
• 2. Corretja (expect a big hard-court circuit from him)
• 3. Agassi (remember, he did nothing at Wimbledon, the Cincy Super Nine and only made the fourth round at the U.S. Open)
• 4. Sampras (if he's upset at Wimbledon, watch out)
• 5. Rios (again, not much to defend in Wimbledon, Cincy, Canada, or the Open)
• 6. Rafter (beaucoup points to defend after Wimbledon)
• 7. Krajicek
• 8. Moya
• 9. Henman
• 10. Kuerten

Finally, thought you folks would get a kick out of the following. We applaud open-mindedness, here at the `Bag:

Regarding my question/comment that you printed this past week on Medvedev and his Anke Huber obsession... I think I WILL cut him a little break. I had been getting really sick and tired of hearing about it (probably due to media overplay). But after his sincere comments to Andre at the trophy presentation, I have to recant. That was a great display and the sincere hug kind of built him back up in my mind. (I had sent in my original comment before the final.)
-- Ted McCarthy, Baltimore

Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.

 

Related information
Stories
Previous Tennis Mailbags Jon Wertheim's Tennis Hot List
Multimedia
Click here for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call 1-888-53-CNNSI.