Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

Oh, Schett: Championship picks revised

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Tuesday August 03, 1999 12:40 PM

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

A quick stroll down Ellipses Avenue.... Now that we've all clambered aboard the Boris Becker bandwagon, is it worth noting that, by no stretch, is he the oldest player in the draw? Wonder what 34-year-old Gianluca Pozzi , coming off his best year on Tour, makes of all this "Bionic Boris" talk....Nice to see Mirjana Lucic back in the news...If Lisa Raymond , a perennial threat who's always been stifled by a lack of confidence, keeps her wits about her, she could easily make the semis...Where exactly does Paul Goldstein's game go when he's not in Grand Slam events? Based on his play in the majors, the recent Stanford grad, ranked a lowly 112 is a top 40 player.... After their collective flame-out at Roland Garros, French femmes have been up to the task at Wimbledon. Nathalie Dechy, Nathalie Tauziat and Mary Pierce all made the round of 16... Win or lose this week, Pat Rafter has answered questions about his grass-court ability...Only two male players among the final 16, Gustavo Kuerten and Mark Philippoussis , are younger than 24.

Your questions.....

Hey, Jon, you've got a really funny way of predicting the results of Grand Slams. In the French, you had the same semifinal prediction for the women as you did in the French, but there you had Steffi Graf over Monica Seles, the latter having an inhuman record at Roland Garros. Now, on grass, undoubtedly her worst surface, you have Monica over Steffi, a seven-time winner, fresh off a Grand Slam victory. Your predictions for the men are the same as last year's semis with the losing semifinalists winning this time! And, you even have Tim Henman beating Richard Krajicek, who won the title a few years back. And what's with Barbara Schett? You've got her in the semis for the second straight Grand Slam! Is she paying you or what? I want an explanation and don't give me a "It's my right to choose anyone I want to choose" reply!
—Joey Castillo, Manila, Philippines

By gum, Joey, it's my right to chose anyone I want to chose.

Seriously, your questions are by all means legit, but before I answer them specifically, a generic disclaimer: as anyone who's ever filled NCAA tournament brackets can attest, half the fun of armchair prognosticating is succumbing to your gut rather than reason. If you want eminently rational predictions, just follow the seedings.

Anyway, a few of you took me to task for predicting Graf over Seles in the Jon Wertheim Wimbledon final -- turns out you were right -- but I've noticed that when Seles has lost lately, it is has little to do with the surface and far more with a) an inordinate quotient of unforced errors; and b) an inability to win key points, something that never plagued her pre-1993. She's obviously never won Wimbledon, but heading into the tournament she has done increasingly better, reaching the quarters last year. She had a fortuitous draw (had she beaten Lucic, she'd have played Tamarine Tanasugarn in the fourth round Monday) and, given their almost biblical relationship, Seles usually plays well against Graf. Basically, I figured Monica was due for a win. As for Graf, she only won two rounds at Wimbledon last year and was, I thought, ripe for an injury after seven emotionally and physically grueling matches in Paris. Turn's out I was wrong, of course, but c'est la vie.

I think I'm on more solid footing with Henman and Krajicek. Despite winning here three years ago, Krajicek still hasn't kicked a career-long propensity for turning in desultory performances. He's done virtually nothing since winning the Lipton in March, and while we've never mistaken him for a savvy clay-courter, he even lost badly in the grass court tune-ups at Halle, Germany and Hertogenbosch, Netherlands. Sure enough, Krajicek lost to a qualifier over the weekend. Henman, by contrast, always brings his A game to the All England, his backyard event. Now that's he a mainstay in the top 10 and has played plenty of high-stakes matches, he is due to surpass his usual QF finish here.

Finally, Schett was my Boise State, if you will. Ask the top starlets on tour which lesser-known players they perceive as dangerous and Schett's name invariably enters the conversation. She has a strong all-court game, she can serve and volley when she has to, and has quietly climbed the charts.

Mahesh Bhupathi and Leander Paes must be the worst singles players to ever be successful at doubles. All No. 1-ranked doubles combinations until now were decent to above average singles players, maybe excluding a certain Ken Flach and Robert Seguso. Why makes them so successful at doubles when they're horrible at singles? And why aren't they successful at singles?
—Parag Dixit, Los Angeles

Good point. Bhupathi, FYI, finished last year ranked 373 in singles but earned over $500,000 in doubles. A couple answers: first, as I've discussed ad nauseum, many of the best men's singles players have little use for doubles, so it's not as though Paes and Bhupathi see Pete Sampras on the other side of the net too often. Second, there's a self-perpetuating cycle at play. Guys like Bhupathi rarely last long in the singles draw so they devote that much more energy and effort to doubles. Third, doubles is a decidedly different game from singles that forces players to summon different skills and a different temperament. It's possible, for instance, for a doubles player to go an entire set without hitting a backhand, while razor-sharp volleys are absolutely essential.

I'd be interested to hear how you all feel, but I'm of two minds regarding the balkanization of doubles. On the one hand it would be great to watch Andre Agassi and Sampras play Rafter and Philippoussis. On the other hand, if a well-oiled team like Paes and Bhupathi can make music (and a good living) as sub-specialists and become stars in their own right, I say good for them.

I've followed Martina Hingis now for the past few years and I can honestly say that I believe she tanked her opening round match at Wimbledon. Do you think so? There is no explanation for Hingis losing to the 118th-ranked woman in the world, I don't care what her mental condition was. Was it that she just didn't want to be out there or was it because of a fight she had with her mother or was it simply because she's still shell shocked over losing the French?
—Scott Sloan, Tampa, Fla.

You're 18 years old, wealthy and famous beyond your wildest imagination and here's how your summer's going so far: you get booed off the court as you fail to win the only Grand Slam tournament that's eluded you. You weep uncontrollably on worldwide television. You spend the next two weeks prior to the biggest event of the year, answering questions about your meltdown. You hear the whispers that your notorious edge is now duller than Pete Sampras' press conferences. Your mother/coach ain't so keen on your new boyfriend and is talking to the next, big thing -- who turns out to be your first round opponent -- about a coaching arrangement. Easy to see how she could be in mental La La land when she finally took the court. Do I think Hingis outright tanked? That's a bit harsh. But without a doubt, her mind was elsewhere last week. Without being too alarmist and invoking Jennifer Capriati's name, let's hope Hingis "done gets her head straightened out," as we say in Indiana, and avoids another month as dramatic as June.

Many teenage girls have disagreements with their mom on the subject of boys. Is this part of the problem between Martina Hingis and her formerly ever-present mother?
—Rick Roder, Encinatas, Calif.

In short strokes, yes. Hingis' problems and the dynamics with her mother-cum-coach obviously go beyond the hormonal tsunami of adolescence, but it's certainly part of the equation. Hingis has had several romantic dalliances with players on the men's tour that her mother has grudgingly accommodated. The latest beau is a fellow Swiss (and a Swiss fellow), Ivo Heuberger. From what I gather though, the real problem regards mom's desire to take on other players. Before Wimbledon, ironically enough, she spoke with Jelena Dokic about coaching possibilities. Contrary to how she's often portrayed, Melanie Molitor knows plenty about tennis and her coaching credentials are beyond reproach. A former player herself, she is not merely riding on her daughter's coattails. Still, the desire to coach other players while your irascible daughter is the world's No.1 player, sounds to me like a combustible scenario.

Hey Jon!!! You predicted that Hingis would beat Seles in the final....well, now that she is out who do you pick for the women's title???
—Ali Saleem, Karachi, Pakistan

Thanks for the mulligan. Truthfully, I thought Hingis would be so eager to put the debacle at Roland Garros in the past that she simply wouldn't let herself lose at Wimbledon. You could say, I was a tad off on that one. Initially I thought she would run out of gas, but as of this minute (10:11 a.m. EST on Monday) everything appears to be breaking awfully well for Graf. The reports of Novotna's ankle injury appear to have been greatly exaggerated -- and/or she is showing tremendous courage playing well with pain -- and her draw suddenly looks mighty tasty.

In your opinion why was Bjorn Borg able to win five French Open titles and five Wimbledon titles in the same year? Many experts have explained this feat by saying the men's field wasn't as deep back then. I think he was just an exceptional player.
—Debra, Austin, Texas

Borg was an exceptional player to be sure, but I'll take your bait and play the role of ogre. Had Borg been forced first to encounter an armada of clay-court specialist and then a gaggle of bionic bangers who, abetted by graphite truncheons, served 135 mph on grass, I have strong doubts whether he would achieved his feat. Put another way, Borg didn't meet too players of Scott Draper's caliber (and Sampras did) in his first-round matches.

It seems as if David Wheaton has lost interest in the game, allowing his ranking to plummet and losing in qualifying rounds for the bigger tournaments. He seemed poised to be a very popular and successful player a few years ago, but hasn't followed up on that promise. Has he suffered from injuries, or does he simply have a big wallet and correspondingly low interest in working hard?
—D. Milne, Indianapolis

Can't say we get a lot of David Wheaton questions here at the 'Bag. The pride of Minnetonka, Minn., doesn't even have his own page in the ATP Tour media guide any more. A deeply devout player, Wheaton's career was wracked by an assortment of injuries and a wavering interest level. After reaching the semis of Wimbledon in 1991 and finishing the year ranked No. 17, his fortunes resembled those of the Minnesota Twins. No doubt aided by wild-card dispensation, he finished last year ranked No. 235. As you point out, though, Wheaton, now 30, has a big wallet. He earned more than $5 million over his career, so save the crocodile tears for someone else.

Although Wimbledon may never change (tradition you know), I would like to see the grass go away and change the surface to hard court. Watching the men serve with these rackets on grass is no longer entertaining like it was in past years with wood on grass. What do you think?
—Lance Hellinge, Durham, N.C.

Wimbledon changes to grass about the same time Agassi's hair hangs over his face.

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 your cable operator or DirecTV.