| |
Musings on the Big W
Posted: Monday July 12, 1999 04:27 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. A few random observations from the peanut gallery ... What can you do besides tip your cap to a man who has won six Wimbledons since 1993? Say what you will about his oatmeal personality, his propensity for injury, his molasses-slow start to 1999. Fact is, after frolicking in his grass playground, Pete Sampras is knocking awfully hard on Rod Laver's door as best player ever. Lest we gush too much, don't underestimate the importance of Sampras' default win over Mark Philippoussis in the quarters. Not only was he trailing when the Aussie went down with a knee injury, but Sampras barely played a set of tennis on a day when his colleagues were out there for hours. ... Watching Lindsay Davenport abuse her overmatched opponents is like watching the one kid who's hit puberty dominate a Little League game. It just ain't fair. Sure, Davenport's power is redoubtable. But it's her underrated ability to disguise her groundstrokes that makes her practically unbeatable. That all said, there are still a half-dozen points each set when her foot speed is so bad one wonders how she's cracked the top 20. Of course, on the next point she invariably blasts an untouchable backhand from behind the baseline. ... From the Having-Our-Cake-And-Eating-It-Too Dept.: We're all in agreement -- the vast majority of us, anyway -- that ballistic power is the scourge of men's tennis. Which is one reason we admire Patrick Rafter's classicist game. But how much better would he be if he could add 5-8 mph to his serve? ... If you've never seen Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi play doubles, do so the next chance you get. It's some of the most creative tennis you'll ever watch. ... I'm no horticulturist, but there has to be a way to prevent Centre Court from becoming so damn ratty after two weeks. ... Tim Henman will not win a Grand Slam until he improves his play on big points. ... Is it me, or does Andre Agassi's shaven pate look make him look remarkably like Dr. Evil? On to the 'Bag.... 1. The success of Americans Alexandra Stevenson and Lisa Raymond at Wimbledon this year reminded me of Meredith McGrath's great run to the Wimby semis in 1995. Whatever happened to McGrath? I remember her dealing with injuries, but for four years? 2. Speaking of Stevenson, what do you make of the comments by her mother
(especially concerning the "rampant" lesbianism on the WTA Tour)?
Didn't you find that comment in particular unsettling, especially coming from a
member of the press?
I'm not sure that's the greatest of comparisons. When McGrath made the semis in 1996, she was already 25 and nearing the omega of her career. She happened to catch lightning in a bottle, served extraordinarily well and turned in a career result. Raymond, if anything, underachieved. She has way too much game and athleticism to have never been past the fourth round of a Slam. Stevenson may simply have had the week of her life, but at age 18, you're inclined to believe it ain't all downhill from here. As for McGrath, she's been attending Stanford while rehabbing a knee that has put her on the shelf for most of the past three years. I don't believe that she's officially retired, but another run to the Wimbledon semis is not even in the realm of a pipe dream. Good question about Ma Stevenson. I think I'll hold off on a full-blown rant for another time, but let's just say the comments you allude to were totally out of line. Where to start? For one, it's sheer comedy that Ma, with no irony, complains about latent racism on the tour but has no qualms about blasting the legion of lesbians. Second, a woman who has a child with an athlete -- nay, a married athlete -- she's supposed to be covering for her job doesn't, in my eyes, have a lot of credibility in assessing others' sexual morality. Third, if you're going to be an orator worthy of Speakers' Corner for the first week of the tournament, it's inexcusable not to face the music when folks fire back questions. I've noticed that Lindsay Davenport keeps changing her doubles partner in
each tournament. Why is it so hard for one of the top doubles players to find a
steady partner? And how come she isn't playing with Natasha Zvereva anymore? I
thought their partnership was successful in
1998.
It's positively dizzying to keep track of the musical chairs that is women's doubles pairings. Davenport and Zvereva, neighbors in SoCal, were indeed successful last year. I've heard nothing about the circumstances of their uncoupling. Zvereva is now aligned with Jana Novotna, and Davenport and Corina Morariu teamed to win the Wimbledon title. So everyone seems to be happy. At least this week. Until Wimbledon, I'd never heard much about Alexandra Stevenson. What are her
prospects for becoming a top
player?
To be honest, until Wimbledon, I had never really thought much of Stevenson's game. Because of her pedigree -- despite last week's bombshell, there had been speculation about her parentage for years -- and her friendship with the Williams sisters, she had received promotion disproportionate to her results. The USTA has been trumpeting her to us media folks for a few years now, but heading into Wimbledon, she was only ranked No. 86 and had endured some bad losses. The thumbnail sketch? Good serve, big strokes, bad mobility and impatient temperament. At Wimbledon, she showed real potential. She served more aces than any other player in the women's draw, her one-handed backhand was a thing of beauty, and she kept her poise during an apocalyptic week. I'm still not sold on "her prospects for becoming a top player," though her match against Davenport showed that it's a loooong staircase up to the next level. What is your deal with Scott Draper? Is there some sort of a relationship
that we should all know about? You constantly mention him as being such a stud
(upset special in Wimbledon), but he never makes his mark in anything. He is
non-aggressive and lacks a weapon that would even phase a player of Sampras'
ability? If you could tell me what you seem to see in his game that the rest of
the world is missing, I would be very
appreciative.
You busted me, Bill. Scott Draper is my love child. I only met him once when he was three. All correspondences have been made through counsel. I wish him luck, and if he wants to see me it's his call. Seriously, no one is claiming that Scott Draper is the second coming of Pete Sampras. My point was simply that he's precisely the kind of middle-of-the-pack player who is a dangerous floater in this generation and would have been a real star in the former. He plays well on hard courts, he's won an event on grass, he plays well indoors, he can serve-and-volley, he's made the fourth round of the French on two occasions, he's a good athlete, and he's beaten most of the top 10 players. Yet, as you note, he's only made a modest dent on the ATP Tour, never even cracking the top 40. When folks speak of the unprecedented depth in men's tennis, Draper is a prime example. That's all. Honest. I was wondering if you could compare the Maleeva sisters and
the Williams sisters. Can you tell me if any of the Maleevas won a Slam, and
do you really think that by the end of their careers that Venus and Serena won't
have at least a couple between them?
Obviously, at the end of the day, the Williams sisters' legacy will vastly outstrip that of the Maleevas, none of whom won a Grand Slam singles title. Still, as of today, for all their bluster and braggadocio, Venus and Serena are a combined 0-16 in majors. They still have plenty of good years left, but the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately meter is starting to run low. Mirjana Lucic has never had the best results on grass, and yet at Wimbledon
she beat Monica Seles and Nathalie Tauziat and took Steffi Graf to three sets.
Is this the beginning of what we were told this young girl could do?
For all she's been through, let's not forget that Lucic -- if you believe her birth certificate, anyway, and many don't -- is only 17 years old. Even Chris Evert kept talking about "the return of Mirjana Lucic" as if she had been out of the game for six years and suddenly re-emerged. She's only been a pro two, albeit tumultuous, years, so I say we go easy on these resurrection storylines. Anyway, for a player who's plenty powerful but also clearly has some fitness issues, it's a sterling accomplishment to come within a set of making the Wimbledon finals. Her domestic situation stabilized, we can definitely look forward to improved results from a player Martina Hingis has long touted as "better than Venus or Serena." Whether she's the real deal or a Conchita Martinez- ian also-ran remains to be seen. Like my British compatriots, I was really disappointed to see Tim Henman
fizzle out in the Wimbledon semis yet again to Pete Sampras. What does Tim have
to do to beat
Pete?
Beating Sampras on grass, of course, is no small feat. But for Henman to get that Sisyphean boulder off his shoulder, it is imperative that he improve his play on big points. I honestly thought this would be the year that he upgraded his game that one notch and converted those breaks points, came up with the big serves at 5-4, and played steadily in the tiebreakers. Instead, he was up to his old tricks, playing solid, if unimaginative, tennis and then combusting at crunch time. On serve late in the fourth set against Sampras, I think he missed every first serve, threw in a double fault for good measure, and shanked a fairly routine volley down break point. That's simply not going to cut it against the best player in the world on his favorite surface. Someone once described Henman to me as "a three-car-garage kind of guy, who grew up with everything so he never learned to fight." The usual critique is that he's too damn nice and lacks a competitive fire. That's woefully simplistic, of course, but there's no question he needs to find a way to come up bigger when the match is on the line. After Pete Sampras' convincing and stunning defeat of Andre Agassi at
Wimbledon, do you think all the nonsense about Agassi being equal or superior to
Sampras will
stop?
I'm with you that it's nonsense -- remind me again, when was it that Sampras let his ranking plummet to triple digits? -- but I'm not sure Sunday's whitewash put the argument to rest. Wimbledon, after all, is Sampras' personal grass playpen, where the fast courts suit his power and the quick points suit his stamina. Now if Sampras smokes Agassi as decisively in Queens later this summer, then the discussion ought to be closed. I find it incredible that NBC didn't show the Sampras/Agassi match live. The
match started close to 9 a.m. ET, but instead they showed Graf/Davenport first.
Therefore, in the U.S. we saw BOTH matches on tape. I know women's tennis is
more popular right now, but not to show the all-American men's final live is
mind-boggling.
Don't get me started. I awoke on Sunday morning to the following, bellowing from my clock radio: "... and in other sports news, Lindsay Davenport won her first Wimbledon title ..." I find that there's something almost dishonest about watching a sporting event when you already know the outcome in advance. Anyway, I'm with you on principle that it would have been preferable to watch the men first -- live -- and then the women. But it's obviously a ratings game, and NBC undoubtedly thought they'd get better numbers broadcasting both matches on tape delay rather than one live and the other doubly delayed. Had they aired the men live, it would have garnered zilch ratings on the West Coast, where the telecast would have commenced at the ungodly hour of 6 a.m. on a Sunday. Also, it would have been hard on John McEnroe and the avuncular Dick Enberg to comment on the men without making mention to the outcome of the preceding women's match. Finally, I offer the following. You've come to this address before to discuss galvanizing tennis' popularity and we've discussed notions like banning titanium rackets and eliminating let serves. Turns out the solution might be right in front of our rapt eyes. Consider: Everybody's talking about why the women's game is attracting so much more attention and interest than the men's, but nobody has come up with what I think is the real reason: the clothes. After all, now that the women are prancing around in little skintight, cut-out numbers that leave nothing to the imagination (come on Steffi!), doesn't it seem almost Victorian the way that Sampras and Co. are dressed in their baggy shorts and shirts with collars? It's only when the men change shirts on the court that the female viewers get an eyeful, and even then that's usually the signal to cut to commercials. Make it compulsory for male players to wear sleeveless, plunging T's and Lycra cycling shorts or those nice little skimpy ones Marcelo Rios wore in another age (and how his tennis has gone down since he changed), and, boy, would you see an increase in viewing figures. After all, guys like Pat Rafter and Andre Agassi spend hours in the gym honing those physiques, and then are allowed to hide them from the fans. Don't you think that the sight of all those rippling six-packs and bulging biceps would lift the game more than somewhat? (By the way, shouldn't TV networks be banned from showing commercials during shirt-change sessions?) Yours in
hope,
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.
| |||||||||||||||||
