Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

Gullikson blew the call

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Tuesday July 27, 1999 04:40 PM

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

Not surprisingly, lots of question about Sunday's Davis Cup charade, so let's play first ball in ...

What do you hear from the powers-that-be regarding the attempted switch of Todd Martin and Pete Sampras in the Davis Cup reverse singles? Was Martin truly sick or was this what it appeared to be (a blatant show of gamesmanship)? Secondly, if Martin was suffering from a heat-related illness, does this classify him as "sick" and warrant a switch under Davis Cup rules or is this simply considered to be a "loss of conditioning," which does not warrant a player change? I found the whole situation pretty lame, and it detracted from what turned out to be a good match.
—Scott, Iowa City

This one will be debated and talked about for years, but here's my analysis: First, Tom Gullikson is plenty nice, the kind of guy you'd like to have for a neighbor, but he's something other than a leader of men. When Sampras announced he wanted to rejoin the team, Gullikson should have taken decisive action, one way or the other. That is, either say, "Pete, if you're going to be anywhere near Boston that weekend, you'll be playing singles. If Jim Courier and, to a lesser extent, Todd Martin feel as though their thunder is being stolen, so be it." Or else say, "Pete, if you're not comfortable playing singles, I'd just as soon have you stay home."

Instead, Gullikson clumsily waffled, and the results were disastrous. On Saturday, when asked about Sampras' availability, he responded, "There's a possibility" Pete would play and made vague reference to Martin's failing health. Martin, meanwhile, was telling the world he felt fine. This was the Keystone Kops trying their hand at spin doctoring.

On Sunday, I think Martin may well have been legitimately sick. Martin's a stand-up guy whose integrity has always been beyond reproach. Also, he did look pale and palpably weak just walking around the grounds prior to the match. But given Gullikson's disingenuous remarks the day before, there was more than a whiff of skepticism in the air. When the neutral doctor, Dr. Robert Paul -- ironically, a longtime member of the Longwood Cricket Club, where the match was being held -- examined Martin, he deemed him fit to compete. "I saw no sign of heat exhaustion at all," said Paul. "I couldn't in good conscience allow Martin not to play."

There's obviously some subjectivity about what constitutes a legitimate injury, but the Davis Cup rules state that a player must be unable to play, not merely unable to play at his optimal level. Otherwise, every blister and headache would open the door for substitutions.

In the end, though, good won out. Martin, who was hung to dry from the start, clearly was not 100 percent but he competed valiantly. Thus, he was not only exonerated, but was downright heroic in taking Patrick Rafter to five sets. Paul was vindicated for making the correct diagnosis. And karmic justice prevailed as Australia, the team that didn't try to make a mockery of this 100th anniversary tie, moved on to the next round.

Given the success of Dominik Hrbaty against Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Marat Safin at the French and the fact that Karol Kucera is solid on clay also, do you have any explanation as to why the Russians chose clay for their tie with Slovakia? Also, could you give your thoughts on who you think has the better future, Lleyton Hewitt or Safin?
—Rhett Green, Goldsboro, N.C.

Unless the Russians were going to do something crazy like find a radioactive surface, this one was pretty much a toss-up between clay and a harder surface. Safin was essentially weaned on clay, having moved to Spain when he was starting to show promise as a young teenager, and Kafelnikov, of course, is a former French Open champ. True, Hrbaty is at his best when his socks are dirty, but Kucera is probably a better hard-court player. Either way, it worked out, as Russia, riding Safin's shoulders, won dramatically, 3-2.

Safin and Hewitt went a combined 4-0 this weekend and showed grace under pressure that belied their youth. The two will square off when Australia and Russia face off in the semifinal round. Both are future top-10 players to be sure, but long-term I think I like Safin's prospects a little better. He's a bigger kid -- media guides aside, there's no way Hewitt weighs more than 140 pounds -- and he hits a much bigger serve. That said, there were times this weekend when Hewitt looked like the second coming of Andre Agassi.

What's it going to take for Jan-Michael Gambill to make it past the first round or three of a major? Does he need a new coach or what?
—Jonny, Austin, Texas

Here's the scoop on JMG: From the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction department, at the ripe age of 22, he has apparently had a growth spurt, sprouting nearly two inches since the Lipton. His knees are still adjusting to the extra freight, so he's been thrown off a bit. Gambill is not a particularly good slow-court player and he's never done much at Wimbledon, so unless the cosmos are aligned at the Open one year (as they nearly were in 1998), he's a longshot to make a splash at a Slam.

With all the fun from the All-England Club finished, I have a few questions I hope you can answer:

1. With Andre Agassi No. 1 again after Wimbledon, do you think that he can end Pete Sampras' string of six straight years ending as No. 1? It would be some sort of justice considering that one year Agassi was No. 1 for virtually the whole calendar year until Sampras suddenly took it back with a few weeks left.

2. Could the Paris final be to Martina Hingis what the stabbing incident was to Monica Seles, and demote her career a bit?

3. Lindsay Davenport has won the U.S. Open and Wimbledon and been No. 1, but many still do not consider her in the league of Hingis, Seles or Steffi Graf? Why?

4. Do you think the U.S. Open will be an Agassi-Sampras thing? That would be great for tennis!
—Joey Castillo, Manila, Philippines

1. It all comes down to the quirky points system. Agassi faded at the end of last year and only won three matches at Flushing, so there's a chance. Rafter is in the mix, too, but remember he won two Super 9's and the Open last summer, so he has buckets of points to defend.

2. I wouldn't compare much of anything to a potentially fatal stabbing. There's clearly unrest in the Hingis camp, but I don't think she'll take a two-year hiatus and never regain the No.1 ranking, if that's what you're asking.

3. First, I think most fans -- and certainly most players -- hold Davenport in the highest esteem. If she doesn't quite have Hingis' buzz, I think it's because she didn't hit her stride until she was twentysomething while Hingis nearly won the Grand Slam before she was eligible to see a R-rated movie.

4. True, though Sampras and Rafter are the two who really don't like each other. If you're going to have a rivalry, you may as well inject animosity into the mix as well.

I recently read that Michael Chang is playing Challenger tournaments. Do you think we have seen the last of his greatness, and if so, what kind of legacy do you think he will leave to the game?
—Phil O'Donoghue, Florence, Mass.

Good question. First, you're right: While his contemporaries and former teammates were playing the Australians in Boston, Chang was somewhere in California, making like Agassi and trying to improve his ranking by swooping up Challenger points. He'll be able to snatch up wild cards for a while, but it's hard to imagine a return to the top.

It'll be interesting to see how history remembers him. First, he may finally get credit for being one of the U.S.'s first pro athletes -- and a damn good one -- of Asian descent. Sure, we'll remember the underhand-serving kid who won the French as a teenager and never again claimed another Slam. But, ultimately, his legacy ought to be one not of disappointments, but of fulfilled potential. Standing about 5'8" and weighing around 150, it is testament to his will, his discipline -- and, he would say, his faith -- that he has won nearly $20 million in prize money and almost became the world's No. 1 player.

How do you rate Greg Rusedski's chances of getting back to No. 4 in the world? My money says his time's been and gone.
—Gillian Bailey, London

Your money is safe.

I was confused by your response to a question last week, in which you compared Graf to Liz Taylor and Sampras to Robert DeNiro. If you were being serious it struck me as a not-so-subtle disparagement of Steffi, no disrespect to Ms. Taylor.
—Franz Kaisik, Woodstock, N.Y.

Something tells me you've never seen Ronin. My point, however, was that comparing Graf to Sampras is comparing an apple to an orange. When we talk about "the best player ever" it's usually assumed we're talking about that gender only.

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.