Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

Maturing

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Monday August 16, 1999 02:29 PM

By now you've heard enough paeans to Steffi Graf, so let's simplify matters and call her what she is: the best female player ever. ... Next time you hear the word "phenom" bandied about, consider that Graf won six Grand Slams, made the finals in two others and claimed an Olympic gold medal before she turned 20. This, too: She's won more majors than Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter combined. ... Speaking of the men, Sampras has looked as good as he ever has during his current 22-match winning streak. The world's No. 1 has a way of getting hot at just the right time. ... What would Serena Williams be ranked if she played a normal schedule? ... Julie Halard-Decugis may turn 29 next month (and, horrors, she's married) but she's playing some of the best tennis of her career. ... Nice to see Michael Chang fire up a little something for our memory banks. He's still a long way from winning another Slam, but no seed wants to face him early in the Open. ... Martina Hingis on the Williams sisters: Venus is better. ... Larissa Neiland, all of 33 years old, teamed with Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario to win the Acura doubles final. ... One more note on Graf's excellence: six French Opens (spanning 12 years) and seven Wimbledons. Makes Bjorn Borg's accomplishments look mundane.

Your questions ...

Given that Jimmy Connors, Guillermo Vilas, John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg are getting older, and probably won't be able to compete at a high level for many more years, do you think the senior tour can continue its popularity? Can players such as Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker and Michael Stich bring in fans in the coming years?
—Chuck Degeneffe, Madison, Wis.

My cynical answer is that it depends on the stock market: a downturn and our heroes from yesteryear will emerge from the woodwork. Seriously, you're right: Becker, for now, anyway, has his finger in too many other pots; Ivan Lendl is too frail from a bad back; and Edberg vowed never to play the senior circuit when he retired. Still, I wouldn't fret. Technically, players need to be 35 before they're eligible, though that rule is sometimes bent (see: Wilander, Mats ). Mac, Connors and Borg still have a few more good years in them, and by that time another crop ( Henri Leconte? Petr Korda? Dare I say ... Andre Agassi? ) will come of age.

Speaking of the senior tour, if you've never seen a guy named Mansour Bahrami play, don't miss it. He has a great story -- too long to rehash here -- but he's one of the best players on the Geezers Tour yet his ranking as an ATP Tour pro was never higher than No. 194. He's a trick-shot maestro, tennis' equivalent of Meadowlark Lemon, and should be playing at the Open. Catch him at all cost.

I have been wracking my brains trying to think of player who improved his or her game after getting married, and I forgot the most obvious one -- Jimmy Connors. Yes, he had a couple of Grand Slams before he got married, but he also went into a bit of an eclipse for a while. He won Wimbledon and his U.S. Opens while married to Patti McGuire, and as far as I know he is still married to her.
—Phil O'Donaghue, Florence, Mass.

First, Phil, what happened to the trajectory of your career after you married Marlo Thomas? Indeed, Connors might be an exception to the rule, though he was already a Grand Slam champion several times over when he wed Patti. And, yes, I believe they're still married.

Another reader asked us to consider if marriage had the same effect on female pros. It's a little tougher to scrutinize, given the higher incidence of same-sex couples, but let's see. If anything, Chris Evert played better after marrying Andy Mill, though, like Connors, she was already established. And every Grand Slam champ since has been single. Mary Joe Fernandez and Sánchez-Vicario are both engaged, but they're both at the tail ends of their careers, so it would be unfair to blame their inevitable decline on holy matrimony. Looks like it's up to Sergei Fedorov to give us a real case study.

With all the potential that Venus and Serena Williams have, they have not been able to pull out a major yet. I think one of the main reasons is that they don't have Plan B when their power groundies fail them, and that leads to frustration and so many unforced errors. In your opinion, who would be a perfect coach to manicure their games to get them all the way to the top?
—Samson Mesfin, Raleigh, N.C.

Lindsay Davenport wins a limbo contest before King Richard allows an outsider into the empire. But you pose an interesting question, as many others have predicted that neither Williams sister will enjoy the view from on top until they get a "real" coach. Unlike Mary Pierce or Monica Seles, they don't particularly need a martinet who will get them in shape and improve their footspeed. With such an admirably tight family and support network, they don't need a coach whose real purpose is that of surrogate parent. Nor, unlike many other peers, do they need a coach who doubles as a boyfriend.

What both Venus and Serena could use is a tactical coach, one to teach them how to harness their power, change pace, anticipate better, and catch on quicker to opponents' tendencies. The best in the business happens to be a former player named Melanie Molitor, mother of Hingis. Of course the day she avails herself to the Williams sisters is the day Davenport wins not a limbo contest, but the Olympic decathlon.

Will Mirjana Lucic ever make it into the top 15 or 20? In 1997 she seemed to have so much potential. Any chance of her threatening at the majors frequently?
—Dean Leite, Sydney, Australia

If you believe her birth certificate -- which not everyone does -- she's only 17. Not only is she is still hamstrung by the age-eligibility rules, but she's also had a bout with a psycho tennis dad that temporarily derailed her career. Nevertheless, she's already made it to the semifinals of a Grand Slam -- don't look now but that's more than Serena Williams has ever accomplished in a major -- and is steadily climbing the ladder. Lucic, now coached by McEnroe's pal Joe Guiliano, hits as big a ball as any player outside the top 10 and she is slowly improving her conditioning. What's more, if she ever gets to the net, she volleys surprisingly well. In short, give her another year to 18 months and she's in the top 15.

Every year the U.S. Open prize money goes up. Every year the USTA is criticized for not advancing the game of tennis. Instead of paying the U.S. Open winner $700,000, wouldn't it be more reasonable to pay the winner $500,000 and place the rest of the money in some inner-city, grass-roots tennis program? That $200,000 could make a tremendous difference. On the other hand, the extra money to the U.S. Open winner is a mere drop in the bucket; not to mention the millions in endorsements. Lastly, it's not as if any player will not play in the Open because the prize money is insufficient.
—Mark Braitman, Atlanta

Sounds like a plan to me, though I think you could even drive a harder bargain than that. The players treat the Slams with such reverence, you could award the winner a pittance like $250,000 and you'd still get the top field.

Here's another idea: How about cutting prize money a smidge and, in return, trying to make the U.S. Open affordable for a family of four? Unless you have special dispensation from the skybox gods -- as so lamentably many do -- it's impossible to enjoy a day of tennis with your two kids without dropping a few hundred dollars. The USTA talks a good game about expanding its demographic and shedding its Muffy and Biff image, but the economics are such that the crowd drawn to its showcase event is depressingly homogenous. The obvious response is that the extortionate ticket prices and concessions fund USTA junior programs. Fine, but how many kids, unendowed by privilege, will take seriously a sport that their parents can't afford to attend?

Another insipid "best ever" question: Jimmy Connors, anyone? If one judges best-ever status by overall record, I believe Jimmy has the highest total of tournament wins, won the U.S. Open on three different surfaces (fast, medium and slow), and defeated each of his major rivals (Borg, McEnroe and Lendl) in Grand Slam finals. Granted, he was not the most talented or versatile player, but he knew how to win and did it more often and over more years than anyone in history. Yet I never see him listed as a best-ever candidate. He should be. Rebuttal?
—Michael Pates, Montgomery Village, Md.

Pretty compelling case. Marks against: First, like Lendl, he loses aesthetic points for playing an admirably gritty game but one that lacked earmarks of genius. Second, his shortcomings included the French Open, a lack of commitment to Davis Cup and the most vulgarian personality this side of Ilie Nastase; even his storybook run at the 1991 Open was marred by his calling an umpire "an abortion." Third, this obviously cuts both ways but after winning the Open in 1983, Jimbo languished on tour for nearly another decade without another Grand Slam. Overall, though, I'd say your point is well taken. Is Jimbo the best ever? Probably not. But he deserves more serious consideration than he gets.

Here's related food for thought: What are we to make of Wilander's legacy? Here's a player who won seven Slams (i.e., only one fewer than Lendl and currently three more than Agassi), nearly won all four in 1988, and won the Australian when it was played on grass, thus winning on all major surfaces. How come his name never enters the discussion?

What exactly do you mean by, "Here it is mid-August and a top-seeded player still hasn't won a tournament in 1999?" Wasn't Pete Sampras the top seed at Wimbledon and Queens? And didn't he win those tournaments, too? Please explain.
—Bernardo Urdenta, Maracaibo, Venezuela

If I'm not mistaken, Yevgeny Kafelnikov was the top seed at Queens. After his usual flameout at the French Open, Sampras dipped to No. 3 in the rankings. The Grand Slams, including Wimbledon, are technically ITF events and not ATP Tour events. (Yes, it's splitting hairs, but ...) Of course, it's a moot point now. Sampras was the top seed in Cincinnati and brought home the goods for the fourth straight event.

Do you know why the USTA doesn't look to add to its tennis depth (particularly for the men) by recruiting foreign-born players? I have seen countries like Italy (Laurence Tieleman), France (Mary Pierce), England (Greg Rusedski), and Australia (Jelena Dokic and Andrew Ilie) do this. With the amount of young foreign players at U.S. academies, the USTA would be crazy not to at least try. It seems to me that if Anna Kournikova, Tommy Haas and Mirjana Lucic had gone to Australia instead, they'd probably be Australian citizens and playing Aussie Davis and Fed Cup by now.
—Tim Bullock, Honesdale, Pa.

I seem to recall player a from Novi Sad in the former Yugoslavia -- Monica something or other -- on the U.S. Fed Cup team.

Corina Morariu has won a WTA Tour title, in Bol, Croatia, where she has also reached the finals twice. She destroyed one of your favorites, Julie Halard-Decugis, in the final with the loss of only two games.
—Corrin McMurtry, Vancouver

Right you are. Mea culpa. But easy on the Halard-Decugis digs, especially after she bounced Davenport and Pierce to reach the Acura final.

 

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.