Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

More on Graf and her legacy

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Tuesday August 24, 1999 01:09 PM

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

Check back later in the week for U.S. Open picks and the seed report. Meanwhile, your questions.

With Steffi Graf's retirement, I hear a lot of media types labeling Monica Seles as Graf's greatest rival. There's no doubt the two will forever be linked in history (I love your quote that they have a "biblical relationship" ), but I would contend that Graf's rivalries with both Martina Navratilova and Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario were more exciting and more productive. What are your thoughts?
—Jason Rainey, Carrollton, Texas

Good point. To borrow from Richard Williams, in the 12 months prior to the horrific stabbing, Seles was kicking Graf's ass coming and going. So even though their rivalry wasn't prolonged, Seles' ability to inflict so much damage meant, in the eyes of many, that she was a more estimable rival to Graf that Arantxa. Also, given the inextricably intertwined turns of their careers, one could argue that Graf and Seles are the ultimate rivals, set scores be damned.

Anyway, here's a lame-but-nevertheless-heartfelt alternative answer: Steffi Graf's biggest rival was Steffi Graf. But for the blip when Seles was No. 1, on the rare instances when Graf lost, it was either because her body failed her or the ambient pressure (read: Daddy Dearest) was overwhelming. Much like Pete Sampras, if Graf failed to walk off the court a winner, it was when she lost a battle with her body or when she couldn't summon her 'A' game. Rarely did it have much to do with the foil on the other side of the net.

You know, it perturbs me a little when many who follow the sport proclaim Steffi Graf the best female player ever. On the hard courts at the Australian Open in 1993, a fairly neutral surface for both players, Monica Seles beat Graf going away, at an age when Graf should have been in her prime, injury-free as far as I can remember. The victory pretty much sealed Seles' preeminence in the sport before she was tragically stabbed a few months later. Perhaps you could explain this logic to me. Is Seles, pre-stabbing, the best player ever, with an asterisk?
—Mark Johns, New York City

Point taken. Had cruel fate not intervened, Graf's legacy might well have been less lustrous. In the spring of 1993, it certainly looked as though a changing of the guard was afoot and an endearingly eccentric squealer from Yugoslavia was on the verge of becoming a standard bearer. Still, "best ever" implies sustained excellence, not simply playing at the highest level for a brief spell. It's entirely possible that for a six-month window, Seles played the best tennis in women's history, just as it's entirely possible that Denny McClain was the best ever baseball pitcher for one season. Given the arc of their careers, however, the empirical evidence supporting Graf is simply overwhelming. Spanning more than a decade, she won twice as many Slams as Seles. She won every one at least four times -- Seles, of course, has never won Wimbledon -- and an Olympic gold medal to boot. As for what would have happened had a madman not taken a knife to Seles' back, that, of course, is an unanswerable question that will haunt women's tennis for years.

I just wanted to make a statement about who the best women's player ever was: I say it is Martina Navratilova. She played both singles and doubles, as we all know, and was successful at both for many years. She didn't win the Slam like Steffi and didn't have as many Grand Slam titles, but if Chris Evert had never been around, wouldn't she have won as many as 30 Grand Slam titles? I just feel she had all the shots and did something no one really does anymore in women's tennis: serve and volley.
—Rachel White, Corpus Christi, Texas

You'll be happy to know that Navratilova wholeheartedly agrees with you. It's probably unfair given their relative ages at the time, but I think that in a lot of folks' minds (self included) Graf trumps Martina because she unseated her in the end. Our enduring memory is that Martina was unable to handle that unflappable German, her ballistic forehand and scythe-like backhand, and it eventually forced her from the game. In invoking Chris Evert's name, you make the obvious rebuttal -- namely that Graf would have won fewer titles had she been tested by a constant rival. Nevertheless, the numbers are so obviously in Graf's favor, it's hard not to anoint her. I do like your point, however, that Martina's ability to serve-and-volley better than anyone in history is worth extra consideration. Just not enough, in my estimation, to unseat Steffi.

Expanding on Tim Bullock's question from last week, I think the USTA should try to limit the amount of foreign talent at U.S. academies. There's so much talk about the USTA improving player development, but when you take a look at the highest profile U.S. tennis academies, most of the best talent is playing under flags other than the Stars and Stripes. That's great for free enterprise and the academy owners' wallets, but then there is little wonder why U.S. tennis doesn't have the depth that fans want? These academies need to place more emphasis on developing the home talent, and should open bases overseas if they insist on capitalizing on those markets. Among U.S. tennis fans, there has been much talk about "what's wrong with U.S. tennis." Maybe it's time to point the finger to the academies here that put more time into improving the games of high profile foreign players than promoting our own junior players.
—Jennifer Vasinda, Hazleton, Pa.

It's awfully difficult for U.S. courts, much less the USTA, to restrict what clientele private academies can accept. Would it be better for U.S. tennis if Nick Bolletieri, for instance, had an Americans-only policy? Perhaps. But is the proliferation of foreign players at U.S. academies really that detrimental? Seems to me that if there's a surge in American players willing to pay the tuition, Bolletieri and his ilk are smart enough to simply build additional facilities rather than exclude willing and able juniors.

Here, in my eyes, is a bigger concern: Ever see the names of the players at the NCAA tennis championships? More than half the men (boys?) in last year's field were foreigners. If Anna Kournikova wants to leave Moscow and attend an academy in Florida when she's nine, that's fine by me. But when foreign players are recruited by American colleges -- state-funded colleges, more often than not -- and take finite scholarship opportunities away from deserving American juniors, that strikes me as a far more grievous issue.

My question concerns the favorite player of my youth, one Miloslav Mecir. Yes, I know he's been retired for years now, but I still remember watching his last major match, at Wimbledon against Stefan Edberg in 1990. How do you think history will judge him? Was he an underrated genius or someone who could have achieved more given his talent? I suppose he's a bit like Petr Korda in that respect.
—Raymond Quan, Toronto

Korda's a good comparison, and not simply because they share the same provenance. For those who are suckers for quirk and cerebral tennis, Mecir was, as you say, an underrated genius. His strokes had the sweet simplicity of German wine; he was a rollicking good athlete for a guy who looked like he had spent the previous night on a cot in a youth hostel; and emotionally, he was in his own little world. True story: He was nearly defaulted from a final because he found a small turtle on the tournament grounds and was so obsessed with the creature that he forgot about match. Anyway, this makes for fond remembrances, but I'm afraid Mecir needed to have won a few more big events and stuck around a few years longer before anyone would be inclined to clear wall space for him at the Hall of Fame.

Most of the ATP Tour players seem to be giving mild support for the new ranking system planned for next year. The focus, however, has all been on the switch to a points race. Little has been said about the fact that the players will now be REQUIRED to play in all the Super 9 tournaments. How do you think this will go over with players like Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter? Top players routinely skip one or more of the Super 9's. I can't imagine someone like Sampras being too happy about being required to play events like the German Open, which he has avoided for years.
—Amy, Albion, Mich.

REQUIRED, eh? We'll see about that. Yes, the Supers are "mandatory" insofar as uninjured players will earn zero points for bagging the events and the Super 9's necessarily count toward a player's year-end ranking. But first, what stops the top players from colluding and saying -- remember that Borg guy? -- "We don't like being told where and when to play" and informally agreeing to play only, say, seven of the Super 9's? What's more, there are tasks in this world more Herculean that getting an excused absence for an injury on the ATP Tour. Especially in August when the Super 9's in Cincy and Canada are inexplicably scheduled on back-to-back weeks, expect to see a line outside the office of ATP Tour trainer Doug Spreen. Also, for a player like Sampras, who in the past has mounted a huge points lead by early fall, it's entirely possible he'll do the math and simply surrender the points without it having an impact on his final ranking.

Still, should players do anything deceitful, the ATP Tour's indignant response might go something like this: "We busted our asses orchestrating the monstrous, consolidated marketing-and-television deal centered around the Super 9's. If you guys undermine the value of these events and subvert the new ranking system, you're essentially stealing from yourself."

What is with this World Team Tennis stuff that Billie Jean King is always pushing? It seems like a bunch of O.K. players. I'm not feeling it at all. Please explain.
—Jason Baez, Virginia Beach, Va.

World Team Tennis is either the game's best-kept secret or the most poorly promoted sports league in history. If it were merely "a bunch of O.K. players" it would still be odd that a nationwide tennis league couldn't even get its results printed in the agate type in USA Today. But you should see the rosters of players in this league: Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles, Tara Snyder; top pros folks know and love. The team-style matches are abbreviated and include mixed doubles, which everyone loves. And the franchises are owned by celebs like Bob Costas and sort-of-celebs like Tim Ryan. Boggles the mind why even hardcore tennis fans don't know that the league exists.

Patrick Rafter has a wonderful tennis game, but it's punishing. Will he break down before he turns 30? And does he need to add anything to his game to win a major other than the U.S. Open?
—Bill McLean, Palatine, Ill.

Mr. Rafter was kind to the Mailbag and answered your question himself earlier this week. Not only is his style punishing, but he plays a lot of matches without giving his body much rest. As the No. 2 seed in Indy last week, he pulled out with a shoulder injury and withdrew as well from the draw at this week's Long Island event, where he is the No. 1 seed . He should be O.K. by the Open, but Rafter himself has said that he'll call it a career after a few more years on tour.

Discuss amongst yourselves: What would we rather see -- a top player like Rafter go all-out for a concentrated period of time or a top player like Agassi play less intensely over a longer career?

What does the future hold for the Bryan twins? I notice they are playing World Team Tennis, which won't help their rankings much.
—Toby Smith, Paris

Two references to World Team Tennis in one week. I sniff a groundswell of support. The Bryans ( Bob and Mike ) are, unfortunately, what they are: great kids, good doubles players -- but fair singles players. Because they're American -- in every sense of the word -- and because America has a bizarre obsession with twins (anyone else ever notice this?) they'll always be assured of getting wild cards here and there, and playing in front of big crowds. Fact is, neither has the huge weapon that's a prerequisite for entry into the game's higher ranks. On the other hand, their old Stanford teammate, Paul Goldstein, is fast emerging as a legit top 30-40 player. Keep an eye on him at the Open.

I just read that MaliVai Washington has been granted a wild card into the U.S. Open. Understandable, but in the same article, I read that his brother Mashiska and sister Mashona were granted wild cards as well. Last year their father complained long and loud that the USTA was racist when Mashiska was not granted a wild card. While the USTA denied that claim, we see Mashiska in this year's tournament, even though there has been no noticeable improvement in his game. Is this a case of tacit acknowledgment of racism by the USTA or a case of the squeaky wheel (Mr. Washington) getting the grease?
—Phil O'Donaghue, Florence, Mass.

I'll pass on the Marlo Thomas joke this time and go right to your question. A strong vote for the latter. I confess I've been travelling and haven't seen all the other wild cards, but right now I guarantee that there's an infinitely more deserving player like Michael Joyce or Rudy Rake or Mike Sell who outranks 24-year-old Mashiska Washington, and nonetheless has to go through the drudgery of qualifying. It takes a fair degree of naivete to believe that the USTA is free of racial politics or to suggest that it is doing all that it can to promote tennis in minority communities. Yet when William Washington accuses the USTA of racism because it denied a wild card to a woefully mediocre, twentysomething son, it encroaches on reckless. For the USTA to have apparently cowered to this blowhard is, at best, disappointing.

By the way, MaliVai withdrew Monday with a knee injury and will be replaced by Richey Reneberg.

What is the status of Mark Philippoussis following his knee injury at Wimbledon? Is he expected to play at the U.S. Open?
—Deb Meyer, Arlington Heights, Ill.

Without a lot of fanfare, Philippoussis rejoined the tour last week and promptly lost in Indy to 20-year-old French comer Arnaud DiPasquale. Never the most agile of players to begin with, Philippoussis was still clearly feeling the effects of the knee injury. I'm also told that he has yet to recover from the psychic wound of leading Sampras in the waning rounds of Wimbledon before pulling up lame. As of today, he is scheduled to play the Open, but even with the powder keg of a serve, don't expect him to survive the first week.

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
Visit Multimedia Central 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.