| |
 A match made in Grand Slam heaven
Posted: Monday September 20, 1999 12:14 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. We're barely a week removed from a fortnight of breathtaking Grand Slam tennis and all most of you want to discuss is the dalliance between Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf. I profess no inside knowledge, though I will confirm that the margaritas at Rosa Mexicana, where they were spotted during the Open, pack a mean punch. The best I can do to sate your craving for idle gossip is provide the wire story. Draw your own conclusions. My friends and I were wondering if Andre Agassi has a mother, and if so, why
we have never heard Andre speak of her nor seen her at any of the major events.
Please help us
out.
At this moment, Agassi's mother is busy scouring Las Vegas for a good German caterer in anticipation of her son's nuptials. Do you think Serena Williams is really a good tennis player, or is she so
successful only because of her unusual power? If you look at her average serve
speed it is more like the male average than the female average, and she served
more than twice as many aces as any other women in the Open. I think if you let
a male player on the women's tour, he would be quite successful -- nevermind how
good a player he really is. I guess what bothers me is that she makes such a
huge number of mistakes, I don't really feel like calling her a good player. If
she didn't have this massive serve to get her out of trouble, do you think she'd
be anywhere close to winning a Grand Slam? Probably her second set against
Lindsay Davenport answers that
question.
Serena is that good. Take away her aces -- which were only about 25% of what the top male, Richard Krajicek, served up at the Open -- and she still has plenty of other weapons. You're right that her power sets her apart from the field, but Serena -- more than Venus, I hasten to add -- is becoming adept at clever tennis and mixing up her shots. Yes, she could stand to cut down on her unforced errors. But think of her as tennis' answer to Mark McGwire: Lots of home runs, lots of strikeouts, lots more fun to watch than Punch-and-Judy singles hitters. Tennis fans seem to always want it both ways. We lamented the last generation's dearth of power and reliance on boring consistency (see: Austin, Tracy ) in all its moonballing glory. Now we have players hitting the fuzz off the ball and we mourn for the days of less erratic tennis. Bottom line: Don't begrudge Serena her bombs. Just consider how scary good she'll be when she finally learns to harness her power. What happened to Andre Agassi's service game? I remember when he was average
at best, but throughout the Open he looked terrific. While not in elite (read:
Pete Sampras) company, Agassi was so consistent and relentless on his service
games that I really think it was his key to victory, especially in the final.
Todd Martin played some terrific tennis, very possibly the best of his career,
but he had to struggle for just about every game. Agassi had a number of easy
service games late in the match, really grinding Martin down. What changed?
Agassi showed a consistency blended with power that we really haven't seen
before.
Good point. Despite winning two sets, Martin never broke Andre's serve in the final (he was 0-for-8 on break points). When it comes to sheer power, Agassi is not in the same area code as a Krajicek or Greg Rusedski or Sampras. Also, players seldom claim that Agassi's serve is especially hard to pick up. Yet, at the doddering age of 29, he still has ample juice and he is placing his serve masterfully. There were times when Martin tried to cheat a step or two toward the middle, and Agassi, literally in mid-service motion, saw this chicanery and kicked his serve out wide instead. What's more, Agassi, as I address below, has become much stronger on big points as he's gotten older. While the technical aspects of his serve are remarkably unchanged from earlier in his career, he's cut down on his untimely doubles, he's serving smarter, and he's hitting more first balls at crunch time. What do you believe Andre Agassi's summer of incredible tennis would have
looked like had he lost that French Open final to Andrei Medvedev? The reason I
ask this question is that after Agassi's loss to Pete Sampras at the U.S. Open
in '95, he admittedly was at a low point emotionally. It seems as though another
tough final may have crushed Agassi, who has suffered many tough losses in Grand
Slam finals. My other question is, how do you rank Agassi as a big-game player?
It seems that as Sampras progresses through the draw he becomes impossible to
beat, while Agassi is often tight in big matches. I believe this is one of
Agassi's negatives
professionally.
First, Agassi is at the stage where he knows that Father Time won't grant him another let, so to speak. He simply can't afford to go into a tailspin, no matter how devastating his previous loss. After reaching the French final for the first time in seven years, I think he would have rebounded just fine had he lost to Medvedev. Had he gone down in the first round, as he did last year to Marat Safin, it would have been a different story altogether. Agassi still shudders when he recollects his level of tightness in big matches earlier in his career. (If Steffi wants to end their relationship, all she needs to do is say Andres Gomez during a fight.) But he's gotten better as his career has progressed. Take a look at his losses in recent Grand Slams. Regrets, he's a had a few. But then again, they've come early on to players like Tommy Haas and Safin -- not so much a question of tightness as simply losing focus and failing to summon his 'A' game. Once he makes it past the third or fourth round, he picks up steam. Also, consider his play in finals. He had opportunities to fold aplenty against Medvedev and Martin, but pulled out both in five sets. That said, he's still not in Sampras' league. My favorite stat about Sampras: His record in finals is 60-17 (78%), 12-2 (86%) in Grand Slams. Somebody should grab this guy Yevgeny Kafelnikov's shoulders and tell him,
"Slow down, buddy, you're going too fast." Right after reaching the
semifinals of the U.S. Open, he flies all the way to Uzbekistan to play in some
President's Cup and promptly loses in the first round. I like his game (I think
his movement is amazing, like a ballet dancer), but I'm afraid he's going to
burn himself out. Why can't he just take a week off? It can't be (shouldn't be)
the money? Does his coach support his schedule? What's the
deal?
Except for the ballet-dancer part, I'm in total agreement. Kafelnikov, the tour's ultimate frequent flyer, played 32 events last year and will come close to doing the same this year. Three days after losing to Agassi in the high-stakes semifinal of the U.S. Open, he jets to Tashkent (which, granted, is lovely this time of year) and loses in the first round of a rinky-dink event there. It was Kafelnikov's eighth straight week of playing. Why run yourself into the ground like this? For one, the ATP's soon-to-be extinct "Best of 14" ranking system encourages this madness. Kafelnikov can lose a dozen first-round matches -- and he may, in fact, do so this year -- and pay no price in the rankings. Here's another reason some posit: Having spent the early part of his life in Communist Russia, Kafelnikov has understandably turned into a first-class capitalist. When tournaments are willing to give him a six-figure guarantee (and he can earn decent cake in doubles prize money as well), it's too damn tempting to take a week off. What ever happened to David Wheaton? Is he still playing
tennis?
Yes and no. Wheaton isn't officially retired, but at age 30, and with a ranking of No. 574, he can barely list his occupation as "professional tennis player" in good conscience. Beset by injuries, sporadic crises of confidence and a faith so intense many suspect it extinguished his competitive fire, Wheaton's career was one of unfulfilled expectations. Once a top-20 mainstay, he reached the quarters of the U.S. and Australian Opens and the semis of Wimbledon. But he hasn't been in the top 50 for almost five years and had struggled this year to do well in Challenger events. Still, don't shed too many tears for the best tennis player to hail from Lake Minnetonka, Minn. Wheaton earned more than $5 million in his uneven career. The talent and strength of the Williams sisters is indeed awesome. It also
appears that they may be ready to fulfill Richard's promise of the top two
players in women's tennis. If they ascend to the top and become as dominant as
Richard predicts, won't the WTA lose some luster as their novelty wears
off?
The WTA Tour is unquestionably still in a honeymoon phase with the wellspring of talent and diverse personalities that have emerged in the past few years. Sure, if the Williams sisters fulfill their potential and become the top two players in tennis, the novelty will wear off to some extent. Already, you'll notice how they're no longer the "Raised-in-Compton-African-American-Sister-Act" but simply Venus and Serena. And the next time they have to face each other, it won't draw nearly the frenzied media coverage as their duel in the final of the Ericsson (né Lipton). Still, just as Agassi or Sampras or Michael Jordan, for that matter, were still fun to watch long after their wunderkind appeal faded, I don't worry about the Williams sisters going stale. And besides, as long as Richard hangs around, there'll never be a dull moment. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||
