| |
 Is Sampras' legacy secure?
Posted: Monday September 27, 1999 03:44 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim answers your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. If you go back a dozen years, the top 5 had truly great players like Ivan
Lendl, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Mats Wilander, plus people like Yannick
Noah, Miloslav Mecir, Pat Cash and the rest of the Swedes -- even Jimbo and Mac.
Today's top 10 is pretty ordinary compared to that. Could Sampras have won as
many Slams as he has if he played in 1987? And this is not a "different
era" thing, so don't give me
that.
It's a different era thing. No really, accounting for advances in technology, training, nutrition, blah, blah, blah, had Sampras' career spanned from 1980-90 instead of 90-2000, I say he has eight Slams titles, not 12. First with Wilander, Lendl and Borg as rivals, Sampras doesn't come close to winning the French. With Borg, Mac, Becker and Edberg in the field and in their prime, Sampras wins one or two fewer Wimbledons. Against Lendl and Connors, he wins two fewer U.S. Opens. Sampras would run roughshod over some of the players you mentioned -- Cash, Noah and Mecir -- but a merciless baseliner like Lendl would give him trouble, especially in a marathon hardcourt match, as would a golden retriever like Connors. We all know of the talk in recent years about slowing down serves. However,
what kind of effect would any changes on this front have on a player like Andre
Agassi? It's possible that if serves were slowed down, more players would be
able to return about as effectively as Agassi, thus taking away his big
advantage. On top of that, he would rarely get free points off his serve,
causing him to have to work harder to
hold.
Interesting point. Here's another to consider: One of the few disadvantages to having a ballistic serve is it doesn't give you much time to get to the net. You mention Agassi. When he's on, Agassi uses the pace of a Richard Krajicek offering and, with a good return, makes Krajicek hit his first volley from behind the service line. A bigger ball would slow down serves, but so too would it give server-and-volley practitioners extra time to get to the net. I wonder whether after the U.S. Open, all this talk of slowing down the game won't ebb a bit. Even on a curiously fast court, the bazookas didn't make much of a dent. The two hardest servers in the draw, Krajicek and Greg Rusedski , were put out to pasture. The final was a breathtaking display of baseline tennis. And virtually no one played serve-and-volley tennis with any regularity. After Kim Clijsters' good showing at Wimbledon and the Open, what level do
you think she can reach in the
game?
Buried in the Open coverage was the fact that Kim Clijsters was serving for the match against Serena Williams in the third round before succumbing to nerves. What's more, for the better part of three sets, she was matching Serena blow-for-blow, hitting with just as much unrelenting pace. That match's outcome undoubtedly caused Clijsters a few sleepless nights, but apparently she wasn't too devastated. Last weekend she won the Seat event in Luxembourg, beating countrywoman Dominique Van Roost in the finals, and becoming the fifth-youngest titlist in WTA Tour history. Clijsters, barely 16, is still hamstrung to some extent by the age eligibility rules, but unquestionably she is a player on the make, one with top-10 potential. John McEnroe made an interesting comment during the U.S. Open about how it's
not one's age, per se, but the number of accumulated matches over a period of
years, that brings age to bear in tennis, both mentally and physically.
Theoretically, then, age would not necessarily impede a 30-year-old tour rookie
with fresh legs, fresh ambition and solid talent from succeeding on the pro
tour. What's your view on this, and how would you compare the role of age in
professional tennis to its role in other
sports?
I've heard essentially the same theory in other sports as well. A few years ago, Paul Molitor , the baseball player, explained to me that although he was 40 years old, because he spent much of his early career on the disabled list, he was in fact much younger in "baseball years." To some extent, I buy this. Consider Agassi, for instance: he played only one Grand Slam and a small handful of other events in 1997. Because of his lapses, Agassi's career will doubtless last longer than that of Pat Rafter , who routinely plays 70-80 matches of full-bore, serve-and-volley tennis each year. Still, I'm no doctor -- nor, for that matter, do I play one on the Internet -- but I have to believe a 30-year-old rookie, even with fresh legs, isn't long for life on the tennis tour. The sport is simply too grueling for a 30-year-old body to endure year after year of punishment. I'm a little worried that Agassi's game is going to go down the tubes again,
now that the rumors of his relationship with Steffi Graf appear to be true. I
was hoping he had another couple of years left in him. What do you
think?
Going down the tubes again? The guy is barely a week removed from winning his second Grand Slam in three months! It's true that his interests away from tennis have diverted Agassi's perspective, but at age 29, Agassi knows that time is suddenly a precious commodity. If he allows himself another dip, there's no guarantee the yo-yo will ever come back up. Besides, it's entirely possible Graf will help him retain his focus and keep him interested in tennis. Unlike his former consort, she knows firsthand what it's like to be "out there" and will no doubt impart some wisdom on how to ward off Father Time and prolong a studded career. What do you believe the future holds, in terms of Grand Slams, for Lindsay
Davenport? I really like her attitude, and the way she plays, but it seems she
possibly may have lost some of her hunger after winning two majors. She already
accomplished the year-end No. 1 ranking in 1998, so she may see her career as
complete enough to coast the rest of the way. What do you
think?
But for a collapse late in the third set against Serena Williams, Davenport could easily have won her third Grand Slam in her past five outings. Inevitably players are less hungry after they win their first title, but Davenport is so level-headed -- sometimes to her detriment, I think -- it's hard to see her living high off the hog for the rest of her career. Besides, I think that after winning Wimbledon, Davenport finally came to the realization that not only is she a worthy champion, but with a few more Grand Slams under her belt she could do down as one of the all-time greats. Do you think Venus Williams will live in the shadow of her younger sister or
are we going to see a better and improved
Venus?
That has to be the compelling storyline in women's tennis for 2000. For all the closeness the sisters Williams profess to share, Venus was outright devastated by the goings-on at the Open -- in a way she hadn't been in the wake of any of her other Grand Slam losses. Though she said all the right things, her body language and carriage made it abundantly clear that she experienced conflicted and conflicting emotions when her sister hoisted the trophy. Venus has no delusions: she knows as well as anyone that it's high time she won her first Slam. The Hollywood storyline dictates that she makes good on Richard's characteristically bold prediction and wins not one, but two Slams next year. Fact is, Venus hasn't choked in the Slams so much as she was beaten by opponents playing superior tennis. Provided that any Grand Slam championship has to go through her sister, Davenport, Martina Hingis , Mary Pierce , Monica Seles -- as well as the dangerous Mary Joe Fernandez -types who can catch Venus on a bad day and frustrate her into submission -- Venus sure has her work cut out for her. Why in heaven's name would the WTA levy a fine against Serena Williams for
pulling out of a tournament? If anyone deserves a rest, it's Serena. I know, I
know, the players and coaches set their schedule, but to levy a fine against a
player who knows when her body needs a break is silly. The WTA of all
organizations should be familiar with Teen Sensation Burnout at 20 -- they've
had their fair
share!
Yes, Serena could use a break, but this is the fourth -- repeat, fourth -- time she has bagged on an event this year. Promoters and sponsors sell tickets based on player commitments, and fans fill the stands based on which players are in the field. For Serena to withdraw at the 11th hour from an event she committed to months ago, does a disservice to the game and undercuts her credibility. She is responsible for her schedule and, regardless of what kind of jetlag it means having to endure, she ought to stick to it. What do you think that Monique Viele has to gain by entering a tournament
this week? She was crushed in her WTA debut at the Princess Cup last week. Why
does she have to rush to the pros right away? The restrictions limiting the
number of tournaments that teenagers can play on the WTA Tour should make her
want to play some ITF junior evens. She should beat those junior players first.
It seems ludicrous that she has racquet and clothing deals
already.
I can think of about a million or so reasons for her to turn pro, most tied to various bonuses she has with her sponsors. But rest assured money isn't the issue. As her parents, her coach, Rick Macci , and her agent -- don't laugh -- Donald Trump , are all to happy to tell you, in America people should be able to pursue their dreams regardless of their age. (Note: quietly hum My Country `Tis of Thee as you read this). No one told Shirley Temple she was too young to act and no one told Britney Spears she was too young to sing, so why should Viele be forced to wait until she reaches a certain age to make a living as a professional tennis player? I've seen Viele practice and she's plenty good. Physically, she's probably ready. But the notion that a 14-year-old is cut out for life on the WTA Tour, a life that entails so much more than simply stroking a tennis ball, is simply, to use your word, ludicrous. Viele, incidentally, was thrashed in her pro debut by Jane Chi , which doesn't exactly augur well for her making an immediate impact. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||
