| |
The word on Sampras
Posted: Monday October 04, 1999 11:45 AM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim answers your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. With nothing particularly extraordinary happening in the tennis world this past week, let's jump right into the questions ... Pete Sampras fans are miserable. Days without word have now turned into weeks
without word. Can you give us the update on his
condition?
Lots of Sampras questions this week. While Pat Rafter has vowed to return for the upcoming Paris Indoor event, Sampras is still AWOL. My sources tell me (I love using that phrase) that he is absolutely bouncing off the walls of his L.A. mansion (purchased from Kenny G., but we won't hold that against him), pining to return. I've heard mixed reports on the long-term prognosis -- from "He might be out until Australia" to "He just needs rest and we'll see how it feels in a few weeks." It's little consolation for not being able to play tennis, but Sampras has been spending quality time with actress Lauren Holly. He's also counting the days until the Lakers' season opener. Still, he's miserable. And my guess is that he's kicking himself for bagging on last January's Australian Open. I should add that reader Raphael Leen of Kansas City was kind enough to forward an article posted on entertainment website MrShowbiz.com which speculated that Sampras ducked out of the Open with a bad back so that he could spend more time with the aforementioned Ms. Holly. Anyone who saw Sampras choke back tears as he announced his withdrawal knows how absurd that is. We all saw Iva Majoli win Roland Garros in 1997 by demolishing Martina
Hingis. Now it's 1999 and she's not even in the top 100 anymore. And how old is
she? Twenty! What are your thoughts on Majoli? Will she make a comeback and
start beating some good players again? Or is her time already up? And what do
you think about the comebacks of Karina Habsudova and Sabine Appelmans? They
both had a big fall on the rankings but both of them have had a pretty good
seasons so far and they're back in the top 50. Will they get their places back
in the top
20?
Jennifer Capriati's best friend on tour (insert joke here), Majoli has been in a constant downward spiral since her triumph in Paris. Her ranking is now in triple digits and my suspicion is that she'll never return to the top 20. Majoli, let's not forget, was a top-10 player when she won the French -- it's not as though she pulled a Chris Lewis and came out of nowhere to make a splash only to slink back into oblivion. Majoli is regarded as one of the, ahem, more social players on tour. But her real problem is that her confidence is hovering at Goran Ivanisevic level. She has no faith in her shots, no faith in her strategy and her play on big points is abysmal. You're right to note that at age 20, it's ludicrous that she's heading for the door. On the other hand, as she once told me, "I was a Grand Slam champion and no one can take that away from me." As for Habsudova and Appelmans, I was blissfully unaware of said comebacks. Basically they're both top 25-50 players who played a couple decent tournaments lately and recouped some points. Always nice to see, but something other than a shift in the balance of power. If you look at the players in the bottom of the top 20, the Patty Schnyders, the Anna Kournikovas, the Irina Spirleas, neither Appelmans nor Habsudova, especially on the wrong side of age 25, is near that level. No matter how hard I try, I just can't get excited about Davis Cup. However,
while reading news stories about hooliganism during golf's Ryder Cup, I got to
thinking. Unlike most golf tournaments, the Ryder Cup is match play instead of
stroke play. Tennis could do the same thing with the Davis Cup, making it truly
different. How does this sound: No-ad scoring, 20 game pro sets (first person to
win 20 games, no need to win by two), and play lets. That would make watching
the Davis Cup far from an ordinary tennis match; it also serves as a good way to
try out ideas like playing lets. Do you think this would
fly?
I'm not the last of the great purists, but reflexively I'm opposed to tinkering too much with the Davis Cup format. For the past century, the format -- four singles matches sandwiched around a doubles match -- has worked just fine. The overlay of patriotism and team play already do plenty to separate the Davis Cup from "an ordinary tennis match." I'm stifling a yawn just thinking about a 20-game pro set. The Ryder Cup if often used as a point of comparison to what the Davis Cup could approximate in a perfect world. To my mind, though, it's comparing apples and oranges. The Ryder Cup is only held biannually, not four times a year; it pits the U.S. against Europe ( Vijay Singh, Nick Price, et al., be damned); and its history is not nearly as rich. With John McEnroe, Sampras and Andre Agassi back in the fold, I implore you to give the Davis Cup another chance. What do you think of Mac playing Davis Cup doubles? Nobody wants to win it
more, and I think he still has it when there isn't as much court to cover. Would
it be exciting for tennis or just give us old guys who remember how it used to
be a cheap
thrill?
No offense, Tim, but Mac nostalgia ought to be relegated to the Seniors Tour and ESPN Classic. The whole player/coach arrangement rarely works in any sport. Mac is the captain of a vastly talented -- potentially, anyway -- Davis Cup squad; should he insert himself in the lineup, it's at best a conflict of interest and at worst a grievous abuse of power. More important, strictly from the perspective of talent, the move would stink. In his day, Mac, of course, was the best doubles player on the planet. Unfortunately, his day ended in about 1986. The game has changed, Mac isn't in shape (even for doubles) and his reflexes have undoubtedly slipped. If he's so insistent on taking a page out of John Newcombe's playbook and giving a doubles specialist a crack, fine. Let Alex O'Brien or Donald Johnson or even Justin Gimelstob have his day in the sun. Two weeks ago Thomas Enqvist was injured and couldn't play Davis Cup, though
the week before that he played in the Samsung Open. Then last week he seemed to
be all better and playing in the Grand Slam Cup. Doesn't that seem a little
odd?
Yeah, glad someone else saw that. I have no idea what the deal was. The official word was that Enqvist would not play Davis Cup because the surface was gravel and there was a risk of injury. Then, as you note, he took his six-figure check in the Grand Slam Cup last week. To make matters worse, Sweden, the defending Davis Cup champs, lost that tie to Austria and will drop to the sadsack level. Don't you think that public tennis courts should have ceilings? I mean, when
it rains why should the tennis stop? I know there are indoor clubs, but for
those of us without monster incomes, we're denied play simply because of bad
weather, which need not happen. It can't be that expensive to cover outdoor
courts.
I'm guessing you don't do a lot of lobbing, Jeff. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||
