|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Canadian attack
Posted: Tuesday November 16, 1999 02:12 PM
The 'Bag will be going on hiatus in December, so get your questions in before it's too late! Click here to send Jon Wertheim a question.
For a player who told me on Wednesday that she couldn't wait for the season to end, Lindsay Davenport gave an awfully good accounting of herself in Philly. After pasting Venus Williams in the semis, 6-1, 6-2, in under an hour, she trounced Martina Hingis in the finals. ... Against Venus, Davenport lost all of six points on her serve. ... Nathalie Tauziat might be 32, but she is ranked a career-high No. 7. Tauziat is one of five Gallic gals who made the Chase field along with Mary Pierce, Sandrine Testud, Julie Halard-Decugis and Amelie Mauresmo. ... Big week for American Jan-Michael Gambill, who beat both Tim Henman and Mark Philippoussis before falling in a third-set tiebreaker to Magnus Gustafsson in the Stockholm semis. ... For those scoring at home, Alexandra Stevenson won five matches to reach the Wimbledon semis. She has won two since. ... I have seen the future of women's tennis and her name is Kim Clijsters. That three-setter against the like-sized Serena Williams at the Open was no fluke. Your questions:
Isn't there some way of putting a muzzle on that jackass John McEnroe? He is a disgusting specimen of American aggressiveness and should be fined into oblivion. It doesn't matter how well he plays, he has no business representing any sport in the public eye. He is also a lousy television commentator because he doesn't know when to shut up; as a matter of fact, that pretty much sums up him and his career. It's a shame that he has been so successful. It's a comment on the sickness of public sport in general. It's a scandal that he should be in charge of Davis Cup. We can no doubt look forward to more of the "win at any cost" attitude that exemplifies Americans in every corner of the globe. Seriously, A.J., tell us how you really feel. I'll take issue with your disparagement of Mac's skills as a television commentator. Half the time he's more entertaining than the match at hand, and it's refreshing to hear a match called by a former pro who isn't in bed with every player and administrator on tour. But you raise a valid point: There's no doubt the USTA made a Faustian bargain when they named Mac as Davis Cup coach. My personal opinion is that after the ineffectual leadership of Tom Gullikson and, more important, the flagging interest in the competition, naming McEnroe was a gamble worth taking. Still, when he shoots his mouth off and makes international news for blowing up over line calls at senior events, rest assured there are plenty of hands being wrung at the USTA offices.
What has happened to Alex Corretja? At the end of last year he looked like the next No. 1, but this year he hasn't won a title and keeps sliding down the rankings. Do you think he was a one-year wonder, or can he make his way back to the top? Hard to believe that at the start of the year, Corretja was generally considered to be the best male never to have won a Slam. (And, if memory serves, I foolishly picked him to win the Australian Open.) One-year wonder is too harsh. Even before his breakout year in 1998, when he reached the French finals and was the most consistent player for 12 months, he was a force to be reckoned with, to use my least favorite sports cliché. One can hardly mention his name, of course, without referencing the five-set classic against Pete Sampras at the 1996 U.S. Open. Corretja's lackluster 1999 is owed largely to injuries and ailments. In particular he's had some sort of infection that he hasn't be able to shake for months. After starting the year at No. 3, he's out of the top 10. Smart money says he takes a long break after the ATP Championships and comes back strong in 2000. Corretja, one of the most well-liked players on tour, is, after all, only 25.
Personally, I am surprised by the resurgence of Jennifer Capriati. She has won two tournaments this year and has returned to the top 30. How much further do you expect her to climb back? Is she good enough for a return to the top 10? You're not unique in your surprise. After her epic episode of burnout and a half-hearted comeback, her legacy as a personified cautionary tale seemed assured. But after slogging through a string of early round losses and uninspired matches against foes she would have creamed as a 14-year-old, Jennifer (decidedly no longer Jenny) Capriati is back. Not only has she won a few lesser titles this year, but she's beaten a lot of top players and, depending on what shakes down at the Chase, has a shot of finishing the year in the top 20. I saw her beat the aforementioned Kim Clijsters on Wednesday and was impressed not only with how cleanly she was hitting the ball but with her conditioning and her play on big points, never a strong suit in the past. If there were a coach-of-the-year award in tennis, Harold Solomon would certainly warrant consideration. How far can she go? If there's any upside to embarking on your pro career at a ridiculously young age, it's that you can walk on the wild side, disappear for a few years, start a comeback in fits and starts and still only be 23 years old. For all she's been through and for as long as she's been a public figure, let's not forget that Capriati is only two months older than Davenport. If she keeps working hard, the top 10 is realistic. She certainly has the ability to edge out the likes of Amanda Coetzer, Halard-Decugis and Testud. I'm hard-pressed, however, to see her playing on the level of a Pierce or Monica Seles -- much less Hingis, the Williamses and Davenport.
Do you think there could be a bright future for junior player Levar Harper-Griffith? To be honest, I haven't seen much of him. Good athlete, good strokes, and by all accounts a good kid. Save Marty Fish, Harper-Griffith is the highest internationally ranked American junior. My one reservation would be that he's not a big kid, he won't win a lot of easy points on his serve and I'm not sure he has a real weapon. On the other hand, even in this age of power tennis, there are plenty of other little guys -- Sebastien Grosjean, Nicolas Lapentti, Lleyton Hewitt, Fabrice Santoro, the Blacks , guy named Agassi -- who are doing just fine on the pro tour.
When Martina Hingis rose to No. 1 in 1997, we all heard the critics saying that she was "No. 1 by default" because Steffi Graf was injured. Why is it that we aren't hearing that about Andre Agassi, even though he was dominated by Pete Sampras over the summer and Sampras was No. 1 when he was injured? The only comments I've heard are about Andre's dominant year, yet he couldn't get a set off Sampras. Fair question. Agassi has had a stellar year, but you're right to note that his ascent coincides with injuries to Sampras, Pat Rafter, Philippoussis and Rios and an otherwise erratic field of Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Henman, Richard Krajicek, etc. The difference, though, is that whereas Hingis burst on the scene as an untested prodigy with unimpressive power, Agassi is a known commodity. Over the past decade we've seen his capabilities, we know how abundant his native talent is, and thus realize that despite the depleted field, he's still had an unbelievable year.
My question is not "Why can't the women play best of five?" it's "Why do the men have to?" Best-of-five tennis is boring no matter who plays. Five-set matches are too long. Watching for three-to-four hours is pointless when the drama comes in the last set. I always tape and watch the last set anyway. Sure, there are some great five-setters, but the downside that never gets mentioned is that when there is a blowout we have to sit through three sets, not two. Put us out of our misery! Who wants to see an extra set of Sampras-Andrea Gaudenzi anyway? Sampras-Gaudenzi? What about Jiri Novak-Alex Radulescu or Daniel Vacek-Gaston Gaudio? I'm with you all the way. Appease the purists by making the finals of Slams five sets, but there's no reason early-round matches at Slams (and Davis Cup) have to go so long.
I haven't yet heard this question asked about the new men's ranking system: What impact will it have on players outside of the top 60? These are the guys who aren't ranked highly enough to compete in the Super 9 events without qualifying or getting a wild card. Will it give an unfair advantage to folks like Michael Chang and Goran Ivanisevic who are likely to get wild cards into such events on account of name recognition? Are people like Cecil Mamiit and Justin Gimelstob totally screwed, since they'd need to play the qualies all the time? Good point. With so much emphasis on the Super 9's now, the stakes will be huge in the qualifying rounds. A player like Mamiit or Gimelstob who is hardly assured of making the cut-off -- particularly now that virtually every able-bodied player will be on-hand -- will be in real trouble if he can only qualify for a few of the Super 9's. He can win all the lower-tier events he wants, but if he plays in, say, four of the Super 9's and only wins a round or two at the Slams, he won't move up appreciably. Also, a player like Chang who can finagle a wild card to a Super 9 will get a significant benefit.
What is your opinion of Gustavo Kuerten? Do you think he has the game to return to the winner's circle of a Grand Slam? I just love his game, and his demeanor on the court is very refreshing. It truly feels like he enjoys the stage that he plays on. His act against Cedric Pioline in the U.S. Open -- when he crossed the court to shake his hand in the middle of a tiebreaker -- was great for the game. Kuerten is still very young, but he has a surprisingly large serve and hits some heavy groundstrokes. What do you think? Me likes, me likes. After winning the French in '97, Kuerten slipped a bit and was perceived, if not as a one-Slam wonder, then as a player with an atomic forehand and not much else to speak of. He's obviously shown that he's much more. He still plays a lot of loose points -- and I've noticed he's the king of the mis-hit -- but when he's on, his power baseline game propelled by those "rubbery" strokes is a sight something to behold. You're right, too: He's young, he's athletic, his serve is underrated, he plays well on hard and slow surfaces. In short, a great player who may well have a few more Slams left in him. Glad, too, that you mentioned his wanderlust against Pioline. What a great moment of unadulterated sportsmanship/eccentricity that was. Kuerten is one of the most popular gents on the tour and he's a player who's easy to root for. His father passed several years ago umpiring a junior match and Gustavo has dedicated the rest of his career to his memory. He gives all of his trophies to his mentally disabled brother back in Brazil and lists his grandmother as his favorite coach. At the risk of playing armchair psychologist, I think Kuerten's family situation helps put tennis in the proper perspective. Regardless, he is the anti-Rios, a South American who, as you put it, "is great for the game."
What about Nicolas Lapentti? He was in 91st at the beginning of the year, now he is No. 8. Revelation of the year? If revelation is California-speak for "most improved" or somesuch, I'm with you. The third South American player to reside in the top 10, Lapentti is certainly one of the big surprises of the year. His jump is astounding, but, truth to tell, I'm not swooning over his game. I liken him to a Grosjean, which is to say, he's a perfectly nice player but is a bit undersized and lacks a bread-and-butter weapon. I've seen him play some awfully good matches on the hard courts at Indy, but I also saw him implode against unknown qualifier Frederik Jonsson at the Open. He's top-20 material, to be sure, but I'd be surprised if he's still this high in November 2000.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
