|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
At a crossroads
Posted: Monday November 22, 1999 12:38 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. This was going to be the last 'Bag of the year, but with so many good questions streaming in we will extend the engagement another week. So fill up on turkey this weekend and then send in your best volleys for the final Mailbag of 1999.
When does a player experience a "make-or-break" year, where he/she will come to a crossroads of sorts? Mary Pierce seems to be a good example of someone who was knocking on the door as a possible No. 1 player. Now, she seems to be on the downside of her career, comfortable in her role as a top-10 player capable of an occasional major upset, depending on her conditioning (which, as of late, does not seem to be too good). Is it one particular match that can define you, such as Goran Ivanisevic's loss to Andre Agassi at Wimbledon? Or is it a series of near misses? When do we quit waiting, and start to look at other players? You raise an interesting, if unanswerable, question. Like so much else in tennis, a player's ability to bounce back from a bad loss or cash in on a "make-or-break" year is largely a mental exercise. This, I realize is a copout answer, but it varies from player to player. Some pros, such as Pete Sampras, have a firm grasp of history and play their best tennis in big events. Others, e.g., Ivanisevic, can sleepwalk through potentially defining matches. Some, like Martina Hingis, have the ability to bounce back from a defeat and, though chastened, emerge hungrier than ever. Others, like Andre Agassi and Michael Chang, can go into an interminable tailspin after a bad loss. Some, like Bjorn Borg, never recover from a particular loss, while others, like Chang, see their confidence denuded by a series of close-but-no-cigar outings. Back to your original question. The trouble with a make-or-break year is that players seldom realize when they're in the throes of one. Did Marcelo Rios realize in 1998 that the goings might never again be so good? In 1996, did Pierce realize that the Williams sisters and Hingis were coming a cropper and the opportunities would never again be so golden? And when players do make that now-or-never realization, it must be an immense burden. Imagine, for instance, the pressure that Lindsay Davenport shouldered (and subsequently conquered) last summer. At age 22, with no Grand Slam titles to her name, she swept the summer hardcourt circuit and was the odds-on favorite to win the Open. Had she failed to do so, would she have ever recovered?
A lot has been said about Martina Hingis having the alltime best head in women's tennis. Who do you think is her counterpart in the men's game? John McEnroe? If Mac were a woman, who do you think would win a match between the two? As we saw this week at the Chase, Hingis' fiendish cleverness does her little good when the player on the other side of the net is 6'2" and hitting screamers from the baseline. The difference is even more pronounced in men's tennis. A player like Hicham Arazi might be a walking computer, but all the strategy, guile and intuitive court sense in the world doesn't much bridge the power differential between him and, say, Richard Krajicek (I consider Arazi more of a shotmaker than a "genius," but you get my point). Anyway, believe it or not, I think Sampras ranks awfully high up there. Ask him a strategic question or grill him about another player's tendencies and it's abundantly clear that his gifts are not merely physical. Overall, Mac takes the cake. But contemplating him as a woman is entirely too scary for me.
How do you get the information like "U.S. Open: Secures a five-year sponsorship with Heineken" and "Anna Kournikova: Gets a new deal with Yonex." I do not see it published anywhere else. To paraphrase Matthew McConaughey in Dazed and Confused: "Connections, man." I find it surprising that Serena Williams has withdrawn from a tournament for the fifth time this year. For someone so young, athletic and who looks so strong and well-conditioned (she said earlier this year that she was a "great athlete" and "the fittest player on tour"), she is amazingly prone to injury, exhaustion and illness -- much like Steffi Graf. Do you think injuries and illnesses will be her undoing in the future, just like Graf?
Also, what exactly is Nathalie Tauziat's secret? How can she be ranked at a career high when she's 32 and plays a finesse, serve-and-volley game in an era of extreme baseline bashing? She is not even such a great athlete and does not display the kind of genius that someone like Hingis does. Why, then, is she so successful? The difference between Serena and Graf is that Graf's injuries and ailments resulted in surgery and hospital visits. Despite her manifold defaults, Serena's healing powers are miraculous, so much so that she is often playing doubles or practicing with her sister a few days later. By all accounts, Serena's back injury last week was legit, but like the proverbial boy who cried wolf, eyebrows were nonetheless raised given her track record. As for Tauziat, it's about time we give her some "props," as we in the tragically-hip camp say. At age 32 (i.e., longer in the tooth than both Jana Novotna and Graf), Tauziat has had the best year of her career, winning a few events and finishing with the No. 7 ranking. You're right, she's not a great athlete, nor is she a big ballstriker. At 5'5" she is dwarfed even by Hingis, and her matzoh-flat serve is downright unsightly. Still, she plays gutsy, risk-taking, "junk" tennis, mixing up her shots, charging headlong to the net and deftly mixing up the pace. She has good hands, plays well on all surfaces and has plenty of fight. If anything, one wonders why she didn't have better results a decade ago when the field wasn't nearly as deep.
I make a point of going to the Seiko World Tennis Championships here in Osaka every year. This year's champion (Kristian Pless from Denmark) is the strongest junior I've ever seen. He's got to be top-10 material when he turns pro -- what do you think? A lot of folks are high on your boy Pless, who continues that longstanding tradition of Danish tennis excellence. I've only seen him play once. He certainly has the backcourt game to be a solid player -- it's a little early to speculate on the top 10 -- but his serve didn't blow me, or his opponent, for that matter, away. As the top-ranked junior in the world, Pless' upcoming pro debut will be much anticipated.
How many times do I have to hear the men's game described as boring? What is so damn boring about it? Power is boring? Virtuosity is boring? Give me a break. You don't really think that the men's game is actually boring, do you? Watching two girls trade 50-mph cross-court shots for a couple of hours is exciting? Give me a break! The most exiting thing about women's tennis is the immature braggadocio and the sexy costumes -- not the tennis! Virtuosity? Now you return the favor and give me a break. Seriously, your point is well-taken, but there are a couple of issues. First, I think the emphasis on the serve isn't as dominant in men's tennis as the purists claim, but the lack of rallies is lethal. Sunday's Chase final between Hingis and Davenport was a straight-set whitewash, but was nonetheless entertaining because both players ran each other around the court and traded shots from all coordinates on the court. Second, men's tennis is perceived as boring because of the lack of rivalries. Sampras and Rios were Nos. 1 and 2 for the better part of last year, but I believe that they have only played each other once in their careers. Contrast this to the women's game where Hingis, Davenport and the Williamses invariably square off every week. Notice that when Agassi and Sampras are both healthy and face each other, interest (and ratings) skyrocket. Finally, men's tennis is painfully slow in recognizing the intersection between sports and entertainment. You might lament "immature braggadocio" and "sexy costumes" but, in my mind, that only heightens the on-court appeal. Given the history, the trash talking, the parental influence, and even the costumes, a match involving any of the top five women's players is compelling to most fans before the first ball is struck.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back next Monday for the final one of the year.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
