|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
The Y2K crystal ball
Posted: Monday November 29, 1999 10:16 AM
By popular demand the 'Bag will continue on, but the last one of the year might come at any time so get your questions in! Click here to send Jon Wertheim a question. Stay tuned for the second annual Baggie Awards. Meanwhile, here's a smattering from this week's 'Bag.
I'd like to venture some WTA predictions for the year 2000: Amongst the established stars, I like Serena Williams because of her unmatched success against Martina Hingis and Lindsay Davenport. Amongst the up-and-comers I will have to go with Kim Clijsters because she can flat-out play. What are your predictions for the year 2000? And remember, we'll take you to task for your accuracy a year from now. Lots of prediction questions this week. As long as you promise to take me task for inaccuracy ... Men's tennis is obviously tougher, given the parity (read: lack of consistent star players) -- but try these on:
Do you think Magdalena Maleeva will be able to return to the top 30 next year? As a Bulgarian I have followed her as well as her elder sisters. Common opinion in Bulgaria is that she is the most talented of the three. She was ranked as high as No. 4 four years ago but has struggled with injuries since then. I was very happy to see her win again last week in Thailand. What are her chances of reaching the top level again -- at least the top 30? You're right that Maggie is the most talented of the siblings Maleeva, Eastern Europe's answer to the Williams sisters. Alas, she is also the most injury-prone. After cracking the top five at age 20, her career has been in a tailspin ever since -- at least until last week, when she won her first event since the Pleistocene Era. The good news is that Maleeva (a diehard Nine Inch Nails fan, since you asked) is only 24. If she regains her health she has, say, five years left. The bad news is that when she was a top-10 player, Hingis and the Williams sisters were practically in Pampers. In this era, a player of Maleeva's middling firepower is in for a rude surprise if and when she faces the top guns. Bottom line: Particularly since she's defending virtually no points and will get some wild cards on name recognition alone, a return to the top 30 is realistic. (Remember, too, she beat Anne Kremer, no slouch, last week.) Top 20 is pushing it. I'd lay Bulgaria's GNP-to-1 odds against the top 10.
What's the deal with Martina Hingis dumping Anna Kournikova as a doubles partner? Has Anna become, like Martina's previous partner, Jana Novotna, "too old"? Let me start by saying that women's doubles features more dissing, backstabbing and partner-swapping than your favorite soap opera. The funny thing about the Kournikova-Hingis partnership is that they were a damn good team and ended their affiliation by winning the Chase. Despite my prodding, all sources tell me the split was amicable, mutual, blah blah blah. Another top doubles player, however, surmised to me that Hingis wanted a partner less injury-prone than Kournikova; but why, then, Pierce? Also, I heard that Kournikova learned of the breakup not from Hingis directly but through Pierce's coach. Stay tuned for another episode ...
Do you think tennis will institute instant replay in the near future? I envision (but do not endorse) a system akin to that employed by the NFL: Players may challenge a certain number of calls per set or match, and suffer a penalty (say, the subsequent point) if the original call stands. I suppose the players would have to request review from the umpire (who would serve as the reviewing official) before the next point. Of course, the players would not use the cumbersome paging system and red flags that NFL head coaches utilize. I like the idea a lot. Players always claim that a sixth sense enables them to see lines better than the judges. Well, here's a chance for them to prove it. Still, there are logistical problems -- like how many events can afford the technology and personnel that NFL-style instant replay incurs? Also, even on the palindromic Mac-cam (as far as I know, the most effective surveillance technology) the evidence is often inconclusive. Here's my idea: Why not let players call their own lines and use the chair simply for appeals? Not only would this put the outcome back in the players' hands but it would add an element of personality. Which players call the closest lines? Which are the most charitable? Which players blatantly "hook"? Which question their opponents calls excessively? Rivalries would spawn, sportsmen and -women would emerge, bad sports would show their true colors. And would there really be any more disputes than there are now?
Andre Agassi always says he doesn't really feel like the No. 1 player in the world unless he wins (e.g., at Wimbledon he walked away ranked No. 1, even after a loss to Pete Sampras; when asked if it felt good to be No. 1, he said he didn't feel like No. 1 at all). Should Martina Hingis feel like the No. 1 player after two consecutive losses to Lindsay Davenport and a losing head-to-head record against her, even with an equal number of titles for 1999 (seven each)? Agassi's funny that way. While most other players will take anything they can get, Agassi is brutally honest in his self-assessment. Even last week at Hanover, after having reached the finals of the previous three Slams, he said that if he didn't win the tournament, he wouldn't feel like he was truly the world's No. 1 player. Similarly, after Agassi lost to Sampras in the finals of the L.A. event, one of the cheesy, trophy-bestowing sponsors said, "There are no losers. Only a first winner and a second winner." Agassi's response: "Being a second winner sucks." Rest assured Hingis doesn't feel like a second winner this year. Yes, she had a disappointing season. -- at least by her exacting standards. On the other hand, she can (and surely would) argue that no one had a better year. Hingis, not Davenport or the Williamses, reached three Slam finals. Also, the rankings are objective -- if Davenport, or either Williams, were truly the better player, the computer would reflect as much.
Lindsay Davenport did not participate in the Steffi Graf bon-voyage festivities during the Chase Championships, and I saw in the paper their relationship described as "frosty." What's the history there? The perception re: Davenport is that she's Vanilla Lindsay, the all-American girl who speaks no evil. In reality, she's plenty likable but has a decided competitive streak and doesn't suffer slights gladly. Watch Davenport play big points, or play through injury as she did last week, and it's clear that despite her abiding "normalcy" she has ample fire in the belly. Anyway, when Davenport became the world's No. 1 player last year, every former No. 1 player (including Hingis) in WTA Tour history congratulated her in person or via telegram. There was one exception: Graf. Similarly, when Davenport won Wimbledon last summer, Graf was hardly effusive in her praise, attributing the loss more to her physical ailments than her opponent's play. Davenport said all the right things at the time, but in private, she remains upset that Graf was never particularly gracious in defeat. O.K., so what does next year hold for Justin Gimelstob? I find him to be the most intense player on tour. While he's been talked about as the "next big thing" for a while, this year he got to the third round of the U.S. Open and played a smart match against Andre Agassi. So does he have a chance?
Also, if Yevgeny Kafelnikov wins another major or two (especially one he hasn't won yet), can he actually be considered as one of the best ever? After all, he does own Slams titles in singles and doubles. Are the clouds big and puffy on your planet, Jason? Justin Gimelstob hasn't been the "next big thing" since Krokus, the heavy metal band, was the next big thing. Gimelstob is a nice enough guy and a bright kid, but I wouldn't describe him as intense. He wears a game face, but his mind wanders easily and his serve deserts him on big points. The consensus is that he's a Richey Reneberg -caliber player. He can win a few big matches, maybe even an event if he gets hot, but a top-30 ranking is a best-case scenario. On the other hand, he can do well for himself (and earn that six-figure Davis Cup payout) as a doubles player. As for Kafelnikov, he's light years away from being considered "one of the best ever." Yes, he's won two Slams, but his credibility is greatly undercut when he loses time and again to vastly inferior opponents, expending minimal effort in the process. I'll be eager to see how he fares under the new ranking system that effectively thumbs its nose at his inveterate playing. Given that Ivan Lendl (eight Slams), Stefan Edberg (six) and Mats Wilander (seven) rarely see their names attached to word "legend," I'd say your man has his work cut out for him.
I tuned into the Chase Championships final expecting to see a five-set match, so I was surprised to see a best-of-three massacre! When (and why) did the women decide to abandon the five-set format for the final match? I have a two-letter answer for you: TV. NBC paid decent cash to televise the matches, but the network wasn't about to see a four-hour marathon cut into its football coverage. It sounds worse than it is: The players weren't exactly clamoring for a five-setter. And given that Kournikova and Hingis were in the doubles final, the crowd didn't feel cheated, either.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back next Monday for another Mailbag.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
