 |
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
More on tennis' first couple
Posted: Tuesday December 07, 1999 12:18 PM
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. Come back next week for the second annual Baggie Awards. This time we mean it.
I'm beginning to think that Steffi Graf needs a new boyfriend. Andre Agassi was a no-show at her retirement awards and now both of them skipped the Sports Illustrated 20th Century Sports Awards. Since Steffi was nominated as one of only six female athletes in individual sports for the CENTURY, it would seem that this nomination would be a great honor. Any rumors? Yeah, what's up with her skipping the Sports Illustrated show? (I was stuck in Chicago doing a story on the 1-14 Bulls last week and could have given her plenty of extra tickets.) I have no new rumors to report. What I do have to report is decade-old news: Graf is/was an unbelievable athlete who had/has little use for the appurtenances of stardom. When John McEnroe described her as a "tennis machine" he was essentially right. Awards shows, sponsors dinners, hit-and-giggles and press conferences were all rings of purgatory for her. I'll play surpassing tennis, but my commitment to tennis ends with match point was always the mentality. Yes, it was lame that Agassi failed to show at the retirement ceremony last month; but my sources tell me that Graf was adamant that he not attend, telling him that it was no big deal to her. Graf has expressed disappointment that women's tennis didn't take off until she was in the sunset years of her gilded career. But her allergy to marketing and public relations sure didn't help. There's obviously something distasteful about Anna Kournikova's style over substance. But it sure would have been nice had Graf shown a little more mirth and warmth both while playing and off the court.
I think the new ranking system for next year goes a long way in simplifying the old system. However, doesn't it sort of benefit Pete Sampras (to the detriment of Andre Agassi) to start at zero points? I mean, Agassi would have carried some major points into next year (based on his performance this year), which would have at least assured him of staying No. 1 well into 2000. Now he must give up the points and start all over again. Kind of cool for everyone -- players, fans, commentators, etc., but I still can't help feel that Agassi comes out the loser. What do you think? I think if anything, it hurts Sampras, who, under the old system, would be defending jack until the summer. Don't quote me on this, but had the points race been in effect this year, Sampras would have entered Wimbledon ranked below the top 50. Also, the emphasis on playing a complete schedule hardly benefits a player like Sampras, who is prone to injuries. What's more, the emphasis on Slams and Super 9's means that Sampras is really out of luck should he flame out in the early rounds of clay events -- say, the French Open, as he did this year. Agassi may be the lesser player, but he's the better all-court player. On the other hand, the higher the stakes, the better Sampras plays. So in that sense, the points race is custom-made for his game. He may lose to Leander Paes in New Haven, but if his body doesn't betray him, he's approaching untouchable between June and September. Remember, too, his record in Grand Slam finals is 12-2. Bottom line: It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Which, one supposes, is the real point.
I don't mean to sound ignorant or anything, but how exactly is this new ATP ranking system going to work? Is everybody starting over? And how big is the first tournament of the year going to be? I am so discombobulated! Why would you ever worry about sounding ignorant? Seriously, Elaine, it's not you. I'm going to a workshop of sort, hosted by Todd (Our Favorite) Martin later this week where the nuances of the new ranking will be explained in full. I'll be sure and pass along any finer points. Basically, here's what you need to remember: Every player starts the year tabula rasa. Yes, the winner of the year's first event is technically the world's No. 1-ranked player. But just as no one anoints Duffy Waldorf the PGA Tour's top golfer should he happen to win the first event on the calendar, we're not supposed to read too much into these initial rankings. By mid-spring -- after the Australian Open and several Super 9's -- the rankings should start to accurately reflect merit. With any luck, by year's end, there will enough players within shouting distance of the No. 1 ranking that we'll have a true "points race."
British players Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski had disappointing years, though Rusedski had a brief surge near the end before injury got to him again. And Henman had Wimbledon -- the one place he seems to consistently shine. What's your verdict on their future prospects? Any tips on British juniors or fast-developing younger players who might take their place? Henman and Rusedski -- the only Brits ranked in the top 100, by the way -- both got married this year, which inevitably means that their careers are headed down the loo, as it were. Seriously, Rusedski, not one of the better-liked players on tour, is desperate to win a big match. His groundies are shaky, but with a serve that big (and so many other players in the field hobbled with injuries) he should have had a better year. As well he should, he still loses sleep over that five-set choke job to Martin at the Open. He just turned 26, so time's a tickin'. Don't write him off yet, but the Canadian-turned-Brit is overdue for a big bloody title, eh? The outlook for Henman -- trivia: who's a year to the day younger than his compatriot -- might be bleaker still. As weak a descriptive word as it is, Henman's game and personality are both "nice." The latter, unfortunately, precludes his taking the next step. He's worthless on clay, he's erratic on hard courts (see: 1999 U.S. Open loss to Guillermo Canas ... no top-10 player should ever lose on hard courts to a player named Guillermo unless said opponent's surname is Vilas), and thus he is besotted with pressure when he plays Wimbledon, the one Slam he can actually win. The tip I'd have for British juniors is to stop listening to Morrissey. Seriously, move to Mallorca, where the weather's less rainy. Seriously, develop an all-court game. And burn down the disco.
Has anyone thought of this idea? Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi in mixed doubles. (I know she's retired, but so what?) That just sounds exciting, doesn't it? It's about time for the "mixed doubles" to make some noise. It would be so so cool. What do you think about the idea? Graf doesn't exactly have a sterling attendance record for mixed doubles. When he's not on some Grandpa Simpson -esque rant about the good ole days on the ATP Tour, John McEnroe could confirm as much. You're absolutely right that it would be exciting. They could play my Uncle Butch and my Aunt Lois and would still draw a standing-room crowd. Problem is, Graf has about as much use for excitement as her beau has for styling gel.
I really admire Amanda Coetzer and have followed these later stages of her career with much interest. Do you think she will ever win a Grand Slam, and how many years as a top-20 player does she have left in her? Coetzer's worst attribute might be her timing. Just as she was coming into her own and finding her comfort zone on tour, those power sluggers were, too. She's an underrated athlete who can hit groundies all day, but at 5'2", Coetzer is dwarfed (and outhit) by Martina Hingis, to say nothing of the sisters Williams. A Grand Slam is a real longshot -- especially since Coetzer is not a particularly good big-match player and has a nasty habit of getting upset in the majors. The top 20, on the other hand, is her domain until the day she retires.
First off, I would like to say that in general I find your Mailbag quite interesting. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend with regard to your writing. You consistently bash Monica Seles. Several weeks ago you said she was basically washed up, and last week you predicted that she will call it quits after 2000. What is your problem with Monica Seles? Monica has stated many times that she intends to play for at least five more years, and to back this up she signed several five-year sponsorship contracts. Please be more objective in the future. First off, of course I'm not always objective. You guys ask me questions based on opinion and I try and respond in kind. Anyway, trust me, as a fan I would love nothing more than for Monica Seles to win all four Slams and get the notoriety she is due. Hers has to be among the most tragic stories in sports; name me another athlete who was well on the way to dominating her sport, suffered such an emotionally harrowing injury and by the time she courageously returned, her window of opportunity had closed and she was relegated to also-ran status? I'm telling you, Seles' story is the stuff of Greek legend. The fact remains, though, that she can't possibly be happy in the role she's in now: light years removed from the Williamses, Hingis and Lindsay Davenport; perhaps even further removed from where she once was; frequently injured; out of shape (the oft-repeated line on Seles: "She thinks she's working hard, but she's not"); and already more than a decade into this dog-and-pony show of a lifestyle. Endorsement deals notwithstanding, I just can't see her continuing to win one out of 10 events she enters, getting humiliated by the next generation and giving the "Serena played a great match" speeches much longer. I will say -- warning: this is entirely subjective -- that should she encounter a reversal of fortune, or somehow miraculously return to her old form, I'd love to see it as much as you.
Do you really believe that Pat Rafter is basically all washed up? I was talking with Pat's camp only a few days ago (he is receiving rehabilitation in Melbourne following shoulder surgery) and they believe that with some patience and time (a couple of months), Pat will be firing again on all cylinders. My prediction: Pat will reclaim his U.S. Open crown and stick it to that ungracious New York crowd. All washed up might be too strong -- did I say that? -- but I think Rafter's days as a top-three player are over. First, rotator cuff injuries are serious business, and, unfortunately, if he doesn't heal perfectly, there's no sidearm or knuckleball serve he can learn to prolong his career. Second, even before the surgery, Rafter intimated that he didn't have many years left. All that full-bore grinding, all those forays to the net, and all those years on the Challenger Circuit take their toll. And what do you mean "that ungracious New York crowd"? Yes, a few drunken idiots booed him for the default against Cedric Pioline. But on balance, your man is wildly popular in the States, mate.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back next Monday for another Mailbag.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
