|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Australia on my mind
Posted: Tuesday January 25, 2000 12:11 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.
MELBOURNE -- Lots of folks have been asking me what's up with the greased-lightning surface here. At the beginning of the year, the murmurs were that the Rebound Ace surface was going to play slower than it did last year. Yet the players arrived to find the courts covered with a slick coat of paint that made play equivalent to the speeds on grass. So what gives? Well, it might simply be a fluke. Court surfacing is an inexact science that can change with the weather. But as one American player on the men's side told me, the popular conspiracy theory in the locker room -- it's a bit of a stretch for my likes -- is that Paul McNamee and his minions are treating the Australian Open like a Davis Cup tie, using the surface to the benefit of the home team. Mark Philippoussis , in particular, and Pat Rafter (were he healthy) both benefit from a fast court, as does Lleyton Hewitt. So, too, does Pete Sampras , whose success here would do wonders for the television ratings. In order to avoid a redux of the past two years, where Marcelo Rios, Petr Korda, Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Thomas Enqvist were all finalists, McNamee is doing all he can to help the marquee male players. Your questions ...
Like you, I chose Thomas Enqvist to win the Aussie Open. Now that we know that won't happen and that the court has been said to be very quick this year, have you changed your semifinal picks?
As long as you're giving me a much-needed mulligan, I'll go out on a limb and take Agassi and Sampras. Seriously, Agassi looks awfully strong and he averted a major obstacle when he took care of Philippoussis.
I'm interested in knowing your opinion on Patrick Rafter's success going into this year. What should we expect from him? I'm a huge fan of his and wonder about his recovery after rotator-cuff surgery. He's the only guy I see on the men's tour who adds real excitement and celebrity appeal and he's sorely missed, especially while the tour is Down Under. The answer lies in his shoulder. When Rafter pulled out of the U.S. Open with a torn rotator cuff, both he and the Australian contingent in New York were remarkably nonchalant. The tear was only a few centimeters wide, they said, and at one point they even predicted that he'd back for Australia's Davis Cup tie. Of course, now Rafter knows what all minor league pitchers know: rotator-cuff tears are serious business. While Rafter admits to some soreness, he does have full range of motion, which is a good sign. But I wouldn't get too optimistic. Though it seems like Rafter is still something of a fresh face, he's been on tour for nearly a decade already. His full-bore attacking style compounded by a serious injury compounded by an avowed desire to finish up his career in the next few years don't bode well for a return to the top. Rafter is a down-to-earth guy who's easy to root for. But I'm hard-pressed to see him winning another Slam.
There hasn't been much of a discussion on tennis players' prize money relative to athletes from other sports, and I suspect that, barring the top 50, playing tennis really isn't a great living. If that is true, couldn't a better case be made for a more equal distribution across rankings rather than between sexes? The WTA/ATP could, for a few years, cap prize money in the later rounds, but increase prize money in the earlier rounds. This is an age-old issue that inflames serious passion on both sides. You can go further down than the top 50, but you're right: After you get to, say, the No. 100-ranked female and the No. 150-ranked male, tennis ceases to be a well-paying career. Yes, you might make six-figures in prize money, but by the time you pay $35,000 a year in travel expenses, support a coach, pay off your sponsors and disgorge taxes, you're better off giving private lessons at a swank club. The trouble with distributing prize money more equitably can be reduced to Econ 101. Imagine what would happen if the men's and women's tours played Robin Hood. The top players would say: "No one's coming to watch Fabrice Santoro play Cecil Mamiit; they're coming to watch me. So why should I subsidize them?" The best advice for lowed-ranked players? Enter the doubles draws.
Do you think that fining Marat Safin for "lack of effort" is a little too much? After all, how can the umpire tell if the guy did not give his best because he did not want to, or because he was sick or tired or whatever? Nobody fined Thomas Enqvist for this in last year's Australian final. Tanking, of course, is subjective. Did Player X mail it in? Or did his opponent simply play the match of his life? And if you fine Safin for losing 7-6, 6-4, 6-1 to Grant Stafford, what do you do about Alex Corretja's 6-0, 6-0, 6-1 waxing at the hands of Lleyton Hewitt? I didn't see Safin's match, but from what I gather, the young Russian was patently disgraceful. At one point he simply caught one of Stafford's serves, giving him the game, rather than playing out the point. That's as blatant as it gets. My suspicion, though, is that tennis' pooh-bahs wanted less to punish Safin than to send a message to other players. Men's tennis has long been plagued by tanking, particularly at events where top players are guaranteed appearance fees for simply showing up. At a time when the men's game has a big-time deal on the table with the Super 9's and is desperate for an image makeover, it can ill afford to have one of its brightest up-and-coming players give an indifferent, half-hearted effort.
I'm sure you're fed up with questions about the fast courts in Melbourne by now, so here we go: The U.S. Open and Wimbledon have been won by a limited number of men the last few years, but there seems to be a new champion each year at the French Open (Agassi, Carlos Moya, Gustavo Kuerten, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Thomas Muster). Does this mean that the level in clay tennis is extremely high these days, with many players capable of winning, or is it an indication that there is no real clay champion around? Good question. First, I think men's tennis has really been skewed by injuries lately. Agassi wins the U.S. Open, but doesn't have to play a top-50 opponent until the semis, as Rafter and Sampras are on the shelf. Sampras wins Wimbledon but gets a huge break when Philippoussis goes down hurt. Kafelnikov wins last year's Australian, but Sampras and Rios are no-shows. Grass is the most aberrant surface on the tour, but clay yields some fluky results, too. Take Sampras, for instance, who might be the best player in history but is invariably reduced to a clueless hacker when he ventures to Paris. To my mind, the variety of French Open champs reflects not so much a strength or weakness in the quality of clay-court players, but rather a surface that yields unpredictable results. Unquestionably, there are fewer clay-court specialists now than there were a generation ago and this only figures to continue. Under the new ranking system, players won't be able to hoard points on the dirt and then collapse on every surface. The Masters Series compels players to compete in the Slams and Super 9's and then only five other events toward their ranking. Even if Player X wins all five of his optional events on clay, he'll still need to perform well on hard courts and indoors to post a decent ranking.
I'm a big fan of Mark Philippoussis. He seems very popular with the female audience. I would like to know how he handles his popularity. At almost every match the television camera show a player's girlfriend. At Philippoussis' matches, they only show his trainer and father. I wonder why he hasn't got a girlfriend when ladies all over the world desire him. Maybe you're not looking in the right places, Rishma. Next time, ignore the player's box and keep an eye on the transportation center.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
