|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
Lendl doesn't quite measure up
Posted: Monday February 28, 2000 12:56 PM
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. Lots of you took me to task for not including Ivan Lendl's name in last week's answer regarding the best players of the last 25 years. You pointed out that Lendl won more Slams than Stefan Edberg and John McEnroe, which is true, but the question asked which player was the best when he was at the top of his game. Lendl was plenty dominant (see: U.S. Open, 1980s), but he couldn't shift, as often as the others, to that gear in which he was simply playing a different game than his opponent. Anyways (as we say in Indiana) ... The 'Bag was overflowing this week, so I'm going to respond to as many questions as possible with a quick-hit, off-the-cuff answer (as opposed to what, I don't know).
What will it take to have the Agassi/Sampras rivalry be considered as legendary as Borg/McEnroe? A dramatic five-setter would help (Australia doesn't count), but with some detachment I think history will link the two pretty closely. It's a good contrast of styles, personalities and intersecting careers. The rivalry fizzled when Agassi went into the tank in 1997, but a few more shootouts in 2000 -- sprinkled, of course, with some Davis Cup controversy -- and they should be good to go.
Just how good is Nicolas Kiefer? Do you think he is capable of winning a Grand Slam? Or is he one of those guys who'll reach a Grand Slam final only if the top seeds are upset? Kiefer could be quite good, but he's shown me little so far. He scavenges ranking points throughout the year and then wilts at the big events. I sat courtside for his quarterfinal match in Australia against Magnus Norman and, in what was arguably the biggest match of his career, he was listless and played apathetic tennis on big points. Compounded by his Davis Cup contretemps, I'd say he's hit put-up-or-shut-up time. I like his game, though. He's a poor man's Andre Agassi, a power baseliner who makes up for his smallish stature with bullets. He just needs to play his best in big matches, and so far he hasn't.
I dare you to go out on a limb and speak your infamous mind on the subject of World Team Tennis. In your opinion, how many bankrupt franchises and empty arenas will it take to convince folks that this was the dumbest idea ever inflicted upon the pro game? It's not much of a limb (insert Calista Flockhart joke here), but here goes: World Team Tennis is great in theory, lousy in practice. I have no objections to innovative, fan-friendly, mixed-sex tennis that allows pro players to get in some matches during the summer. It also brings tennis to cities where there are no pro events. On the other hand, you're right -- how this league can expect more than seven people to pay good money to watch Brian McPhie play Luke Jensen on a Wednesday night in Sacramento is beyond me. Fact is, the two tours are entirely too cramped with events for World Team Tennis to succeed. To my thinking, it's an innocuous loss leader that, like minor league baseball, has some grassroots charm.
A couple of years ago the WTA had become so exciting that the girls were asking for equal pay, and hardcore ATP zealots like me were now paying more attention to women's tennis. However, as we embark upon the new millennium, I respectfully submit that the WTA has become a very predictable four-player tour. I venture to say that no player other than the top four is likely to grab a Grand Slam title this year, and as you brilliantly pointed out in your segment about the health status of the Williams sisters, you can't always count on them to play. This leaves Martina Hingis and Lindsay Davenport to carry the WTA. What is your prognosis for the short-term future of the WTA Tour? You're right and you're wrong. I, too, will be surprised if a player outside the top four wins a Slam. They've clearly distanced themselves from the rest of the pack. On the hand, sports in general are becoming personality-driven, and women's tennis has them in spades. Anna Kournikova may not win a tournament, but folks will sell their kidneys to watch her play. To a lesser extent (an esophagus, maybe?), the same goes for Mary Pierce, Monica Seles, Jennifer Capriati and Amelie Mauresmo. Even Alexandra Stevenson is a drawing card. The men may have more parity, but they lag behind in Q-rating. If you had been the Memphis tournament director, who would you have promoted outside of Mark Philippoussis? Is Byron Black or Wayne Ferreira or Magnus Larsson putting fans in the stands? The women may ultimately be more predictable, but I submit that tennis fans have no interest in parity. They would rather see the top four dominate for five rounds rather than watch an upset-addled draw yield an Andre Sa/Cecil Mamiit semifinal.
Amelie Mauresmo just lost another close match. Will she be the Jana Novotna or Gabriela Sabatini of the new millennium -- immensely talented but mentally just not tough enough? Though she does seem to have concentration issues, it's too early to start lumping Mauresmo with Sabatini and Novotna. Also, unlike those two, who reverted to pushing when the pressure mounted, Mauresmo at least goes down swinging. Another writer suggested that she's the female Philippoussis. That may be closer to the mark.
A rather superficial question, but who would you rate as the game's worst underachievers? My list: 1. Mark Philippoussis; 2. Marcelo Rios; 3. Cedric Pioline; 4. Tim Henman; 5. Nicolas Kiefer. Is a worst underachiever in fact an overachiever? Just wondering. The players you've named, to be sure, are all in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately? category. But at least they're top-10 players. What about the Diego Nargisos of the world who were -- at one point, anyway -- wonderfully talented players and, for whatever reason, flamed out on Tour?
Tim Henman seems to have a rather dismal record in finals, especially when the last set goes the distance. Yet he consistently says that he's upbeat and is improving. Do you think he is heading down the same road that Gabriela Sabatini went down several years ago -- always close but never quite coming up with the goods. I've said this before but Tim Henman is too bloody nice, as it were. Just once, I'd like to him go ballistic after losing a tight match and tear up the locker room like a rock star. As it stands, his attitude seems to be: "Let me get this straight: I'm a handsome celebrity, happily married and even wealthier than my parents. Am I really supposed to feel like life sucks whenever I lose to the Guillermo Cañases of the world?"
Could you give us your top five or even 10 young Americans with a chance to do well? Does Andy Roddick, Taylor Dent, Phillip King or James Blake look to be good soon? As for Jan-Michael Gambill, he is not as good as everyone had hoped. Roddick is only 17, but he's the real deal, an athletic all-court player who isn't tethered to the baseline. Mardy Fish comes highly recommended, too. There are questions about Levar Harper-Griffith's size, but he hits a big ball and is a good athlete. Blake is a nice kid but lacks a weapon. Same for King. Taylor Dent made a splash a few years ago but still needs to get in better shape and learn how play smarter, more nuanced tennis. I'm afraid you're right about Gambill: He had a great run two years ago, but he is constricted by his two-fisted strokes and doesn't volley well, especially under pressure.
Since you cover both basketball and tennis I think you should be able to answer this question fairly well. Who would you consider to be better athletes: professional tennis players or NBA point guards? They both are extremely fast, have terrific lateral movement and phenomenal reflexes. I'm stumped! NBA shooting guards and small forwards are, to my mind, the best athletes in sports. Point guards are invariably quicker but rarely jump as high or move as gracefully. Anyway, for every thoroughbred like Gary Payton there's a fire hydrant like Khalid El-Amin, just as for every Serena Williams, there's a Lindsay Davenport. Point: It's a tough comparison. Here's my lame, albeit politically correct, answer: It depends on your definition of athlete. If you're talking empirically (sprint times, vertical leap, strength and agility) I'll go with the point guards. If you're talking about toughness, tenacity and focus, I'll take tennis. Agassi, for instance, has more sustained focus than any NBA player, hands down. In the NBA, players can take entire quarters off, camp out around the three-point line and let their teammates take the shots for a few possessions. If a tennis player ever took that kind of mental respite, he'd be fined for tanking.
With the clay season quickly approaching I was wondering if my favorite moonballer, Sergi Bruguera, has any chance of retrieving his clay-court prowess? Which dirtballer has the goods to stop Andre Agassi at the French? The Spice Girls play Woodstock before your man Bruguera makes any more noise. If he's not officially retired, he ought to be. There are maybe two dozen players -- dirtballers, as you put it -- who can catch Agassi on a bad day and make him pay. Remember, Arnaud Clement nearly pulled it of last year. Or, just to pick a name, Alberto Berasategui. But for Agassi to lose (Toulouse?) in Paris, it will be an upset grande.
I have a question about married tennis players. You joke that Andre Agassi won't be the same after marrying Steffi Graf, or that Tim Henman won't even qualify for Wimbledon because of his marriage. So what do the last two Australian Open winners have to say about this? Petr Korda and Yevgeny Kafelnikov both won majors with a wife (and kids, at that!). It's also worth mentioning that Boris Becker won an Australian Open with his wife in tow. On a more significant note, now that I brought up the much-maligned Kafelnikov, is he the first married player to become No. 1 in the world? And, by the way, does your wife play tennis? We all know why Korda won. And Kafelnikov, though married, rarely travels with his kids. Also, you're talking Australia here. (Kafelnikov wasn't married until July '98, a mere three months, my media guide tells me, before his daughter was born). I'm talking about players like Richard Krajicek, Henman and Greg Rusedski who need a breakthrough. Not champs with game who got married at the tail end of their careers. Anyway, by no means is Kafelnikov the first married player to make it to No. 1. First think of all the women. But also, just off the top of my head, Jimmy Connors, Edberg and Lendl were all married when they reached the summit. As for my wife, again, I have to be careful here. Let's just say she has a nice third serve.
Why does everybody have a problem with Yevgeny Kafelnikov? He may not be a crowd-pleaser like Agassi, and it doesn't seem like he's on good terms with the press, either, but his play is solid and quite entertaining. One Kafelnikov press conference is more fun than a year of Pete "I played well on the big points" Sampras, and Kafelnikov doesn't want sponsors because he thinks he makes enough money as it is. A true original! I'm with you on the blown kisses. Save those for Steffi. But Kafelnikov has no presence. With utter arbitrariness, he is either solid or stolid. He betrays no mirth on the court, he complains about facilities, he talks trash, he can't be bothered to shave and adds little to the game's collective persona. He makes enough money as is because he plays events wire-to-wire, especially when there's a guarantee in the offing, His not accepting sponsors is like Alan Keyes not accepting large campaign donations. No one's exactly lining up to bestow them.
I got the idea that a lot of the tennis writers covering the recent Open Gaz de France finals between Serena Williams and Nathalie Tauziat were hinting that Serena's knee injury was only an excuse for her loss. I had a very heated conversation with a friend who believes that both Venus and Serena's injuries are always well timed. He cited the Chase Championships as a perfect example. Serena won the U.S. Open and beat Venus in the Grand Slam Cup final. The Chase was Venus's next big opportunity to shine (even though she beat Hingis at the Swisscom Challenge). Serena conveniently hurt her back to make room for Venus to redeem herself. Some insights, please. It's generally bad form to question an athlete's injury. But the Williamses' litany of injuries -- already voluminous -- is a wee bit suspicious. Serena hurts her knee against Tauziat and then wins an event a week later. Draw your own conclusions. Do I think the Williamses are blatantly faking injuries? No. But first, I think they are young and fearful -- excessively so -- of wrecking their careers by playing through the slightest strain or sprain. Second, they hate to play in the same event, so if there's the slightest reason to pull out (see: Wimbledon, Chase, Indian Wells) they won't pass up the chance. The realist in me says this is bad for the game and makes sponsors, organizers and fans livid. The Pollyanna says that it's more quirkiness, which only makes them more compelling.
The United States seems to have a habit of fielding Davis Cup doubles teams that consist of good players who rarely play together (i.e. Alex O'Brien and Rick Leach). Wouldn't a team that had some experience together (like Donald Johnson and Francisco Montana, or O'Brien and Jared Palmer) have a better chance of success? Or is the goal to play the two best available players? Leave it to someone from Indiana to introduce some common sense into a tennis discussion. Yes, it is logical to pick an honest-to-goodness team -- Palmer and O'Brien would be fine -- rather than cobble together two players. Never mind Leach and O'Brien. Anyone remember Todd Martin and Justin Gimelstob, who nearly crashed into each other a half-dozen times before falling to that formidable twosome of Diego Nargiso and Andrea Gaudenzi a few years ago? Politics being what it is, Mac will probably give Leach and O'Brien another shot, though.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
