|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
It's the Williamses' mailbag ...
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question. Despite a mysterious case of whiplash, suffered in a fender bender for which there is no known accident report, I'll persevere and try to answer some questions ...
The Williams Show seems to have been given a second season. What are the chances that Serena and Venus will seek out proper coaching now and fine-tune their games so that their father's prediction of them ranking 1 and 2 really can come true? Might Billie Jean King be able to work with them in an extended way, or would that be a conflict for her as Fed Cup coach? Good question. But my suspicion is that their recent success only cements their parents' role as co-coaches. Why retain a Harold Solomon when, under the current braintrust, such as it is, they're winning Grand Slam titles? Don't hold your breath for Billie Jean to come aboard, either. First, her Fed Cup contract prevents her from coaching individual players. Second, she told me recently that as much as she admires the Williams sisters, she's a "big-picture person" who has her finger in too many other pots to devote her attention to two individuals. Third, I'm not sure either Venus or Serena could handle BJK's intensity. As astute an observer as she is, King is constantly in super-charged mode, barking instructions, telling stories and giving her charges pop quizzes. ("Billie's great but she can be so annoying," one former Fed Cup team member told me.) Can't see that style going over well on the days Venus or Serena would rather play with their dog or read Harry Potter than practice kick serves.
Now that Pete Sampras has his 13th, the only major milestone left is the career Grand Slam. Of course, to complete that he has to win the French. Should he neglect everything else and focus all his energy on improving his clay-court game? Or is this a futile quest? It's a futile quest. Though he'd never admit it publicly, I can't imagine that, deep down, a realist like Sampras doesn't know it. That the clay blunts his power and takes some juice from his serve is the least of it. Gustavo Kuerten had to play nearly 20 hours of tennis to win his seven matches at Roland Garros last month. His fourth set alone in the final against Magnus Norman spanned more than 90 minutes. No way does Sampras have that kind of stamina or physical fortitude at this stage in the game.
Do you think that Venus Williams really believes it has been just as tough for her as an African-American as it was for Althea Gibson? Or Charlie Sifford? Or Jackie Robinson? Do you? As a non-minority I obviously can't speak from personal experience. But I can't imagine it was as tough for Venus as it was for Gibson. Remember that in 1957, when Gibson won her first title, blacks were still made to sit in the back of buses in the South and attend separate schools. In her biography, Gibson recalls that shortly before winning her first Wimbledon title, she was asked to leave a Jefferson City, Mo., bowling alley because white patrons didn't approve of her presence. I'm not naive enough to think tennis is devoid of racism. However, when one considers Venus' reception from the crowd, the television ratings she generates, and the sponsors lining up to sign her to seven-figure deals, it seems clear -- to borrow a phrase -- that we've come a long way.
I keep hearing that Andre Agassi has the best return of serve in tennis. I also recently heard John McEnroe say that Pete Sampras' service return is not top-10 material. Where do you rank Sampras' service return among the pros? Having won 13 Slams, I would think it's not too bad. Also, which other pros have great service returns? Sampras doesn't see the ball as well as Agassi -- no one, for that matter, does -- but you don't win 13 Slams without being able to put the ball back in play. If you were to list Sampras' assets as a player, his return game wouldn't appear too high on the list. Conversely, who besides Agassi redirects serves any better? Karol Kucera, perhaps. Michael Chang, when he's in the zone. Magnus Norman, maybe. Yevgeny Kafelnikov when he tries? I think Mac would be hard-pressed to come up with 10 names.
I just would like to know why guys in the media, including yourself, take shots at Richard Williams. Here's a proud man who has brought his daughters out of Compton to accomplish great things. He has every right to wave signs and do whatever he likes. As a black man, I applaud Richard and hope I can raise my kids like he has. I'm sure it was not easy, so I would rejoice in the same fashion. Go, Richard! I think most of us have ambivalent feelings toward Richard Williams. You have to respect someone who breaks from convention and has turned the tennis establishment on its head. (There was something wonderfully symbolic about his dancing on the commentary booth -- Wimbledon stuffy tradition be damned -- when Venus won.) You have to respect someone who speaks his mind so freely. Above all, you have to respect his "results" as a parent. That he has two bright, well-adjusted daughters who have each won a Grand Slam is the ultimate validation for his eccentric ways. That said, his conduct can often be indefensible; and, perhaps worse, it often detracts from his daughters' achievements. Yes, we take shots at Richard, but if anything, I think the media has given him a loooong rope. Imagine, for a second, the furor that would ensue if, say, Melanie Molitor held up a gloating sign that read "IT'S MARTINA'S PARTY AND NO ONE'S INVITED." What would happen if Peter Graf had said he moved his family to Compton because he "didn't want the Jews owning all the property there." If Stefano Capriati claimed that his daughter's vanquished opponents "ought to be taken to the junkyard." If Wink Davenport sidled up to any microphone and repeatedly tried to pass fiction off as fact? Anyway, Mike Harper of Cleveland wrote in with this take: "Being African-American, no one is more ecstatic to see people of color have success in a sport such as tennis. Every sport should have diversity. However, Richard Williams jumping up and down on the announcers booth and holding up the white board seemed a bit excessive. The Williams sisters have all the talent in the world and their racquets are more than capable of making a statement and drawing more interest to the sport. So, is it just me being 'stuffy' or is their father's act getting tired?"
I have to get this question off my chest. Is it just me or can Pete Sampras drag himself through almost any injury, including a severed limb, if it means playing at Wimbledon for another heaping of personal glory, but can't manage to play Davis Cup with a hangnail? Frankly, greatest men's player ever or not, he's a loser in my book.
Oh, give me a break. "Sampras is doubtful for Davis Cup." Did anyone really think he'd actually play? All he's ever cared about is himself. Didn't you think it was amazing that the injury that had been allegedly bothering him all through Wimbledon didn't bother him at all in the final? Oh, but it's bothering him now. Meanwhile, Pat Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt are off to Brisbane to play for their country and Guga Kuerten is going to play in the same tie with a pulled groin muscle. OK, I'm going to turn the tables. Here's a question for you guys -- and Cappy Mac, for that matter. No one has ever mistaken Sampras for Cal Ripken Jr., and his penchant for injuries is disquieting. We're all pretty much in agreement here. But why has Sampras been roundly savaged for his Davis Cup absence while Agassi has escaped virtually unscathed? After Sampras broke one of the sport's most momentous records in the face of boundless pressure, it's easy to see how both body and mind could start to betray him. If anyone deserves a few weeks off, it's Pete. Why when Agassi -- who has a history, let's remember, of feigning injury to avoid Davis Cup participation -- proffers an alibi that, on its face, sounds more than a little suspicious, the outcry is not nearly as resounding?
Why have the Woodies decided to part ways after this season? For the simple reason that Mark Woodforde has logged more years on tour than he has freckles. Particularly now that the status of the year-end doubles championship is up in the air, it looks like, Davis Cup notwithstanding, the U.S. Open will be their swan song. One piece of advice: Catch them while you can.
John McEnroe said that Michael Chang told him "to take a hike" regarding Davis Cup, and this has been heavily played up in the press. This kind of vengeful remark seems uncharacteristic of Chang. Was McEnroe exaggerating to make a better story? Is this another case of McEnroe putting his foot in his mouth regarding a player's intent, like he did with Pete Sampras' situation earlier this year? What? McEnroe unnecessarily stirring up controversy? Next, you're going to say that Richard Williams doesn't always tell the unadulterated truth. My strong suspicion is that McEnroe was paraphrasing (roughly) Chang's rebuff. You're right that it's a harsh characterization. But, for a player who's fallen off the radar screen, it's hard to figure out why Chang wouldn't seize this no-lose opportunity.
Is Jelena Dokic top-10 material? Or is she just plain lucky in making it to the semis at Wimby? Dokic has plenty of game, and despite (perhaps because of) her daddy's "issues," she is mature beyond her years. She hits a big ball and certainly has top-10 potential. On the other hand, as her match against Lindsay Davenport indicated, she still has a long way to go before she reaches the highest echelon. On paper, she had a great run at Wimbledon. But when Magui Serna is your quarterfinal opponent, you know the draw deities are smiling are you.
We always hear about the conflicts and cliques among the players on both the ATP and WTA tours. I'm curious as to who you would list as the top three most popular players on both tours among their own peers? Why not keep with tradition and make it a top-five list? This, of course, is entirely subjective, but here are some popularity-contest candidates in no particular order:
MEN
WOMEN
Golf trots out the "best player never to have won a major" moniker quite often, so I was wondering who you would put in this category for tennis, at least for the Open era. All I could come up with is Brian Gottfried, Goran Ivanisevic, Jennifer Capriati and maybe Mark Philippoussis and Cedric Pioline. Any other ideas? Off the top of my head ... Andrea Jaeger (though her career was obviously abbreviated), Marcelo Rios, Todd Martin, Alex Corretja, Pam Shriver, Miloslav Mecir, Hernan Gumy. Interestingly, a week and a half ago I would have placed Venus Williams' name atop the list.
How would you rate Nicholas Lapentti and his rise through the ranks? And what surface is best for his type of game? Lapentti had a swell ride last year, rising from the low 80s to the top 10. Nice guy, nice-guy game but I can't see him winning majors. Clay is far and away his best surface.
I am also very tired of hearing about Jan-Michael Gambill's Jaguars. Does he get asked about this by the press or just offer it up continuously? Regardless, someone should tell him to shut his piehole for his own good, irrespective of the good of the game. While on the personal improvement tip, I think Todd Martin has made enough money to afford a nice salon where they will shave his neck and tweeze the monobrow. Not a criticism, just a suggestion to increase his marketability to sponsors. Hey, at least they play Davis Cup. Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back the beginning of each week to read more of his answers.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
