|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
I'm sticking with Sampras
Be on the lookout for daily reports from the U.S. Open every evening over the next two weeks.
I usually enjoy the Mailbag but I think your prediction of Pete Sampras to win the Open is crazy. He hasn't won a thing since Wimbledon and is sure to get an owie and withdraw. Please tell me how you could have made such an idiotic pick. Friend, Roman, countryman ... let's consider a few things. One, I can't see how picking a 13-time Grand Slam champ qualifies me for the mental ward. It's not like I picked Olivier Rochus. Two, Sampras has only played seven matches, and two events, since Wimbledon. I have to believe his body is ready for whatever Queens dishes out. Third, his draw, once again, is laughable. Fourth, who else is there? Andre Agassi looks to be swooning; Gustavo Kuerten looks strong but has never made the semis here; Magnus Norman has had an unremarkable summer; Marat Safin is still a babe in the woods. Check back in two weeks and we'll see if they've put me in a padded cell.
What do you think of the budding rivalry between Gustavo Kuerten and Marat Safin? They've played five times and each match has gone the maximum. Sounds like something special is in the making here. Perhaps they will be the 1-2 punch that will replace Pete and Andre? That would be nice, wouldn't hit? You're right that Kuerten and Safin have had some epic matches this summer -- two have come down to a final-set tiebreaker. Their styles match up awfully well: both hit big, heavy balls from the baseline, serve well and can play superlative tennis on all surfaces, save grass. They're also precisely the type of colorful "personalities" men's tennis so desperately needs. Now, if only they hated each other. (For more on Safin, check out my story from the Aug. 28 issue of SI.)
Marat Safin commented (after his loss to Gustavo Kuerten in the Indianapolis final) that the rowdy crowd bothered him at times (mostly when it cheered on his unforced errors, admittedly bad form). Is this a trend -- crowds being more vocal? As a spectator, it's much more fun. Do the players mind? I don't think it's much of a trend. It's true that clusters of partisan fans -- like the Brazilian bands that pop up at every tour stop and root for Guga -- tend to get a little rowdy, at least by tennis' staid standards. But I'm with you. It's better for the game and enriches the atmosphere. If baseball players are supposed to be able to hit 100 mph pitches with 50,000 fans yelling and the Mexican Hat Dance blaring in the background, Marat Safin should be able to handle a smattering of applause (admittedly bad form) when he shanks a forehand.
Have you ever had a glass of Galo Blanco? It's wonderful with fish. Seriously, though, what's up with Andre Agassi? He was Mr. Olympia for a year and a half, and now he seems to be back to his old, sluggish, half-interested self at times. Is it merely a phase every top player goes through, or do we again have to sit through one of Andre's periodic angst-ridden stages? Personally, I'm partial to a Marc Rosset with my (Mardy) Fish. Anyway, who knows what's up with Agassi? Eight months ago, he was being touted a legitimate Golden Slam (all four majors and a gold in Sydney) winner. Suddenly, he's in another trademark tailspin. Were it any other player, you'd be inclined to write him off as a 30-year-old fighting a losing battle against time. Agassi, though, is cut from a different piece of Lycra. Part of what makes him so appealing is that you never know whether he'll be breathtaking or breathtakingly bad. For all I know, he could defend his U.S. Open title. But if he goes out early -- say, to Arnaud Clement in Round 2 (you read it here it first) -- I wonder how long it is before Fräu Graf is retirementville.
Why is Pat Rafter not seeded at the 2000 U.S. Open? Correct me if I am wrong, he was a 2000 Wimbledon finalist and he is currently ranked 14th. It seems that he is the only top-16 player in the Champions Race who is not seeded. I think that's an in insult considering the above, and that he is a two-time Open champ. This U.S. Open went by the book, and the day of the cut-off Rafter wasn't among the 16 players in the entry-system rankings. Your broader view, though, is a good one. With all due respect to Franco Squillari, the U.S. Open would do well to emulate the codgers at the All England Club and look at seedings as a prediction, not as a reward for points garnered. Yes, using subjective measures can lead to controversy (see: Corretja, Alex ) and will invariably bruise some feelings. But it hurts both the game and the event when players who are either playing poorly or have little aptitude on a surface receive high seedings, lose early and open up the draw.
Being an Australian I hardly appreciated the Americo-centric question about the Australian Open. Tennis is an international sport that runs for nearly 12 months out of the year. While this may not be in the best interests of the plays or the image of the sport, it does provide a uniquely international perspective that no other sport does. The reason the Australian Open is in January is that it's the holiday month for Australians, it has the best weather and it makes us unique from the rest of the world. So deal with it! And we're not going to schedule matches in the middle of the night Down Under so that those few Americans who do care about tennis will turn on their TV. There, how's that for a rant? Pretty good rant. I can smell the Vegemite on your breath from here. You raise valid points, but I didn't think it was an Americo-centric (if that's a word) question, so much as it was a calendar-centric one. It's nothing against Australia, but it seems silly to many that the year starts with a bang, simmers down for five months and then gives us three Slams in a 14-week window.
Gianluca Pozzi seems to be playing his best tennis at the age of 35, finally cracking the top 50. Do you recall any other player achieving his highest ranking at such an advanced age? What do you think of his game? I have never seen him play. Suffice to say that Gianluca Pozzi was not among the candidates to star in the NEW BALLS PLEASE campaign, but he's worth watching all the same. He is quietly having the best of his 19 years on tour, creeping around the top 50 and knocking off players a fraction of his age with a vexing slice-and-dice game. The paesano's McEnroe, as it were, Pozzi is a crafty lefty who plays lots of angles, returns well and has wonderfully efficient strokes.
Whatever became of the Max 200G? Did Dunlop scrap it when John McEnroe and Steffi Graf left? Could the current tourists not find the smallish sweet spot easily enough? Does anyone appreciate this log anymore? As the proud owner of a closetful of 200Gs -- I humbly submit, one of the best racket ever made -- I've often asked myself the same question. Yes, these models have the approximate sweet spot of a broom, but I haven't found another stick that comes to close replicating the feel. Anyway, I threw this question to Mark Macky, Dunlop director of marketing. His response: "The Max 200G of the '80s was extremely popular with players due to its injection-molding construction, which made it extremely flexible and provided great control. The Max 200G has now evolved into the Dunlop Muscle Weave 200G, which also has great control but a good deal more power. It's played with by Mark Philippoussis, Cedric Pioline and Amelie Mauresmo, among others. For a complete history of the 200G and a thorough review of the MW 200G racquet, check out http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/MW200G/MW200GReview.html."
Any comments on Lisa Raymond's unsuccessful arbitration bid for a spot on the Olympic team? I can see both sides. On one hand, being the No. 1-ranked doubles player should mean something, more so on the WTA, where the top singles players also play dubs. On the other (and I agree with Billie Jean King's decision), Venus and Serena are the most formidable doubles team in the world. Your thoughts? Any inside dirt? A few of you wondered about this. There's no real inside dirt. Essentially, the USTA departed from precedent in awarding the fourth spot not to the highest-ranking doubles player (Raymond) but to a player chosen by the captain (Serena). It doesn't explicitly say anywhere that this isn't kosher, but the USTA did everything possible to addle the selection procedure. The four-page decision written by arbitrator Richard Jeydel harshly rebukes the USTA, but ultimately sides against Raymond. (That sound you heard was a sigh coming from the offices of NBC and IMG.) Why did Raymond get the shaft? Well, there was no real smoking gun to indicate that choosing Serena was a flagrant violation of procedure. Second, Serena and Venus did just win Wimbledon, for heaven's sake, so it was hard to fault the choice on its merits. Third, do you want to be the one to tell Serena (and, by extension, Venus) a mistake was made and she's not going to Sydney after all?
Always enjoy your columns and Tennis Mailbag, Jon. Your high school basketball team must have been a heck of a team if it would have "dusted" the Houston Comets. Mine sure as heck would not have. Just to clarify, so I don't come off sounding too piggish, I believe all five starters on 1989 Bloomington (Ind.) North Cougars received college scholarships. FINALLY, LAST WEEK'S question on the slice forehand generated a number of responses. I spaced on Fabrice Santoro's name, though one can scarcely tell his forehand from his backhand. Here are some other notes:
The forehand slice, especially on approaches, was Kerry Melville's signature shot.
I saw Fabrice Santoro play at the Monte Carlo Open in 1997 and he was slicing the forehand 90 percent of the time. The forehand slice appeared to be his default shot.
Larissa Neiland used to play a forehand slice. Seemed to come in handy in doubles.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
