|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Kudos to the Aussie Open
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.
Now that the Australian Open has decided to offer equal prize money to both men and women starting next year, what are your feelings on stuffy, old Wimbledon? Will the Brits ever get over their flowers and strawberries?
Tennisjunki, a name of Japanese extraction, I assume. Props, to use what is fast becoming one my least favorite expressions, to Tennis Australia for paying the men and women equally. But I wouldn't hold me breath waiting for the boys at the All England to follow suit. The folks at WB19 cite some dubious survey that "proves" that the vast majority of fans prefer watching men to women (presumably this research was conducted right after Tim Henman's first-round match). Wimbledon, you may have heard, likes to honor tradition, and tradition says that women are second-class citizens there. Besides, as an official remarked last summer, jacking up the women's purse means less money to spend on petunias. He was kidding. Maybe. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with this theory, but here's any intriguing point someone made to me over the weekend: Given that the women only play best-of-three sets and thus have plenty of time and energy left for doubles, are they not, in effect, compensated more handsomely than the men at Grand Slams? Venus Williams, for example, won more cash at Wimbledon than men's champ Pete Sampras. Why? Because while he was resting up after battling with Karol Kucera, Venus, fresh from a 45-minute rout of some sacrificial Sabine Appelmans, could kill time playing alongside her sister in the doubles draw.
Has there ever been another female player consistently ranked No. 1 who has gone two years without winning a Grand Slam tournament?
You're obviously referring to Martina Hingis' lack of a major title since the 1999 Australian. Your question is hard to answer, simply because Hingis has sporadically relinquished the baton and other top players like Steffi Graf and Monica Seles have had similar droughts, though theirs were owed to injury. Your point, though, is well taken: Hingis has won one major since February 1998, yet she's been ranked No. 1 for much of that duration. What do we make of this? A) The Williams sisters' curious schedule kills them in the rankings. B) Points players earn from winning Tier I and Tier II events can add up. C) Health is a critical component of a top ranking. D) For all of her recent failings, you have to give Hingis credit for her focus and her staying power.
The Williams family announced that it expects Venus and Serena to be No. 1 and 2 in the world, and the girls have certainly made a terrific start in that direction. But how can they accomplish this if Venus is "taking time off" to return to her fashion-design classes? It still takes 18 tournaments to tally up the year's points, doesn't it, regardless of how many matches you win in succession?
Right you are. Which is precisely why Venus will have won two Slams, taken the trophy in at least two other events, reached the quarters of the French and still only be ranked No. 3 at year's end.
What do you think of the new scoring system they're going to use in mixed doubles at the Australian Open? I personally think it sucks! Dropping the third set in favor of a tiebreak game just to suit the needs of TV networks? What are they thinking?!?
Substituting a tiebreak for a third set has gotten favorable reviews on the senior circuit, but I can't see it catching on in the pros. Even by tennis' standards, it would be a pretty radical change. (Then again, when was the last time you've been riveted by a third set in mixed doubles?)
What's the deal with Pete (Moss) Sampras' wedding-news blackout? There was no press coverage? Are you guys slacking off, or does Pete get special treatment that Andre Agassi doesn't get? Who was there? Who wasn't there? Those of us who admire the Hirsute Hero want to know.
Hirsute Hero, I like that. The buzz was that he and his betrothed were planning a December wedding. Then they call up Elton, get a quickie caterer, and next thing you know it's early October and Pete is writing thank-you notes for that brass gravy boat and the mahogany wine rack from Pottery Barn. I think you answered your own question. (I've been writing that phrase a lot lately and it makes me sounds like some dogmatic Dr. Laura. Sorry, Cindy.) Anyway, as you note, I'm sure Sampras and the missus wanted to avoid the James Brolin-Barbara Streisand "press coverage" -- helicopters hovering overhead, tabloids bribing Justin Gimelstob to sneak in a disposable camera, etc. So they were intentionally discreet. Jim Courier and Pat -- pointedly, not John -- McEnroe were in attendance, but I believe that's it among the players. Anyway, if you really want details, go to one of Sampras' many Web sites or check out last week's People.
Personally, I don't care if Pete Sampras wins another Slam. However, I do care that you are arrogant enough to say that he won't. Oh, yes, the question: Are you being playful, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek? ... YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!
Still bitter from the breakup of the Sunshine Band? Yes, I was being playful, sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek all at once (and so long as we're being redundant, I was being caustic, sardonic, prankish, wry, acerbic and pixilated as well). Trying, anyway. We have a longstanding, good-natured hypothesis here at the 'Bag that marriage invariably dooms a player. We'll see if it holds with Sampras. In all honesty, even if he bags every tournament in the winter and spring to shop at Crate and Barrel, hangs drapes, works on the deck -- and everything else prosaic that married folks do -- it's difficult to bet against him winning another Wimbledon. I think your Mailbag is great. Finally, someone with an objective thought about the tennis world. I have been a fan of the sport for 20 years, and I wish I had had the Williams sisters to look up to when I was coming up. Perhaps I would have been a pro. With all the hoopla surrounding Venus, how come she hasn't made the covers of any sports magazine? Not even Tennis? What's the deal with that? If we want folks to play tennis, or even African-Americans to play tennis, we have to expose Venus and Serena to the world. It did happen a few years ago when they first came out with attitude and big strokes, but now that they have matured and are dominating ... where's the coverage? Your thoughts?
P.S. Thanks for a great forum to communicate about a great sport.
Thanks, Sheryl. I needed that after K.C. roughed me up. I've never considered Venus or Serena underexposed. Having transcended sport, both sisters are on Hollywood Squares, they're at the Teenybopper Awards, they're donning milk moustaches, they're supposedly being photographed for an upcoming Vanity Fair piece. (Venus, by the way, made the cover of SI when she reached the U.S. Open final in 1997, and keep an eye out for her in an upcoming Sports Illustrated for Women issue.) To be honest, part of the problem is that they're so coveted by mass media that they have neither the time nor desire to grant interviews and sit for lengthy photo sessions with magazines. I know Tennis did a piece on the rise of women's tennis last year and wanted to put Venus and Serena on the cover, but the magazine was turned down and went with players like Lindsay Davenport, Seles, Alexandra Stevenson and, I believe, Hingis instead. Another problem that afflicts monthly magazines in particular is that the Williams' quirks make it hard to plan a big piece in advance. "Serena wins the U.S. Open. Great! Let's do a big blowout." Yet by the time the piece hits the newsstands, she's off the tour in fashion school, she's hurt, or she's nearly losing to a wild card in Australia. That said, both sisters are bright, charismatic and have transitioned from being mere curiosities to being bona fide stars. As a lot of the myths surrounding them (e.g., they're "hostile racial separatists," a patently absurd phrase that I actually once heard another journalist use) have been laid bare, I think you can look forward to a lot more, and a lot more positive, coverage.
Mats Wilander is overlooked when tennis greats are mentioned. Here's a guy who came up one Wimbledon short of winning a true Grand Slam. He's also a multiple Grand Slam title holder and did so without a "killing shot" -- just solid groundies and fast feet.
Even though you've failed to follow one of the precious few rules of the Mailbag -- namely, posing a question -- I want to include your three-sentence op-ed because I wholeheartedly agree. His game wasn't particularly dynamic and he fizzled like a handful of Pop Rocks once he became No. 1, but viewed objectively Wilander should be on the short list of studs. Just consider: Wilander won seven Grand Slam titles (including three in one year). That's as many as McEnroe, more than Stefan Edberg, Agassi and Boris Becker, yet Mad Mats rarely comes up in the same breath as the aforementioned.
What are your top five movies of all time?
Since you submitted the only request for a top-five list, if an utterly irrelevant one, this week ...
1) The Prince of Tides
Seriously:
1) Radio Days
Click here to send a question or comment to Jon Wertheim's Tennis Mailbag.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
