|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
How to beat the Williamses
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions weekly. Click here to send a question.
Why aren't other players following up on Lindsay Davenport's style of beating the Williams sisters? I thought that her technique revealed a weakness in their games.
I assume you're referring to Davenport's plan of hitting the ball to the middle of the court, rather than going to the corners. This not only tries the Williams sisters' patience, but reduces angles and neutralizes their superior athleticism. It's not a bad idea if you execute like Davenport, who hits plenty hard and also with tremendous depth. When Martina Hingis tried this strategy against Venus, she ended up hitting short balls to the middle of the court and paid the price. It's worth noting that the other strategy for foiling the Williams sisters is the exact opposite (which, I suppose, says something about the difficulty they present). Players like Amy Frazier and Meghann Shaughnessy have had success standing toe to toe with the sisters, firing for the lines with little margin for error, returning their serves from inside the baseline and basically going for broke. As big a cliché as it is, at some level you do have to play your game. A player like Lisa Raymond, whose strengths are attacking and getting netward, isn't going to succeed by patiently putting every ball in play and engaging in down-the-middle baseline rallies. Likewise, Hingis isn't going win trying to crank a winner on every ball.
I've been learning lately to come to the net, hence my question: What's your top-five list of the best volleyers of all time?
Let's amend this to post-1980. I'll go with:
1) Johnny Mac (the best hands ever)
Is Mary Pierce still seriously injured? Will she undergo surgery? What do you think about her commitment to tennis right now?
I don't think the problem is her commitment to tennis. The problem is her serving shoulder, which has been bothering her since she won the French Open, sidelined her for the summer and forced her to retire after a set of her fourth-round match at the U.S. Open. Rotator-cuff injuries are no joke, and the proverbial word on the proverbial street is that Pierce might well be done for the year.
Will Venus Williams ever develop a serve-and-volley game to use consistently in matches? Or do you think she will stay with the big groundstrokes and swinging volley?
Against all laws of physics and tennis technique, that swinging volley has been a remarkable weapon for her; it may have been the difference in her epic defeat of Hingis in the U.S. Open semis. I agree that her game would benefit from a serve-and-volley component -- not on every point but, say, a half-dozen times a set, depending on the surface and opponent. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Her father has been telling her that for years and she has ignored him. There's also an if-it-ain't-broke factor: Venus has done pretty well for herself lately hitting screamers from the baseline.
Here is an original for your top-five lists: What are the top five most odd, embarrassing and dumb ways pros have lost a match?
See, here's another reason tennis is superior to golf. In golf, you can lose because you forgot about Rule 12(a)(iii), Codicil 11, Subclause III, which states a player must translate his aunt's maiden name into Sanskrit when he signs his scorecard. The vast majority of the time, tennis pros lose because they dropped six (or seven) games in a set before their opponent does. Still, here are a few instances in recent memory when that wasn't necessarily the case: 5) Andre Agassi DQ'd against Cecil Mamiit in San Jose for code violations. 4) Jeff Tarango DQ'd at Wimbledon for his bizarre tirade against umpire Bruno Rebeuh. 3) Novotna (any of half a dozen times) grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. 2) Tim Henman DQ'd for smacking a ball at a ballgirl in a Wimbledon doubles match. 1) My personal favorite: Goran Ivanisevic and Mark Philippoussis had to default their doubles match at the 1998 Canadian Open on account of self-inflicted injury. After an errant Ivanisevic serve, the opponent floated a return over the net. Both Ivanisevic and Philippoussis shared the bright idea of knocking the ball back over the net with their head. Both go for the "free ball" and knock melons. Both end up dazed and confused, and Ivanisevic needs to take stitches -- so they default.
Whatever happened to Barbara Schett? Last year she cracked the top 10; this year she is barely winning any matches.
Yeah, I was big on Schett at the start of 1999, and she really hasn't done much since. Injuries and illness have been part of the problem. But she also seems to lack anything resembling a killer instinct. Schett is among the sweetest, most upbeat players you'd want to meet, but it manifests itself in her matches. Time and again, she'll be at 4-4 with a top player and then collapse like a house of cards. She's also susceptible to mind games. I saw her waxing Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario, leading something like 6-0, 4-1, at the French Open. ASV then exasperated Schett with questionable gamesmanship -- the bathroom breaks, the excessive drop shots -- and won the match. Bottom line: Schett has a world of talent, but right now she seems destined to emulate her doubles partner, Anke Huber, and be a perennial also-ran.
I heard Chris Evert say that she would never contemplate a return to the women's circuit à la Martina Navratilova. Could Chris America get in shape and still win some singles or doubles matches? I've been waiting ever since Tracy Austin's aborted comeback.
I think (hope?) Chris America would agree that, for as great a champion as she was, she would have a hard time beating a player ranked in, say, the top 50 today. For one, she hasn't kept herself in the shape Navratilova has. (Not surprising, given that she's raising a house full of kids.) Even in her prime, she was never a standout doubles player. In singles, her 70-mph serve and lack of a putaway shot would doom her. Navratilova has held her own admirably, but it has been owed largely to her efficient volleying. Put her in a singles match where she has to cover the whole court and a player like Raymond -- to say nothing of the Williams sisters -- would make fast work of her.
Outside of the Grand Slams, what one tournament (either gender) in the world would you recommend for a two-week vacation (one week to watch, one week for traveling in the area)? Criteria for me would include draw, affordability, tournament quality and historical/geographical interest, but feel free to imagine yourself a cooped-up, two-weeks-of-vacation-per-year, frustrated tennis fanatic.
My first question is why does anyone who lives in Portland need to leave to state to go on vacation? Grab a few cases of McMenamin's and head to the coast for two weeks. OK, you want a tennis component. Here's one foreign and one domestic destination: Indian Wells. Pros: great co-ed field, great weather (March in Palm Springs), great fares from PDX, diversions (like Joshua Tree and even Vegas). Cons: not much doing in the culture department. Italian Open. Pros: gorgeous event, great weather, the proximity to Tuscany, Rome in the spring. Cons: uh ...
As you pointed out in the last 'Bag, the Australian Open is the second Slam to offer equal prize money. My question is, why? If it's purely a matter of equal pay for equal work (which I wholeheartedly support), the difference in overall work load at the Slams between men's and women's matches is obvious. But even if "value" is a factor, perceptions of value can change from year to year (i.e., next year the men's tour might be hot and the women's tour uninspiring). So equalizing pay on notions of value seems a little specious. Viewed objectively, isn't equal pay at the Slams really a case of political correctness run amok?
First, I think you're too dismissive of what constitutes equal work. Are sets played really a fair measure? A three-setter among the women not only can span as long a men's five-setter but can entail as much actual ballstriking. Besides, when women play doubles (which has a value-added effect on ticket sales, sponsorships, etc.) are they not working as hard as Sampras, Agassi and Marat Safin, who only play singles? I agree with your point about the subjective nature of "value" but I reach a different conclusion. If appeal is a fickle beast and next year one tour will suddenly be more popular than the other, why not call it a wash and just compensate both genders equally?
Who do you think is the biggest underachiever on both the men's and women's tour at present? Let's not mention Anna Kournikova, because that's been done to death. Give me others to ponder on.
Ponder on, we shall. You're probably not going to want to hear this, but I put Philippoussis pretty high on the list. On his serve alone, he should have won something by now. The much-maligned Yevgeny Kafelnikov is another choice, but it's hard to whack someone too hard who has won a pair of Slams. I'm also reluctant to pick on Marcelo Rios: True, he has never won a Slam, but anyone shorter than I am who has been ranked No. 1 deserves some credit. Other malingerers include Ivanisevic, Wayne Ferreira and Diego Nargiso. The women are a little bit tougher to pinpoint, because there's such a drop-off after the top six players. We never expect the Sandrine Testuds and Amanda Coetzers to compete for Slams, so we're rarely disappointed when they lose in the quarters week after week. As far as a player being profligate with her talents, Mirjana Lucic probably takes the cake. Others include Jennifer Capriati, Patty Schnyder and, of course, Iva Majoli, who seems to have made some sort of a pact with the devil to win the French in 1997.
In light of the recent embarrassing spectacle the entire world put on at the Olympics regarding performance-enhancing drugs, I was wondering if you had any comments regarding their use in tennis. Is there a presence on either tour, and do you think it will effect the game in the future?
I don't want to sound like a Pollyanna, but I think tennis is overwhelmingly clean. One hundred percent clean? Undoubtedly not. But for all that blights the sport -- domineering daddies, apathetic players, political infighting, resistance to change -- performance-enhancing drugs aren't too high on the list. One hears rumors from time to time, mostly in the context of players who are mysteriously injured, but the finger-pointing is minimal compared to other sports. And the testing results, while not dispositive, also suggest minimal use. Tennis is such an emotional and mental sport that an extra five pounds of muscle mass or the ability to recover faster from exertion hardly guarantees superior results. Also, the commercial risks are huge. If a top player on either tour were ever fingered as a drug cheat, he or she would lose millions in endorsements. I will say this: As the women's game in particular becomes increasingly power-based, the temptation to enhance strength through illegal means will escalate.
I really enjoy your column. I especially love your top-five lists. So here's a question for you. On the men's tour, who, in your opinion, are the top five groundstrokers? I'm not as clever as some of those who pose questions, but will I get points for politeness? Thanks in advance.
With politesse like that ... As of today, here's how I rank 'em. Obviously when he's on, Agassi makes the list, maybe even tops it. But until he makes like Stella and gets his groove back, I'll go with the following.
1) Safin
Although she hadn't had a fantastic year and there is an illness in her family, I was surprised to learn that Dominique Van Roost is retiring. Who do you think will be the next, say, three most likely retirements from the women's top 30, not counting Nathalie Tauziat, who has already said she'll quit after this year? And have we seen the last of Mary Joe Fernandez? Miami fans want to know.
Mary Joe Fernandez, who is semi-retired, played last week in Asia. You haven't seen the last of her on the court, but particularly now that she's lost her protected-ranking status, I can't imagine she has genuine ambitions of returning to the top 10. (You can also catch her in the broadcast booth where, in my mind, she's quite insightful and well-spoken.) As for other future gold-watch recipients ... She's no longer top 30, but the rumor is that the colorful Irina Spirlea, who now lives in Rome, is finis. The evergreen Tauziat will return in 2001 after all, but don't be surprised if she hangs it up before the year's end. Sánchez-Vicario keeps saying how fresh she feels, but now that's she married and clearly long past her prime, her days may be numbered. Julie Halard-Decugis won an event recently, but she's on the wrong side of 30. The flaky Natasha Zvereva is in the semi-retired holding pen as well. The real wild card is Monica Seles. She's among the top six players in the world and she has millions tied up in endorsement deals. But can she endure another year like 2000, where she didn't advance beyond the quarters of a Slam and failed to beat a single player ranked ahead of her?
Just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your column. What kind of cologne do you wear?
Carlos Moya for Men.
Click here to send a question or comment to Jon Wertheim's Tennis Mailbag.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
