|
|
 |
 |   |
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
New seeding process has worked
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions every Monday. Click here to send a question. Through four rounds, 26 of the remaining 32 players are seeds. ... Anyone notice that Jelena Dokic is playing mixed doubles alongside Jeff Tarango? ... In his first two matches partnered with Marc Rosset, Marat Safin has played 10 sets worth of doubles. ... With a chance to serve out the fourth set against Guillermo Cañas, Yevgeny Kafelinikov double-faulted three straight times. He lost the match a few minutes later. ... Line of the week goes to Safin. Asked if he has multiple personalities -- à la Goran Ivanisevic -- the Russian responded: "Yeah, I hope so. Otherwise I'd feel lonely." ... We have a Monique Viele sighting. The wildly overhyped American "prospect" lost in the quarterfinals of a USTA event in Edmond, Okla., last week. ... Sunday night Britain's Channel Five aired the documentary Beyond the Baseline, which was conceived, filmed and produced by former ATP players Geoff Grant and Mark Keil. If this ever gets picked up in the States, make an effort to see it. The "War Room" of tennis, it's flush with compelling, behind-the-scenes glimpses and candid interviews. Highlights include Andre Agassi ruminating: "Sex doesn't interfere with your tennis. It's staying out all night trying to find it." ... Speaking of celluloid, the first episode of the USTA's Topspin TV show airs July 15 at 3:30 p.m. ET on CBS. Onward ...
Now that the first week of Wimbledon is complete, what are your impressions of the new seeding process? I think it helped the men avoid a bazillion upsets while there were still some pretty good matchups. With the big names remaining, the second week should be pretty exciting. But it made the women's first week even more boring than it usually is because most of the top women generally make it to the second week anyway.
I have mixed feelings about the 32 draw. On the one hand, it protects the top players. Thus, heading into the second week, a lot of tantalizing matchups await. The flip side, as you correctly point out, is that there few good early-round pairings among seeds. The Lindsay Davenport-Jelena Dokic first-round dustup we witnessed in Australia or the Pete Sampras-Mark Philippoussis clash we saw last year in Paris are sorely missed. The 32 draw ensures that seeds won't face another top-32 opponent until the third round.
What do you think of Pete Sampras' constant talk at Wimbledon? He keeps hyping the tournament as "our Super Bowl." It's as if he's trying to improve the argument that he's the best ever. I find it rather annoying. Do you Rod Laver or even John McEnroe would ever have done this? Not a chance, in my mind. Don't you think Sampras should leave it up to the historians, rather than offer his own opinion about it?
It's obviously in Sampras' best interest to trumpet Wimbledon's importance and prestige. And I, too, have noticed that he's been more effusive than usual, likening Centre Court to a cathedral and the event to "our sport's Super Bowl." But what's he supposed to say? "Oh, yeah, this event I've won seven times that will cement my legacy, it's an overrated, anachronistic event played on a fluke surface"?
Now that Martina Hingis has lost in the first round at Wimbledon for the second time in three years and is 0-fer her last 10 Slams, when is someone (hint, hint) going to step up and call it as it is -- her legacy as a tennis player is purely a function of timing. She came along when there was a void and was able to take advantage of it. Now that there are once again a number of quality players, her time is over. She may never win another Slam event. Goodbye and good riddance. What say ye?
Lots of questions about Hingis this week. Me say, I think your take is way too uncharitable. Yes, Hingis' timing was superb. As I've mentioned before, check out the players she had to beat in the finals when she won her Slams: Mary Pierce, Conchita Martinez, Jana Novotna, a callow Venus Williams and Mauresmo. But let's give some credit: She's been No. 1 for most of the past four years; her technique is impeccable; she plays a mean game of doubles; she is perhaps the most intuitive player on tour; and, even this year, she's beaten both Williams sisters. I'm willing to chalk up last week's ignominy as a fluke. (Unlike 1999, when Hingis conqueror Dokic made a run to the quarters and has since established herself as a top-flight player, Hingis' falling to Ruano Pascal on grass is just a dismal, dismal loss.) But even so, it's clear that Hingis' toehold is slipping and she's unable to handle the power of the Big Babe Brigade. If she never won another Slam, it wouldn't surprise me. Hingis is so consistent and technically solid (and plays so often) that she will always be a top-five player. But for her to win a Slam, she likely has to play three Big Babes. Beat a Williams sister and Davenport awaits. Beat Kim Clijsters and Jennifer Capriati looms. Provided Hingis doesn't grow six inches or put on 30 pounds, it's a tall order.
John McEnroe said recently that Michael Chang would be a Hall of Famer. Although Chang has won a lot of tournaments, he has only one Slam. What do you think? Also, what about Jim Courier for the Hall of Fame? He has four Slams but is a bit light in tournament titles. However, unlike Chang, Courier has been ranked No. 1 and had a very good Davis Cup career.
I think Chang's a real long shot. As a rule, a player needs to have won multiple Slams for enshrinement. Pat Cash, for instance, was on the ballot a few years ago and, as I understand it, never came close. Points in Chang's favor: longevity, some good showings at the U.S. Open, a playing style that garnered lots of sympathy, and, to be frank, his status as the best Asian-American in history. Points against: his Slam came in his teenage years, his spotty Davis Cup record, his failure to become No. 1, and his lack of doubles titles. As for Courier, I think he's a lock. You enumerated the reasons nicely.
Marat Safin gets beaten like a drum whenever he plays Fabrice Santoro. What's going on here?
I'm guessing that you saw Santoro pick apart Safin last year in Cincy. Safin has the attention span of a gnat and Santoro, as we discussed a few weeks ago, is a wily junkballer who tests an opponent's patience.
You recently wrote, "If you're going to win one Slam seven times, Wimbledon is the one to choose." Is this the general feeling among the players? Does Wimbledon's tradition outweigh all other aspects? As a fan, I'd have a ton more admiration for someone who somehow managed to win seven U.S. Opens. The surface doesn't overwhelmingly favor one style of play, and all the top players show up unless they are truly injured, so you really have to run the gauntlet to win.
Depends who you ask. Ivanisevic claimed last week that for "99 percent" of the players, Wimbledon is the most prestigious. (Of course, he probably included himself several times in that calculus -- once for each personality.) Others (see: Kuerten, Gustavo) would beg to differ. Tastes tend to break down by country: Latin players, in particular, hold the French in just as high regard as any other Slam. Americans and many Europeans who grew up watching McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Boris Becker and Steffi Graf at Wimbledon have a higher regard for the Championships, as the third Slam obnoxiously bills itself. I agree with your observation that the U.S. Open may not have much tradition (and the USTA has effectively sapped the event of its soul) but is the best test of a player's mettle. A serve-and-volleyer can attack, a baseliner can stay back. And most countries have asphalt courts so the "I didn't grow up on the surface" alibi doesn't fly. In short, it is the most democratic event.
You brought up the point that many of the elite players skipped the warmup tournaments to Wimbledon. I think part of this is because of how close Wimbledon is to the French Open. This scheduling also does not give grass its due as a surface since so few tournaments are played on it. Is there any chance that the Grand Slam powers will encourage a later start for Wimbledon in order to allow for more grass-court tuneups? I find tennis to be more interesting during the clay-court season because we can see how players are performing in the tuneups. I think that grass play would be greatly enhanced by moving Wimbledon back by two weeks or even the French up a week. Any chance of this happening in the next few years?
There's talk now of moving Wimbledon back a week, giving it three weeks separation from the French Open. The sticking point, I recall, is that the tournament then would conflict with the Grand Prix of Great Britain Formula One auto race. As with most sporting events, the almighty television dollar will be the single biggest determining factor.
What do you think of Taylor Dent's game? Will he end up like Pat Rafter in that it will take him until his mid-20s for his serve-and-volley game to fully develop? He is strong like Boris Becker and Mark Philippoussis, so I predict that at age 30 Dent will have more Grand Slam titles than Lleyton Hewitt.
It's hard to argue with a serve that travels at the speed of a race car. But Dent desperately needs to find another gear. Philippoussis is an excellent comparison, far more apt than Becker. Dent will play some matches and simply blow his opponent off the court. But in the long run it's hard to become too optimistic about a player whose game features as much nuance, tempo and subtlety as a fire alarm. Becker had the booming serve, but even at age 19 he was a much more cerebral player than Dent. If Dent wins more career Slams than Hewitt, I'd be shocked.
I thought you had a good answer to the guy who asked about male players no longer being clean shaven. I must admit, though, it's nice to watch a sport where the athletes are not covered in "tats." Tell me: Are there any tennis players with tattoos?
Sorry to break the news, but "tats" have arrived in tennis, too. Off the top of my head: Davenport has the Olympic rings engraved on her hip. Lisa Raymond has a small alligator, I believe on her ankle. I'm pretty sure Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario has body art on her ankle as well. On the men's side, Ivanisevic has a shark, I believe, on his back. Carlos Moya has an ink bracelet on his right arm. Francisco Clavet has some sort of Chinese symbol on his right ankle. Nicolas Escude has a number of tats. Dent has the Australian and the American flags embroidered on his arm. Sandon Stolle has a tiger on his shoulder. Also, in the aforementioned Beyond the Baseline movie, Philippoussis profanely explains the genesis of the Alexander the Great tattoo that adorns his arm. Why do tennis reporters sometimes seem to be the most milquetoast birds in the sporting world? I find it amazing that most interviewers find it impossible to ask incisive, probing questions. Case in point: Monica Seles. Just once I would like to see a journalist have the cojones to say this: "Monica, you often say that your fitness is improving, but it's obvious that you are not serious about getting your body in world-class shape. Other, lesser players have made important fitness changes in a matter of months, while in five long years you have made virtually no significant progress. Your mobility stinks, your commitment to excellence seems questionable, and you're full of constant excuses. Would it be better to publicly admit that you need a radical fitness change to ever reach championship caliber again -- a status you are half-hearted about achieving -- or will you continue stringing fans along with the apparently self-induced fantasy that you are 'working hard'?"
My point is that if Seles were a guy or if she were playing another sport, the press would eat her alive for her increasingly tiresome athletic shortcomings, and rightly so. Why the double standard for tennis players and/or female athletes? Would you have the nerve to ask Seles such a direct question, or has the Statute of Limitations on Sympathy (for her admittedly horrific 1993 stabbing) not yet expired? I think it's an interesting question and would be eager to hear your reply ... provided you're brave enough to print it.
You've raised a number of points, some valid, others less so. This is essay-test material, but I'll riff a little bit. First, I'm not sure tennis writers are any more "milquetoast" than writers in other sports -- or other journalists in general. Some NBA writers give players high fives as they leave the court; some movie reviewers accept free goodies from studios; some political writers conceal "dirt" on a senator for fear that it will ruin their standing for a book deal. Remember that at some level writers depend on subjects for access. The writers who empty their quivers at every opportunity aren't long for the profession. Also, be careful not to impose American journalistic standards on what, in tennis, is an international press corps. When Gustavo Kuerten won the French Open, for instance, he was welcomed by applause and pats on the back from the Brazilian media. You'd never see an American journo greeting Sampras in the same manner. Different country, different culture, different standards. Not better or worse. Just different. I've always felt that tennis writers are easier on the men than the women. When the ladies enter the interview room, it's Cole Porter's Anything Goes. No question is too delicate, no line of inquiry -- no matter how irrelevant -- is taboo. Did you go shopping today? Did you break up with Pavel Bure? Why is your father still your coach? A friend of mine points out that Sampras is never asked about his former coach Dr. Pete Fischer, who recently was released from prison for sexual offenses, yet Alexandra Stevenson (another player once under Fischer's tutelage) got grilled about him right away. The devil's advocate might blame the WTA Tour and say: "When you market your players as sexpots instead of athletes, naturally questions are going to stray from tennis." Your point about weight is a sticky one. Is it OK for us to mock athletes Tony Gwynn, Shawn Kemp and Gilbert Brown, all of whom look like the Kool-Aid Man? Heck, we even nicknamed one zaftig football player the Fridge. Yet weight is clearly a conversational no fly zone among women athletes. Anodynes like fitness and conditioning help, but it's still a no-no. Is this a double standard? Probably. Without writing a college essay that contains phrases like Naomi Wolf, beauty myth, eating disorder and body image, suffice it to say there's also a double standard in how society regards and pressures female athletes, but not males, who might not have an "idealized" physique. As for Seles, I think you're being insufferably harsh. As far as I'm concerned the "Statute of Limitations on Sympathy" for her is indefinite. Just so we're clear: As a teenager she was stabbed by a madman acting in the name of a rival. That she's even out there is a minor miracle. What's more, someone as self-possessed and mature as Seles knows she's not in optimal condition. There is no self-deluding going on here. I don't see the point of rubbing her poor "conditioning" in her face.
The question about making couples out of players from each tour got me thinking of the possibilities. For what it's worth, I offer up this one: Alberto Berasategui and Ines Gorrochategui? She's retired, sure, but the thought of her playing as Ines Gorrochategui-Berasategui is just too crazed to dismiss outright. What do you think?
A Gorrochategui-Berasategui segue, as it were.
You rightfully scoffed at a reader's whimsical suggestion that we have a tournament where one half of the court is grass and one half clay. But seriously, what about a tournament that features different surfaces (the whole court being the same surface, naturally) with a random draw to see who plays who and on what surface. Wouldn't that be kind of exciting? Or do you scoff at that also?
First off, the joke is on me. Reader Natasha Wood of Ottawa, Ont., was kind enough to submit the following. Check this out. Your suggestion doesn't warrant a scoff. In fact, I'm intrigued. But it's still pretty far-fetched. First, part of what give the respective Slams their appeal is the surface. Wimbledon without grass is like Van Halen without David Lee Roth. You end up with that Van Hagar ripoff which appeases no one. Also, imagine the versatility you'd need from your grounds crew.
In your June 25 Mailbag you mentioned Evansville and Terre Haute, Ind. Having moved to Evansville and visited Terre Haute, I figure you must have been being sarcastic calling it "cultural" anything, though the rest of your response sounded sincere. Is there a side to these cities that I have missed? Not a tennis mecca here.
It's a, um, subtle charm? Long before you moved to Evansville, Madonna was in town to film A League of Their Own. As I recall, her opinion of the city was: "I may as well have been in Prague." FINALLY, FOR the cultural-literacy portion of this week's discussion ...
Just wanted to answer your Philippines/Filipino question. The people are Filipino because the Spaniards named the country after Felipe II, their king, hence the country used to be called Filipinas. When the Americans arrived, the name was changed to Philippines, still in honor of Felipe II (or Philip II), but the collective name for the people never changed. Curiously, in Tagalog (our national language), the people are called Pilipino.
Regarding the pronunciation of Gustavo Kuerten's last name: His grandparents are German, hence the name Kuerten, a very non-Portuguese sounding name. When he burst onto the scene in '97 the announcers were initially pronouncing his name Koo-ERR-ten (the Germanic pronunciation), but Guga corrected them, saying he pronounces it KEER-ten.
Click here to send a question or comment to Jon Wertheim's Tennis Mailbag.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
