Exhibitions a problem of perception

Are you really equating a couple of sets of exhibition tennis to the demands of a long tour season?
-- Henry Brito, Atlanta

• Henry is referring to a popular message-board topic: How can these players bemoan the onerous schedule in one breath, and then commit to exhibitions in another? And Henry is right, at least to a point. In terms of the physical grind, a one-night-only exhibition, in which a player isn't particularly invested in the outcome, isn't the same as a tournament. If you've ever been to one, you know that the coinage "hit and giggle" is accurate. They're enjoyable, to be sure, but definitely skew more entertainment than sport.

Still, the perception -- the "optics," in the au courant biz-speak -- is lousy when you gripe about the tour's schedule the day before you announce you're playing an exhibition in the Middle East on Dec. 31 (as Rafael Nadal did recently)!

Since a lot of you asked, I assure you that while the "winner-take-all" purse for this Nadal-Roger Federer match is reportedly $25,000, neither player is crossing the street to earn that. If they each get seven figures, it shouldn't surprise us.

I have noticed over the last few years that when talking about great pitchers, Sandy Koufax is rarely mentioned on ESPN. I heard that years ago he refused to give the network an interview, so in essence he is being ignored. How much of this is true?
-- Maurice, Clovis, Calif.

• I don't know how this ended up in my mail pile. And while Koufax has been famously private and inaccessible for decades now, I don't know much about his relationship with ESPN or other media outlets. But I think the larger issue Maurice raises is well worth addressing.

There's no question that an athlete's relationship with the public affects the way he's perceived as a performer. In tennis, Ivan Lendl's career achievements certainly rival those of John McEnroe. But I sense that the casual fan would never guess that. Why? Because McEnroe is omnipresent and -- this is no knock -- willing to bare his soul. Lendl, whose relationship with the media was always frosty, surfaces only periodically.

Margaret Court is seldom mentioned in the Martina NavratilovaChris EvertSteffi Graf conversation despite having won more. Could it be because she, too, is not part of the tennis firmament in retirement? Perhaps in a perfect world, we would recall athletes simply for their achievements during their playing days. But in the real world, it's colored at least in part by what they did in retirement.

Amelie Mauresmo is considering retirement. Do you think that we have taken her for granted more than any other great player?
-- J.J. Johnson, Allentown, Pa.

• I wouldn't say that at all. (As mentioned above, Margaret Court, for starters, ranks higher in the "taken-for-granted" department.) You could contend that she should have won more than the two majors she did. But at least she got on the board. She got to No. 1. She played a stylish brand of tennis that will be missed. She's as thoughtful a player as the WTA has served up this generation. It was hard to hype her too much, given some of her mental toughness issues. On the other the hand, she'll get my vote for induction when she appears on a Hall of Fame ballot.