|
Chat Reel: SI's Jon Wertheim
Might be time for Sampras to stop playing French
Posted: Thursday May 31, 2001 3:27 PM
Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim joined users on May 31 to talk about the French Open in the wake of another Pete Sampras early ouster. A transcript follows.
CNNSI Host: Welcome to our French Open chat with Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim. Thanks for joining us, Jon.
Jon Wertheim: My pleasure.
From Guest: Do you think Pete Sampras really cares about winning the French? If so, shouldn't he dedicate a little more time and preparation to it?
Jon Wertheim: I think he cares in the abstract -- he realizes that his failures at the French detract from his legacy. But after more than a decade of failures, he also realizes that his game (and his stamina) are poorly suited to clay.
 From Guest: What do other players think about Pete Sampras' struggles on clay? Is it a running joke on tour?
Jon Wertheim: First, there are few players who are rock solid all surfaces. Are Gustavo Kuerten's results on grass, for instance, any more impressive than Sampras' on clay? Pete has a lot of respect among his peers -- 13 Slams will do that for you. But, unquestionably, when he steps on clay he is a different player and perceived by his colleagues as eminently beatable. it's a cliché, but clay is clearly his Kryptonite.
From Kajun: Why does Pete Sampras fail in Paris year in and year out? Does he have a poor backhand which is unable to return high, topspin balls? Or is it poor volleying, stamina or purely mental, as you've said?
Jon Wertheim: I think it's hard to underestimate the mental aspect. Not unlike Bjorn Borg at the U.S. Open, a number of players have said that Sampras has "psyched himself out" before his plane has landed at Charles de Gaulle. But he's not in shape to play a minimum of 21 sets in 12 days on such a taxing surface; the clay defuses his power, forcing him to play a baseline game to which he is unaccustomed; and his backhand is far more exposed than it is on other surfaces.
From Marty: Can we consider Pete Sampras the best of all time if he not only can't win this one major, but has such poor showings at Roland Garros?
Jon Wertheim: Thirteen slams is pretty strong ammunition to take into a "best ever" debate. But I agree that when Sampras not only fails to win at Roland Garros but fails to advance beyond the second round, it greatly undercuts his argument.
From Kajun: Pete Sampras has said that he'll be playing the game for many, many years. What is your take on this? Should he retire if he fails to win Wimbledon, or should he become a semi-active player like Boris Becker was in his last years, playing only a few tournaments?
Jon Wertheim: I can't see Sampras as a semi-active player; he has too much pride and takes himself too seriously to pop into an event every now and then, to allow his body to slacken, and to countenance the kind of losses Becker did during his autumn years. If I'm Pete, I choose my schedule judiciously, 'fess up to my shortcoming on clay -- and perhaps bail on the French entirely -- and make the most of these final two or three years without tarnishing my legacy by nearly falling to the Cedric Kauffmanns of the world.
From Jeremy: What's the story with the Williams sisters withdrawing from doubles? Why even enter the draw if you're not going to play? Has Serena only now decided how important singles is?
Jon Wertheim: The rumor -- which Serena denied -- was that the sisters had some sort of spat, and Venus was already on the plane home to the U.S. when they made the announcement that they were withdrawing. At Wimbledon last year both sisters spoke of how much their doubles had helped them stay sharp for singles. So, as is so often the case with the Williamses, who knows? You raise a good point, though: There are a lot of marginal players barely eking out a living on tour who would love to have had that spot in the draw.
From CG9: Has Magnus Norman burned himself out? Surely, his breakup with Martina Hingis can't be playing into his poor results this year.
Jon Wertheim: Norman needs to regain his confidence -- fast. The word on tour is that he trains too intensely and takes losses too hard. After yet another disappointment, he may well fall out of the top 20 by the end of the tournament. Norman is often compared to Jim Courier -- an indefatigable worker who has no awe-inspiring weapons but will simply outwork you. Now it seems his career may have a similar arc as well. Norman might do well to take some off, play a Tier II event to replenish confidence and try to come back strong for the hard-court season. Right now he's in dire straits.
From KMM: Does Karim Alami have a chance against Gustavo Kuerten?
Jon Wertheim: No.
From GooGoo: Who are your top five who could possibly knock off Gustavo Kuerten, other than Juan Carlos Ferrero and Andre Agassi?
Jon Wertheim: You've listed the two obvious choices. Honestly, I don't think there are five players capable of beating Kuerten on clay. Certainly no one in his quadrant. Lleyton Hewitt is a decent bet, if only because stamina is not an issue and he can exchange fire from the baseline. Wayne Arthurs, who took out Kuerten at the U.S. Open, is one of the few players who could simply have an unreal serving day. Marat Safin, on raw ability, has a chance as well. Overall, though, I think the winner of the likely Kuerten/Ferrero match is your champion.
From Kajun: What do you think of Andre Agassi's chances at the French?
Jon Wertheim: After a brutally bad clay-court season heading to Roland Garros, Agassi seems to have caught fire as only he can. If he plays like he did Tuesday, he ought to at least reach the semis. Still, i have a hard time seeing him beating either Kuerten or Ferrero.
From Dexter: Who has the greatest chance of winning the women's title, Martina Hingis or Jennifer Capriati?
Jon Wertheim: Now that Melanie Molitor is back in the picture, Hingis seems to have gotten a second wind of sorts. In addition to the Australian Open final, Capriati handled Hingis in the Charleston final. As with Kuerten and Ferrero, it's a shame that Capriati and Hingis are on the same side of the draw because they are the two overwhelming favorites at this point.
From Kajun: Do you think Andy Roddick exaggerated his cramps, in the same manner Michael Chang "acted" a bit in his memorable match against Ivan Lendl?
Jon Wertheim: Not at all. You could see his entire leg seizing. I will say this: There'd better be an ambulance parked courtside for his match against Hewitt.
From CG9: Do you think Andy Roddick has a chance to win a Slam next year?
Jon Wertheim: On the one hand, he has given us plenty of reasons to get excited. At the same time, beating an over-the-hill Chang in five sets hardly presages greatness. But it's hard not to get excited about his prospects. A big serve, big strokes, an iron will to win and an all-court game are pretty good prerequisites for future success. I think there's still a considerable staircase separating him from Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Kuerten et al. But could he win a Slam by the end of 2002? Not at all inconceivable.
From Kajun: What is your opinion of Lleyton Hewitt? Will he ever win a Slam and become No. 1, or do you think he's the kind of player who is consistent in his results but comes up short in the end?
Jon Wertheim: The latter, unfortunately. Particularly at his size, Hewitt is a player for whom one wants to root. But without the big serve to bail him out (and with a maddening habit of coming up short in big matches -- I know he's young, but he hasn't even won a Masters Series event yet), I see him as a Michael Chang-type player who will make a nice run in the top 10 but never win the requisite Slams to be considered a true champion.
From how: Is Serena Williams a darkhorse? How far does she have to advance before she is considered a threat to win?
Jon Wertheim: While she's obviously fared better than her sister, Serena hasn't looked particularly sharp in her first two matches. She does have a cushy draw, but it's hard to see her beating Capriati. Serena has never been beyond the Round of 16 here, so two more wins will be an achievement. I think she can win here eventually, but right now she lacks the patience.
From CG9: Now that Venus Williams' side of the draw has opened up, the consensus seems to be that one of these youngsters -- Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Jelena Dokic -- will advance to the final. Whom do you like?
Jon Wertheim: I think this could be a big coming-out party for Henin, a wonderfully fluid player who is undersized in today's women's game but fights to the death and plays well on clay. Also, keep an eye on Lina Krasnoroutskaya, who has a great shot at the quarters. Clijsters is a player with big-time game, but she is unaccomplished on clay. Dokic has been playing fabulously lately and, hearteningly, is making a name for herself beyond her father. But I'm not sure she's ready to win four more matches.
From GooGoo: Do you think Franco Squillari can squeeze himself into the semis again this year?
Jon Wertheim: Squillari is one of those players who strikes dread in everyone in the draw. On clay anyway, he is capable of beating anyone on the right day. But as it stands, you have to imagine that Agassi takes him out in the quarters.
From Kajun: I know your record of picking winners isn't great, but nevertheless I'd like to know who you think will win Wimbledon?
Jon Wertheim: The San Antonio Spurs. I'm tempted to play the Venus hand one more time. Embarrassed by this early departure from the Frenchm she will work like a madwoman to defend her Wimbledon title. (She also knows that she is defending mega-points and has virtually no chance of finishing the year at No. 1 if she doesn't win Wimbledon.) As for the men, it's hard to bet against Sampras. Lame, I know, but I can't embarrass myself again by picking a potential first-round loser.
CNNSI Host: That's all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us, Jon.
Jon Wertheim: Thanks.
|
Copyright © 2001
CNN/Sports Illustrated
An AOL Time Warner Company.
All Rights Reserved.
|
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
|
| 
