| |
Waiting out the
rain
Posted: Mon June 29,
1998
Sports Illustrated staff writer Jon Wertheim will answer your tennis questions during Wimbledon. Click here to send a question.
"Ladies and gentlemen, play has been suspended by
rain," seems to be the official mantra of Wimbledon
1998, but in between drops there has been some great
tennis. The complexion of the men's draw is proof positive
that the best way to win on grass is to
serve-and-volley. The most dominant players so
far—Pete
Sampras,
Richard
Krajicek,
Tim
Henman,
Patrick
Rafter—charge the net with near reckless abandon and win a
lot of easy points on putaways from point-blank range.
Those who don't are left to finger their jet black
ponytails and blubber about Wimbledon being
"overrated." As the week wears on and the soggy
grass at the baseline becomes more emaciated, the player who
gets to the net first will have a decisive advantage. I'll
stick with
my pick of Sampras to
win, but with Greg
Rusedski out with a torn ligament in his left ankle, the guess here
that it will be against Krajicek in the
final.
True to form, the women's draw didn't hold much excitement
during the first week. Given
Steffi
Graf's scant match play and nagging injuries this year, her
loss to
Natasha
Zvereva was only a mild upset, and
Mary
Pierce losing in the first round is about as shocking as rain at
Wimbledon. The
Serena-Venus matchup that every tennis fan outside the Williams family
eagerly anticipated will have to wait, but the sisters
served notice that they can negotiate grass just fine.
I'm sticking by my pick
here
too:
Jana
Novotna over
Monica
Seles in the final. Regardless, it ought to be a great week of
tennis. Assuming, that is, it stops
raining.
We all know that Sampras is the best player of the modern
era. Is he the greatest player of all time; the Michael
Jordan of tennis? When Sampras is at the top of his game,
can anyone beat
him?
—Amar Mutnal, Three Rivers,
Mich.
Without his high-tech racket, a bionic banger like
Mark
Philippoussis wouldn't have stood a chance against a top player in
another era. Not so Sampras. Watch him get 40 inches above
the ground to hit his signature slam dunk overhead, watch
the impossible angles he generates on his ground strokes,
observe his ironclad
mental game. It's hard to imagine
Rod
Laver or
Roy
Emerson giving him much competition. If we could play tennis time
traveller, I think the winner of
John
McEnroe (c. 1984) against Sampras (c. 1996) could rightfully claim
the mantle of greatest player
ever.
| |
The first Wimbledon Williams summit didn't happen this year, but when it does Serena Williams (above) should have an advantage.
(Clive Brunskill/ALLSPORT)
|
Venus and Serena Williams will probably meet in the fourth
round; who will win that match? Who has the edge on
grass?
—Sarah Lewis,
Minneapolis
On account of a left-calf injury, Serena retired from her
third-round match against
Virginia
Ruano-Pascal, so we'll have to wait a while. Had they played this week,
I think Venus would have won. Her serve has been off the
charts, she's been moving surpassingly well, and, most
important, she seems to have a mental edge over her kid
sister right now. In the
long run, though, I think Serena will be the better player.
Even their father, Richard, says, "She's the meaner of
the
two."
What is happening to the men's field with people like
Marcelo Rios griping about a great tournament just because
the surface doesn't suit him? If I were the Wimbledon
coordinator I'd ban the guy for good. I think Rios should
buy himself an attitude
adjustment.
—Vijay Prabhakaran, San
Diego
There's little need to ban Rios from Wimbledon—his
unwillingness to adjust his game to grass will ensure that
he'll never last more than a few rounds here anyway. I
agree that his fairly transparent tank job against
Francisco
Clavet—nobody's grass-court specialist—and his
subsequent philippic was disgraceful. And he wonders why
Sports Illustrated called him "The Most Hated Man in
Tennis" earlier this year. Speaking of Rios, have
there ever been two more anonymous No. 2 seeds at
Wimbledon than Marcelo and
Lindsay
Davenport? Together they have won a total of zero Grand
Slams.
Do you think the Williams sisters are lacking in match
strategy because they didn't play junior tournaments? They
are the most talented players on the women's tour, but they
make unforced errors and strategic mistakes that top-10
players cannot and do not
make.
—Paul Walia, Morgantown,
W.Va.
The success of the Williams sisters is tantamount to the
kid who spends his youth in home school and graduates Phi
Beta Kappa from Harvard.
Richard
Williams, their father and coach, is wildly unconventional, but
there's no arguing with his results. At a time when too
many marginally talented kids waste their adolescence at a
monomaniacal tennis academy, it's refreshing to see that
talented players need not
eat, breathe and live tennis to be successful. As for the
unforced errors, both Venus and Serena are power hitters,
and not unlike
Mark
McGwire, that means striking out now and then. As for the
strategic mistakes, let's not forget that they're 18 and
16, respectively. In time, they'll both be
champions.
Why do you say "to a lesser extent" Anna
Kournikova could dethrone Martina
Hingis?
Do you think Mirjana Lucic has a better shot than Anna
Kournikova? Lucic has not impressed me with anything other
than her power. She seems to be a future Mary Pierce, a
threat at each tournament but not a No.
1.
—Jason Englisbe, Simpsonville,
S.C.
I think it's Kournikova who is destined to follow in
Pierce's unremarkable footsteps. Right now Lucic is still
feeling her way, and she suffers from deer-in-headlights
syndrome—witness the 6-0, 6-3 waxing she got from
Serena
Williams last week. But when she learns to massage a point and not
merely rely on her power, she should be awesome. As
Steffi
Graf has said repeatedly, "When I was her age, I was not
nearly as good as Mirjana." The youngest of the teen
sensations, Lucic has powerful, textbook strokes and moves
well for a player who's nearly six feet tall. Perhaps most
important, she has a desire
to get better and a work ethic that Kournikova
lacks.
In Sweden, we're a bit spoiled when it comes to tennis.
Because of Bjorn Borg, Stefan Edberg and Mats Wilander, we
feel as if we're in a down period, even though we're
reigning Davis Cup champs and have capable players like
Jonas Bjorkman, Thomas Enqvist, Magnus Norman, Magnus
Larsson and Thomas Johansson. Also, we haven't done so well
in the Slams lately, which leads to my questions: Which of
the Swedes do you think has the best chance at Wimbledon
this year? And who do you see as the next Swedish Grand
Slam champion, and
when?
—Stefan Alhag, Kiruna,
Sweden
As you note, Sweden is the defending Davis Cup champion, so
I don't much sympathize with your laments about a
"down period." Anyway, even before Bjorkman lost,
I would have predicted Larsson to fare the best at
Wimbledon. Though he's not a natural
serve-and-volleyer, he hits a big ball off both sides, he serves
well and, at 6'5", he shouldn't have much trouble
getting to the net. He seems to convey an
insouciant-bordering-on-indifferent attitude on the court
(it may just be the hair), but any player
who beat Sampras twice last year has to be considered
dangerous.
Realistically, Bjorkman has a shot at winning the U.S. Open
—as he nearly did last year— but he's been
struggling lately. He's at his best on the hard courts,
and—with the exception of the faltering Michael
Chang—he might be the quickest player on the
tour. On the other hand, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for Enqvist to strike gold. Only 24, Enqvist might be the
most talented of the Swedes, but he has trouble winning big
matches. That generally tends to bode ill for Grand Slam
success.
What do you make of all of the negative comments being
directed toward the Williams sisters? Whether people agree
with what they say or not, aren't they entitled to their
own views? What constitutes "showing respect"?
Also, could you please explain the ranking
system?
—Katrina, Montgomery,
Ala.
I'm with you on the Williams sisters. Plenty of players
bemoan their "lack of respect," but when pressed
for details, they are unable to come up with any concrete
examples. As far as I can tell, "show some
respect" is code for "stop winning so damn
often and so damn decisively." Somehow I fail to recall
Steffi
Graf showing much respect for
Chris
Evert or
Martina
Navratilova, or
Martina
Hingis showing one scintilla of deference for Graf or
Monica
Seles.
The intricacies of the ranking system are entirely too
convoluted to explain here. The skinny: players are awarded
points based on matches won, which are valid for 52 weeks.
For instance, whoever wins the 1998 U.S. Open will receive
a whopping 520
points that she will keep for an entire calendar year. At the
1999 U.S. Open, however, she must win the tournament again
to "defend" all of her
points.
Send a question to Jon Wertheim, and check back Monday to read more of his answers.
|
