Thursday, August 12, 2004
HELLO AGAIN – WE JUST MET A GIRL NAMED MARIA

Where was I? Oh yes, somewhere around Wimbledon when we last communicated.

My roommate, the fair Aurelio, gently, but firmly, says it’s time to get back in web-step. Like a duck?

No doubt the pheenom of Wimbledon was 17-year-old Maria Sharapova – an extraordinary sensation from nowhere. (Although Siberia is one of those historic nowheres, better known for exiles to salt mines. Maria will never have to dig salt to get by. Sugar is more like it, pouring in as her agents sort through a myriad of commercial opportunities. Not too many to turn her head, I trust.)

Every day I get questions about her. And I answer that, yes, she is what she seems: bright, talented, gorgeous, determined, fun, good-humored. Will she become a diva in the Kournikova mode? I hope not. She detests the comparisons. Justifiably so. After all, Maria has longer, lovelier legs than Anna, and a longer winning record: three tournament titles during a very brief stretch.

Anna, I’m sorry to say, never delivered on her undeniable talent, though a Wimbledon semifinalist at 16 in 1997. Except in doubles: 16 titles, two of them majors, the Australian with Martina Hingis, 1999 and 2002. Nevertheless, she was good for the game, an attention-grabber of unimaginable proportions. She may be remembered as the most renowned player never to win a singles title.

Sharapova (get that pronunciation, please -- shar-ROP-ova), however, has a chance to make the Hall of Fame one day as a champ. Moreover one wonderful to look at.

But don’t expect too much right away. She’s not yet a finished player, and may have caught Serena on the wrong day for the defending champ. Whither the Sisters Williams? That’s the big question for the impending U.S. Open. Have distractions of life beyond tennis -- and injuries -- taken a toll? Is it possible that we’ve seen the best of Venus and Serena? I hope not.

But the scene can change quickly, and right now the women’s precinct belongs to the hard-working Russians. Will they monopolize Olympic medals? Probably among the women. Four years ago in Sydney American women in the persons of Venus (gold in singles and doubles), Serena (gold in doubles) and Monica Seles (bronze in singles) led the parade while their countrymen were invisible.

It’s different this time with Andy Roddick and the Bryan twins, Bob and Mike, leading candidates for medals while a declining Venus will be struggling to repeat. Martina Navratilova and Lisa Raymond haven’t combined as well as their doubles expertise seemed to promise. But they might get it together for a medal. That would be terrific for both: the one jewel missing from Martina’s diadem, and a payback for Lisa, snubbed for the 2000 team even though she was ranked No. 1 in doubles.

Lisa and Martina were part of the U.S. debacle in the Federation Cup loss at Austria. It was almost unnoticed simply because the event is so badly run by the International Tennis Federation that hardly anybody cares. This is sad because it’s a fine 41 year old team tournament, the sister of the Davis Cup,

I’m not bothered that the U.S. lost, but that rookie captain Zina Garrison was put in an unwinnable spot by players, who claim to be all for her – but wouldn’t show up for what should have been a routime victory. She needed one top level singles player to turn the 3-2 defeat around. I would have thought that Serena, Venus, Jennifer Capriati and Lindsay could have caucused, drawn straws or whatever so that one of them made the trip to Austria. Nope. And loyal Zina, long proud of her role on national teams, and a distinguished presence in the game, got stiffed.

Last year USTA officials said they would act on my proposal to re-name it the King Cup and reform the competition to make it more appealing and recognizable. Nothing has happened. The ITF’s idea of reform a few years ago was to shorten the name to Fed Cup – banishing seven letters. Wow! How much did they pay the consultant who divined that? It makes you think of Fed Up or Fed Ex.

It should be ex all right – an ex-boring name – and given sparkle and spark as the King Cup, for Billie Jean King. She played on the first winner in 1963, spurred the U.S. to seven Cups as a player and four as captain and has been one of the more positive influences in the game’s history. What better name to stand beside Davis and revive a splendid concept.

Reform should extend to the tournament itself. As originated, it was excellent: a one week event, all teams gathered in the host city. The format, two singles and a doubles was fine, giving countries with fewer players a better chance. Expanded to Davis Cup size (four singles and a doubles) and spread across the year, it lost identity. Curiously the doubles became the fifth match, usually meaningless, as it was for Navratilova and Raymond. Dumb.

I suggest returning to the original. One week with all countries present, and a best-of-three match format would make it a much more attractive proposition for heretofore-uninterested TV.

If you favor a rebirth as King Cup, I suggest you express your feelings to Francesco Ricci Bitti, president of the ITF, with an e-mail to him c/o his aide: emma.dona@itftennis.com.

Nice to be with you again.

<<<Back