TENNIS IS TRULY A GLOBAL SPORT. DOUBLE TEAMS ARE DIVERSIFIED. GENE AND HIS CRYSTAL TENNIS BALL.

Written by: Staff on 21st May 2014

TENNIS IS TRULY A GLOBAL SPORT. DOUBLE TEAMS ARE DIVERSIFIED. GENE AND HIS CRYSTAL TENNIS BALL.

epa02942770 US tennis star Pete Sampras returns the ball to former world number one Marat Safin of Russia during an exhibition match to inaugurate the new Tennis China Open center court in Beijing, China, 30 September 2011. EPA/DIEGO AZUBEL |

The following was published in the Sept. 8, 1993, edition of Tennis Week Magazine as a “Vantage Point” column and written by former Tennis Week founder and publisher Eugene L. Scott:

When we were teenagers, perspective was always defined in terms of railroad tracks retreating into the distance. Now that we are adults, there are no tracks. None related to any discussion of perspective. The U.S. Open, the world’s most important tennis event if measured by the stripped down standards of American commerce-profit And publicity-is now in our face. Its relevance is awkward to put in perspective.

Tennis is the most international of sports, if measured by global linkage of its championships. Our relevance should be viewed against the backdrop of the headlines of The International Herald Tribune rather than The New York Times. A recent Tribune sampling covers much. “Hindu Extremist Fans Bombay Hatred,” “Russia Bars U.S. Help,” “Serbs Leave Sarajevo Peaks,” “West Lets Yen Climb,” “Glimpse of Terrorism A Bonn Cover-Up.”

It is no coincidence that the field at Flushing Meadow includes a Hindu, a Russian, a Croatian, a Japanese and a German. And almost a Serb had Monica Seles not so treacherously been removed from the draw. The cities on the circuit are equally electric and eclectic: Beijing, Umag, Prague, Moscow, Budapest, Tel Aviv, Leipzig, Johannesburg, Taipei, and Jakarta being just a handful of tennis sites with problems which are more than a handful for the United Nations’ economic and peace-keeping people.

To hard-boiled cosmopolitans, the activities of highly paid, highly indulged athletes seem remote to underpaid, under-indulged citizens.

Maybe. Maybe not. Sports, after all, reflect all that is normal in the world. Is any activity more normal than sport?

Some countries’ sportsmen continue to compete even when surrounded by the worst of the world’s barbarities. Defiant Russian tennis players, for instance, organized tournaments in Moscow during the horrors of World War II, as if to say, “We are not going to ignore the stupidity of our elders. We require recreation to maintain a shadow of our everyday life.”

The sensibility of modem athletes is perhaps more compliant than defiant. The tennis player who signs on for the Umag or South African Open is simply going to work. In other words, there is no crusading slant to his sprint to the net. A pity. He’s entitled to scoff at his alleged leaders for the carnage in Bosnia or injustice in South Africa just as much as those Russians in the 1940s. Moreover, examples in the business community from New York to New Delhi don’t offer much relief.

The head of a Japanese auto company accused of a multi-million dollar fraud or stock brokers convicted of insider-trading should know better. All this is a long-winded way of saying that the almost 500 entrants at the U.S. Open have nothing to apologize for when feeding at its record $9 million trough. Even the odd tantrum or profanity, although not to be encouraged, might be seen in a different light when compared to the behavior of too many adults who are pathetic role models.

In fact, our game’s ranking ticket sellers are not shy when given a decent incentive to be role models themselves. On the virtual eve of the Open, Pete Sampras, Jennifer Capriati, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Gabriela Sabatini, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and even John McEnroe, once considered the arch enemy of civility, are donating their time to a televised exhibition to benefit the Arthur Ashe AIDS Foundation. Their generosity is not just the forsaking of a formidable fee but a real sacrifice in preparation for an ultimate career goal. McEnroe took it upon himself to recruit the athletes for the afternoon. His invitation would be like asking a dozen or so National Football League pros to play touch football the day before the Super Bowl. Or more topically, inviting Major League Baseball All-Stars to play seven innings of softball on the Sunday before the World Series. Way to go John, way to go Pete and Jennifer.

While we’re citing the charity of Sampras, this writer finds it odd that so many journalists and fans are not equally charitable about his personality. After winning Wimbledon, he was widely mocked for a performance tagged as banal, bordering on boring. What hypocrites! The man went through the heart of the draw beating defending champion Agassi, three-time former champ Becker and finally the world’s number one Courier (who had dismantled the betting shop favorite Stefan Edberg in the semifinals). Sampras did it with little fanfare (and fewer fans).

This is not just a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. This is ordering cake and dropping it on the floor. Sampras’ sportsmanship is correct. His game is pure. The effortlessness of his groundstrokes disguise their force, and the Sampras second serve is now the best in the business, taking over that accolade from Becker. At Wimbledon even Sampras’ courage was compelling. After losing the first set of his opening match against Aussie Neil Borwick in a tiebreak, he played six more “breakers” and won them all, including two in the finals. Not to mention prevailing in his only five-setter against Agassi in the quarters. What more could the man do? Perhaps he could have juggled six yellow balls instead of bowing in front of the Royal Box. Or turned into Hamlet on court or an omelette off it.

It’s no news that fans are fickle. The code of conduct was written and re-written to coral the coarseness of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe. Now that they have mellowed or departed, or both, and been replaced by the composures of Sampras, Courier and Edberg, the call for the wild to return is audible. History records that the game’s quiet competitors rarely were applauded for their early accomplishments. Rod Laver, Margaret Court, Neale Fraser, Stan Smith, Maureen Connolly and, yes, even Bjorn Borg were all labeled as dull at first. Ultimately their records became brilliant enough to register self-evident drama. I suppose Sampras will have to wait to accumulate enough Grand Slam titles for dull to become full. Fans are not only fussy about player personalities but about their style of play. The backcourt repetition of Borg, Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl, all former world number ones, was assailed as monotonous. No one is more in a hurry to finish off rallies and do it with flourish than Sampras. Now he is abused for having no more patience with a point than an executioner with a prisoner.

The players themselves occasionally talk back. At New Haven last week, Lendl, Agassi, Medvedev and Korda observed that the court was quick, the balls small and fast and the lights not very bright. This put a premium on big serves and agitated concerns about the game getting too quick for its own good.

Interestingly enough, this is an area where the public’s alternating appetite for short and long points can be adjusted to neutralize equipment power and serving dominance. How? By simultaneously slowing the surface and ball. Technically it’s a snap. The U.S. Open, for instance, could add a sub-committee to discern desired surface and ball speed and make adjustments from year to year. This is not tinkering with the sport any more than tournament golf courses are altered by deepening sand traps, letting the rough grow or fixing devilish pin placements.

One bold and controversial innovation at the Open is the installation of TEL System, the new electronic line callers for the top four show courts. The ATP Tour and WTA objected so strenuously to their players being disoriented by the absence of linesmen, that the USTA compromised by bringing back judges to these courts. Unfortunately, they will have the featherbedding function of confirming TEL’s calls and signaling when a ball lands short or long of TEL’s 18-inch reach. The players’ indignation sounds valid in the context of the Open being used as a testing ground. But it also sounds somewhat disingenuous considering that neither player organization lifted a finger to assist development of any line calling device for 20 years-until a recent seminar by the ATP Tour to review competing electronics. To be fair, neither did the USTA or ITF, which for years left the task to quirky inventors working in their attics or cellars. Certainly the mission of producing an infallible line-caller was motivated more by principle than profit.

But at least the USTA had the courage to select what it deemed to be the most scientifically correct apparatus. The USTA should be encouraged to continue edge-cutting instead of its one time reputation for hedge-cutting. The Association’s responsiveness to compromise at the 11th hour, knowing how unlikely it is for any amateur sports authority to change its mind quickly, should also be acclaimed. As for the tennis at the Open, the pick here is for Capriati to move from a long-shot to a short-shot and Sampras to add a third Grand Slam title and become Three-Pete. A more important selection is for N.Y. Mayor David Dinkins to defend his title in November. This is not electioneering for a Democrat over a Republican or even a liberal lefthander over a righty. Just a ballot for tennis whose term is a lifetime rather than two years. Go Jennifer, go Pete, go David.

Topics: Andre Agassi, Gene Scott, Jim Courier, John Mcenroe, Pete Sampras, Tennis News, Tennis Week, Vantage Point

Follow 10SBALLS.COM on:

Facebook:

Twitter:

10sBalls_com says:

May 21, 2014 at 6:47 pm

TENNIS IS TRULY A GLOBAL SPORT. DOUBLE TEAMS ARE DIVERSIFIED. GENE AND HIS CRYSTAL TENNIS BALL. – http://t.co/lIDi1z8w6y #tennis #sports