Well, well, well, it's been quite a 24 hours here. For the first time in the existence of this weblog, I had a bit of an altercation with a faithful reader, we were visited by some truly strange ghosts from TWs past (What is this, yet another holiday-season re-run of A Christmas Carol?????), most of whom were welcomed even though it was - at times - through gritted teeth. And nobody - okay, let's say surprisingly few people - seemed capable of comparing Pete Sampras and Roger Federer in the way that most behooves us and honors them: as two titans of the game, who stand on the same plane and about whom you make sweeping generalizations and pronouncements at your own peril.
You know what? Those guys deserve better. Both of them.
At times here, I have expressed the opinion that there are two kinds of tennis fans: those who are drawn to the aesthetics of the game (which includes fans who are mostly fascinated by the personalities of the players in roughly the same way we generally are drawn to "love" or "hate" certain actors, or rock stars), and those who care first and foremost about the game - that complex, tradition-rich, brilliant enterprise (A second serve in case you missed the first? Who could have dreamed up such a thing?) that is more about results than presentation, more about the nuances of strategy and technique than the magnetism of personalities or the allure of showmanship.
I think that to many fans, tennis has more in common with figure skating than with, say, baseball. To others (myself included) the overtones of figure skating are a diversion, and the marketing of tennis and its players as the sporting world's equivalent of Paris Hilton and Vince Vaughn and Meryl Streep is just an obvious attempt to better sell the sport (do not think for a moment that the Lords of Tennis are oblivuous to the demographics of the sport).At the same time, there is no doubt that the "diva" tradition in tennis is as rich and historic as any other aspect of the game. Long before we had Roger Federer's designer bag at Wimbledon, or Serena's biker chick outfit, we had Suzanne Lenglen's bandeau, and Big Bill Tilden's ham-actor court presence. So I'm not complaining about the figure skating component in tennis. Hail, it's fun to have that extra layer of interest, inn'it?
But it occurred to me that it would be a welcome diversion for y'all to take a little pop quiz, just to see how you measure up in terms of actual hardcore tennis knowledge. So I tried to come up with a list of questions, including some multiple choice ones, intended to determine just how hardcore a hardcore fan you are. I tried to come up with at least a few to which the answers, while not entirely subjective, cannot really be looked up or Googled.
I also am not going to vouch for the validity of the answers, simply because I am dipping into my personal store of knowledge (such as it is) to come up with these questions, and assuming that the answers I post (look for them late this evening) are correct. If you catch me being wrong, or can make a good argument that I am wrong, then it's my bad - and my own ignorance will lie exposed.
So here we go:
1 - Jack Kramer's theory of "percentage tennis" is essentially based on the idea that:
a) You're best off playing to your opponent's weaker side.
b) Playing a steady baseline game reduces your errors and thus improves your chances to win.
c) Your chances of winning are better if you attack the net than if you stay back.
d) Your first-serve percentage is the key to success.
2 - Yannick Noah won the French Open, but he had one glaring flaw that kept him from winning big on a regular basis. What was it?
3 - The first coach Open era coach to volubly advocate taking the ball on the rise was:
a) Lennart Bergalin
b) Dennis Ralston
c) Pancho Segura
d) Nick Bollettieri