This week I’ll be discussing the year in tennis with ex-pro and expert analyst Hank Moravec (also known as Dunlop Maxply here and on Pete’s Tennis World).
Hank,
First tell me a little about your son’s tournament this weekend out in Indian Wells. My tennis career peaked when I was a Middle States junior in the 1980s, and I’m still fascinated by the cliquey, boys’-school culture of the junior game. There really should be a Caddyshack of teen tennis, but alas, no one seems to want to see it but me.
OK, let me start our chat by breaking the 2006 pro season into a few of its significant player developments.
Roger Federer: The Season of Separation. In the middle of a major comeback—by Martina Hingis—and a major retirement—by Andre Agassi—the story with the most historic significance was nonetheless how Federer reached another career peak, and began to distance himself just slightly from the achievements of Pete Sampras. As this season began, TENNIS Mag. did a chart comparing the two (don’t think it’s available online) at age 24. The similarities were a little bizarre—at the time, Federer was basically Sampras 10 years later, from their Slams won (Sampras: 1 Aussie Open, 3 Wimbledons, 3 U.S. Opens; Federer: 1 Aussie Open, 3 Wimbledons, 2 U.S. Opens) to their weeks at No. 1 (Sampras: 109; Federer: 100) to their birthdates (Sampras: Aug. 12, 1971; Federer: Aug. 8, 1981).
In 2006, though, Federer went Sampras one better in a bunch of ways. He won three of four majors for the second time, something Sampras never did; he was dominant through the entire season in a way Sampras never bothered to be; and most important, Federer established himself as the second-best clay-court player in the world, a feat Sampras probably never even imagined.
All this makes me think we’re going to see Federer, barring catastrophe, win the French Open next year, complete the career Grand Slam, and eventually be recognized as the greatest of all time. Up until now, I’ve given the theoretical head-to-head edge to Sampras based on the ruthless efficiency of his game. When Pete was at his best, his opponent simply could not win—no one, including Federer, put the clamps down like Sampras. But I’m starting to think that Federer’s ability to return even the most powerful serves may have given him a unique ability to escape those clamps. Plus, this year Federer made his competitive toughness more obvious than ever by facing down his nemesis, Rafael Nadal, at Wimbledon and the Masters Cup.
Who do you have at this point, Hank, Federer or Sampras?
Martina Hingis: No Sweat. What’s remarkable is how smoothly she fit back in, so much so that she ceased to be much of a story by about the middle of the year. It was nice to have Hingis’ touch, variety, and court smarts to watch again; at the Aussie Open, she immediately made Kim Clijsters look like a mindless ball-basher by comparison. But it was kind of a letdown, too, to see that those court smarts don’t mean quite as much as they used to—Clijsters may be the dumber player, but she knocked Hingis out of Melbourne and Roland Garros.
My favorite Hingis moment came at the season-ender in Madrid. She beat a younger, more powerful player, Nadia Petrova, with a forehand passing shot winner on match point. Hingis looked liked she’d just won the first match of her career; she was overjoyed in a genuine, childlike way that seems rare on the women's tour these days.
I predicted at the start of the season that Hingis would finish the year ranked No. 15. I think she surprised even herself by ending at No. 7. This is a testament to her enduring talent—Hingis won the jr. Grand Slam at age 12, one of the sport’s most preposterous accomplishments—and to the enduring lack of depth in the WTA, a tour in which the 13th best player is allegedly Anna Chakvetadze.
Andre Agassi: The End of Many Eras. Speaking of enduring talent, what struck me most about Andre these last couple years was how well he was competing at the very top of the game. This was a guy who had shown one era’s genius, John McEnroe, the door at Wimbledon way back in 1992, and in 2005 he was still giving this era’s genius, Federer, all he could handle in the final of the U.S. Open. I can’t think of many players who were able to cross eras so successfully. Agassi wasn’t just making the occasional Connors-like Open run, he was still in there virtually every week (when his body let him). I suppose no matter how much the game changes, hand-eye coordination and timing like Agassi’s will always be the core of the sport. At the same time, it was a shock to see what a lifetime of pro tennis can do to a young (yes, kids, 36 is still young!) body. I’m Agassi’s age, and I can’t quite imagine myself hobbling around a court the way he did at Flushing this year. Not just yet, anyway.
One positive of his retirement, I think, is that Andy Roddick and James Blake, will finally, officially, be the biggest U.S. tennis stars, and they should get the coverage that comes with that. Of course, they’ll still have to earn the respect that had long been Agassi’s due. As Roddick says, the “training wheels are off.”
The Rivalries: Healthy Dominance. Remember when the days of the domimant champion seemed to be a thing of the past? Well, that's one problem tennis doesn't have anymore! This season each tour had one player reach the finals of all four majors (when was the last time that happened?) But I wasn't bored by the lack of parity—it was exciting to see Federer, Nadal, Mauresmo, and Henin-Hardenne stake their claims to history.
Federer vs. Nadal provided great stuff every time they played—even that last straight-set match, in Shanghai, was a barn-burner. The next step for Nadal will be to find a way to compete with Federer all year. It’s a problem clay-courters have had in the past. Bjorn Borg and Jim Courier typically looked burned out by the time the U.S. Open rolled around, and Ivan Lendl eventually skipped the clay season altogether to prepare for Wimbledon. Nadal tried to take a mid-season break this year to recharge for the U.S. Open Series, but he didn’t recover very well from it; he’s a guy who seems to need to ease his way into his best tennis over the course of a tournament or two. Still, he had his best U.S. Open showing in 2006, and I expect him to mount a strong challenge at the Aussie next month (yes, next month). Apparently the surface will be a bit quicker Down Under, but it’s still Nadal’s best chance to fully shake the clay specialist label.
Conversely, I’m also thinking that this will be Federer’s year to break through at the French Open. He wants it more than anything else, he knows he can do it, and by now he has a pretty good idea of how not to play Nadal at Roland Garros. How do you see this rivalry developing?
As for the women, Mauresmo/Henin-Hardenne blossomed into something intriguing and slightly edgy. They showed off women’s tennis at its most stylish and least mindless, and there was some bad blood. I was surprised by both of their seasons—that Mauresmo would twice be the big-match winner, and that Henin-Hardenne would show a tendency not to be able to finish, at both the Slams and in Fed Cup. Still, I see Henin-Hardenne coming back and getting the better of Mauresmo in 2007—when she’s clicking, Justine’s the best.
That’s it for Day 1, Hank. I’m sure I'll get around to the year's best matches, the state of U.S. tennis, tour-scheduling issues, and maybe even today’s announcement that the USTA is investing in the Tennis Channel. That’s some good news. Right?
Maybe I should ask this first: Do you get the Tennis Channel?
Steve