Australian Open: Back To The Future

by Joel Drucker 

The tennis year has gotten off to an odd start. Here we were, all poised to welcome the “New Balls” of the ATP and the next wave of Sanex WTA Tour stars – and what do we get? Two winners who were making headlines back in 1990. Tennis years, noted Boris Becker, can be measured like dog years. Or put it this way: When Jennifer Capriati turned pro in 1990, Chris Evert had just retired. Monica Seles had yet to win a Slam. Gabriela was number three in the world. Martina Hingis, Venus Williams and Serena Williams – none of them were even ten years old.

Capriati’s triumph, of course, was most surprising. It’s the stuff of Elvis. Like Elvis, Capriati was at the dawn of a new era, the rocking, powerful brand of “Big Babe” tennis that she and Monica Seles ushered in back in 1990. Just as Elvis sat out most of the rock scene of the ‘60s, dissipating his talent through cheeseball movies, so was Capriati exiled through much of the ‘90s, watching such powerful dudettes as Lindsay Davenport (they’re the same age!), the Williams sisters and, to a lesser degree, Mary Pierce, step up the power ante. Just as Elvis’ decadent waste inspired the notion of celebrity rehab, so did Capriati compel her world to change its age-eligibility requirements – to the point where the new criteria is informally known as the “Capriati Rule.”

But then, late in the decade, Elvis made a grand comeback in Las Vegas, wowing crowds and reminding him that he could still play with the big boys. Capriati was equally impressive at the Australian. To beat the likes of Seles, Davenport and Hingis – the troika that’s won this tournament each of the last five years – required not just slashing shotmaking, but a degree of  consistency Capriati has never displayed.

Tempting as it is to denigrate “Big Babe” tennis as simply mindless, the truth is that it’s not much different from the bludgeoning baseline game my TennisONE colleague Jim McLennan speaks so highly of in his pieces on legendary instructor, Tom Stow. Just like Davenport, Capriati played very similarly to Don Budge. She continually moved into the ball, mercilessly struck it crosscourt and, then, whenever there was an opening, drilled it down the line. It also helped that she’d practiced frequently with Hingis at Saddlebrook, hence diminishing much of the champion’s aura Hingis loves emanating.

Most refreshing of all was Capriati’s consistency, poise and, though she’s never been particularly fast, her movement. Though it would be embarrassing to see Capriati sprint versus the Williams sisters, the truth is that she knows her way around the tennis court better than Venus or Serena – each of whom seems to react and dash to balls rather than know where to go. Capriati will never have Hingis’ balanced mix of anticipation and movement; but she did show newfound tenacity, as well as very sound balance-recovery. 

And yet, for all Capriati’s brilliance, I still felt Hingis could have won that match. There is so much that’s sound about Hingis, such a solid base of training and alertness, that it’s a shame to see her continue to be stubborn about taking advantage of the openings she creates. Why didn’t Hingis take the net more versus Capriati? The rub is that she can hang well enough in baseline rallies – just enough to seduce her into thinking she can win that way. Only the rare 6-1, 6-1 beating would tell her something else. 

It’s clear to me that Hingis is afraid to be passed, as if that was some form of personal rejection rather than a way to apply cumulative pressure to an opponent. In a peculiar way, I think Hingis’ reluctance to come to net and risk being passed is connected to her insecurity about her looks. It’s far more elegant to work someone over from the baseline than to grub your way into the net.

The wins over Serena and Venus – the first time she’d beaten both sisters in the same event – will surely buoy Hingis. Whether they demoralize the sisters is a mystery. More and more, I don’t know quite how to figure Serena and Venus. They have accomplished so much, and yet I also feel that they have been masters at so heavily intimidating opponents with speed and shotmaking that players often forget to map an appropriate, workable strategy. The player who hits down the middle to Serena or Venus will fair better than one who bangs into the corners. Throw in off-pace balls, sneaks into net and occasional moonballs and you’ll do much better too. Personally, I would love to see Serena and Venus suffer a few more bad losses – and then, hopefully, learn enough from them to triumph.

After all, as Andre Agassi once again showed, resiliency is the stuff of champions. Imagine going a year between tournament wins – and they happen to be Grand Slams. I’d have sworn by last summer that Agassi’s Slam days were over.

But now, you can almost envision Agassi owning Australia in the manner of Sampras at Wimbledon or Borg at Roland Garros. From the December layoff-training period, to the high-bouncing hardcourt, to the oppressive weather, Agassi seems to thrive more and more on the Aussie Open. He’s never looked more genuinely focused than at this year’s event. This wasn’t the levitating act of ’94-’95, nor even the over-the-top endearing shtick of a year ago. 

At 30, tennis’ richest player has learned to conduct himself in a business-as-usual manner on the court. The only glitch came during his semi with Patrick Rafter. But much of that is a credit to Rafter. Agassi made just 12 unforced errors over five sets, a remarkable achievement. Rafter, his body now more racked than a battered VW van (he came in 129 times versus Agassi, and you could see how much twisting and running he was doing to get in control of the points), is a late-blooming warrior who quite likely has played his last Slam semi.

Unfortunate as it was not to see Agassi meet up with Sampras in the quarters, the form of each likely would have given Agassi a strong edge. Muggy, slow hardcourts just aren’t Sampras’ cup of tea these days; and while I think he’s surely got a good shot at winning the U.S. Open again (and Wimbledon), I’m not so sure how much of an appetite Sampras will have for the Australian. That is, does he really want to do the roadwork necessary? 

But then again, will the Agassi of 2001 followup on this win in a way he didn’t in 2000? It’s never clear if the early findings from Australia have a true bearing on the tennis year – particularly for the men. It’s also never clear just how adept Agassi is at grinding his way through an entire year. 

And the summit grows increasingly crowded. As pressured as Gustavo Kuerten and Marat Safin will feel in defending their Slams this year, they’re each young, fit and loose-hitting. Nipping on their heels are the likes of Lleyton Hewitt, Juan Carlos Ferrero and the impressive French duo of Arnaud Clement and Sebastian Grosjean. It promises to be a very deregulated 2001.

Your comments are welcome. Let us know what you think about Joel Drucker's article by emailing us here at TennisONE.  

Oakland-based Joel Drucker has been involved in tennis for many years as a player and writer. He’s written extensively about the game for such publications as Tennis Magazine, HBO Sports and Biography Magazine. He also served as the technical editor on Patrick McEnroe’s book, Tennis For Dummies. Joel will be writing regularly for TennisONE about the pro tennis circuit. 

Last Updated 2/1/01. To contact us, please email to: webmaster@tennisone.com

TennisONE is a registered trademark of TennisONE and SportsWeb ONE; Copyright 1995. All rights reserved.