Hey I am so amazed that frankly people are so clueless about Mary Pierce. Here is Wertheim's latest tennis mailbag, good thing he defends her:
With Mary Pierce's great showing at the French and U.S. Open this year, can we finally put to rest any lingering doubts about her credentials to make the Hall of Fame? She has her Australian and French titles to go along with her other four major final appearances.
-- John, Chicago
I think there's pretty much an unwritten rule that any player who's won multiple Slams (never mind made the finals of several others) is a lock. Other points in favor of Pierce: overcoming her hellish childhood, longevity, her fair share of lesser titles. Point against: Her career-high ranking is only No. 3.
Incidentally -- and I just throw this out as an observation -- I'm surprised by the strong feelings of dislike she generates among many of you. (And this goes well beyond the dubious injury time-out during the Dementieva match.) Sure, Pierce is a bit of a drama queen, a "space cadet" as Carillo audaciously called her during the final. And her banging game could be accused of being fairly artless. But I've always found her to be inoffensive as a person. Introverted? Yes. Self-absorbed? Maybe. But no worse than most other top players. And are the aesthetics of her game any worse than, say, those of Maria Sharapova or Lindsay Davenport?
Seriously I don't get what version of Mary Pierce people are seeing...anyway sorry to bring this up again but I just came accross it and thought I'd share...on another note, yes definately she is deserving of Hall of Fame but let's hold up on that because she still has lots more to do on the court!