When economists try to write about the competitive aspects of tennis... :lol: It was hilarious at the time. Stich was exactly the sort of moody, clueless whiner who could be routed by a qualifier because his breakfast wasn't prepared just right and the locker room attendants didn't fold his towels just the way he wanted. Miss Seles most certainly could and did choke and play "percentage" tennis in tight situations; people of a certain age might remember her lofting a few moonballs and just spinning her serve in on important points. It is extra hilarious in hindsight. And once again demonstrates just how Monica Mania backfired.
In early 1995, before the hype of her return, if I had told the tennis world that Monica would win one Slam and reach the final of another in her first full year back on the tour, everyone (except the most zealous Seles fans) would have thought that would be a wonderful, praise-worthy result -- and rightly so.
But because they went to great lengths to haul out Monica at maximum force right away and because the Mania worked so well on the general tennis community and peripheral fans/observers ("Wow, it's like Monica never left! She's as good as ever!" -- "No, she's
better than ever!" -- "Right, man! And if she's this good after just two tournaments and carrying a little extra weight, think what she's gonna do next year!" -- "Golden Grand Slam, man!" -- "All the way, baby! The other players are all gonna get stomped!" -- < "Nature Boy" Ric Flair "Woo!" sound effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2nqpnJNfHs >), anything less than domination was now going to be seen as disappointing. And given how quickly she faded after the 1996 AO, it was probably doubly disappointing to anyone who fell for the hype. As bad as quietly enduring the hype must have been for the other players, it was even worse to put that kind of pressure to perform on someone as fragile as Monica. I mean, the IMG Machine and the Seles family
knew she had more issues than "Sports Illustrated," so maybe they should have tried for a "Forget the results, just playing is a triumph" approach.
Dual saviours
The Economist
336.7933
September 23, 1995
p83.
THANK heavens Monica Seles came back to the women's tennis tour last month--and thank heavens this month she lost to Steffi Graf in the final of the United States Open. Victory would have meant that an overweight, giggling 21-year-old could emerge from 30 months of retirement to be immediately the best woman player in the world. In other words a Seles triumph would have embarrassingly emphasised the overall weakness of women's professional tennis. By contrast, the Seles defeat will rekindle the old rivalry with Miss Graf, keep the television cameras interested and so encourage young girls to take up the sport and eventually give the women's tour the depth of talent it needs.
Or so tennis buffs must hope, because at the moment the tour looks alarmingly shallow and dismayingly dull. When Miss Seles, whose temporary retirement came after a deranged Graf fan stabbed her in the shoulder, returned to tournament play in Toronto, she swept to victory without losing a set--and in the semi-final allowed Gabriela Sabatini, (now ranked seventh in the world), just one game. So far only Miss Graf has been able to stretch her (and, in a three-set thriller, beat her).
In the men's game such a gap between the best and the almost-best does not exist; it is inconceivable that Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi could beat Michael Stich for the loss of just one game. So why does the gap exist on the women's tour? Why is Miss Seles apparently poised to resume the dominance that gave her eight "Grand Slam" titles (as the championships of Wimbledon and the Australian, French and American Opens are known) between 1990 and 1993, compared with the six over the same period for the more experienced Miss Graf?
The reason can hardly be physical or technical. There are plenty of better athletes than Miss Seles. In the top ten, Steffi Graf, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Gabriela Sabatini and Jana Novotna are all noticeably more mobile around the court. Similarly, although the "new" Seles, almost two inches (5.1cm) taller than two years ago, has a much improved serve and is experimenting with the volley, plenty of players have better individual strokes--for example the Graf serve and forehand, the Novotna volley or Conchita Martinez's glorious top-spin backhand. True, Miss Seles has a rare ability to hit hard and deep drives from the baseline (double-handed on both wings and in a style found in no coaching manual) but so, too, does Mary Pierce.
What really sets Miss Seles apart from her opponents (although Miss Graf runs her close) is her mental toughness. Many players in tense situations get tentative; they lose their rhythm, take refuge in "percentage" shots and make simple "unforced" errors. It happens in most sports: golfers miss easy putts; snooker players miss easy pots; soccer players miss penalties. In other words they "choke" (poor Miss Novotna, for instance, lost the 1993 Wimbledon final after being 4-1 ahead of Miss Graf in the third set).
Miss Seles never chokes. Not for her the "percentage" shot--the moon-balled forehand or the soft-hit serve. Instead, when an opponent sniffs a break-point in her favour, Miss Seles simply hits ever harder, ever closer to the lines.
After losing 7-6, 6-2 to Miss Seles in the American Open, Miss Novotna ruefully commented: "She didn't worry at all what the score was, and just went for her shots . . . Physically and mentally it is very difficult to play her." No wonder some experts count the Yugoslav-born Miss Seles among the greatest match-players in tennis history, equal even to Maureen "Little Mo" Connolly, who, in a career ended tragically by horse-riding injuries before she was 20, managed to win all nine Grand Slam tournaments she entered.
The problem is that great match-players by definition need great matches. Before the stabbing, Miss Seles had won seven of her last eight Grand Slam tournaments (the exception was Wimbledon, whose fast grass favours better volleyers). In her absence the Grand Slam titles have opened up, not just to Steffi Graf but to Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Conchita Martinez and Mary Pierce. Women's tennis will suffer if Miss Seles has returned to so dominate the Grand Slams, (and even, thanks to her improving serve, Wimbledon), that she bores spectators. As it is, the women's tour has found it hard to attract an overall sponsor during the two years.
All of which puts a huge responsibility on Steffi Graf to maintain the challenge at the top. It will be difficult. For the past year Miss Graf, who tends to practise too hard for her own health, has had a bad back; despite frequently severe pain, she has so far refused to undergo surgery.
Now she has to cope with mental strains too: her father, Peter, who has always managed her business affairs, has been in a German prison facing charges of tax evasion. At times Miss Graf, a very rich 26-year-old, must surely think of finishing her career, of simply running away from the pressure and the publicity.
Or perhaps not. Just as Miss Seles is a great champion, so too is Miss Graf. In the end what motivates such players is not money but their place in sporting history. By that reckoning in the modern era--tennis only became a fully professional sport in the late 1960s--the greatest woman champion was Australia's Margaret Court, followed by Martina Navratilova, the Czech-born American who helped persuade Miss Seles to return to the tour, and Billie Jean King. Misses Graf and Seles will probably never match those champions' Grand Slam records because they so rarely compete in doubles events.
No matter. The greatest glory goes with the singles titles. Mrs Court managed 24 and Miss Navratilova 18. The spur for Miss Graf is that with her American Open triumph she has now matched Miss Navratilova and is still young enough--health permitting--to strive for the record. But only if she can keep beating Miss Seles. That will be hard for Miss Graf but good for women's tennis.