As promised, here the questions L. Jon Wertheim chose to answer on the heels of my Portrait in Motion post last week, in which I shared the intel that El Jon is writing a book on Roger Federer. I asked Jon to answer five, said we might get a bonus sixth, and he comes through with seven. That's pretty typical of one of the most fertile minds in tennis. So without further ado, here's Jon's communique to y'all . And, PS: the photo that ran with the original post was shot by Adrian Dennis, of the AFP. This one, above, is Carl De Souza, also of the AFP. Both came from the Getty stockhouse - Pete:
Hi Everyone. Thanks to Pete for this opportunity to pull up a stool and hang out. Yes, Pete Rocks. And thanks to all of you for your encouragement, kind words, and questions. As much as the tennis suits talk about luring the “casual fan,” it is ultimately you — the incurable tennis-holics who hold strong opinions about Frank Dancevic’s runaway hair, who noticed Liezel Huber’s timely change of citizenship — that breathe so much life into our sport.
Obviously I’m going to be spending much of my foreseeable future in the “Cave of Pain,” trying to write this book. If any of you have observations or thoughts or tidbits of information, I want to invite you to pass them on. Anyway, to the mail:
Q: In your exploration of themes for the book on Roger Federer, have you determined the major turning points of his career, when he became the player he is today?
A: This is among the questions I would hope to ask Roger again. I discussed it with him a few years ago and he mentioned a couple. One was the French Open loss in 2003 to Luis Horna. As he put to me, he didn’t merely lose but felt he “didn’t leave it all out there….I disappointed myself with my effort.” All the questions about his untapped talent surface, but he does nothing drastic. He resists the calls to fire his coach, Peter Lundgren. Barely a month later, he is Wimbledon champ and suddenly he’s winning three Majors a year as a matter of ritual.
I think one of the readers is right, too. Later that year—having lost at the U.S. Open to the erstwhile Fed-buster, David Nalbandian—he tuned the field, Agassi included, winning the Masters Cup in Houston. Though Federer did not finish 2003 at No.1, by the time that year-end event was over, it was common knowledge that he was the best in the business.
Q: What is the most absurd question or comment you have heard a fellow journo putting to any tennis player?
A: Does it have to be tennis? My favorite sports journo question of all time: when doctors held a press conference after Mickey Mantle received a liver transplant, one intrepid scribe asked for an update on the health of the donor. As for tennis, where to begin? A recent example: Bethanie Mattek was asked during Wimbledon: "And the places that you got spanked the most for being a naughty girl and wearing something awful?" Without putting too fine a point on it: ick.
Q: Jon. :) the GOAT for the ladies and why?
A: Think you have to go Steffi. Win each Slam at least four times and that pretty much seals it for me. By my reckoning, Navratilova is second. Yes, her athleticism, doubles excellence and longevity work in her favor. But look at Steffi’s record and it’s just frightening. Did Graf benefit from the Seles stabbing? Unquestionably. (And would Seles have been the GOAT had she sustained her trajectory? Probably.) But I have a hard time giving much weight to the counter-factual. I mean, if Uncle Toni hadn’t converted his nephew to a tennis lefty, Federer would have won Wimbledon last weekend. I think you have to take the facts as they are and not as they might have been.
Two Linda Richman discuss-amongst-yourself offshoot questions. 1) I maintain the success of the Williams sisters is the most underrated story in sports. We’ve known about them for more than a decade and are perhaps numb to the narrative. (Take Tiger Woods and now imagine that his sibling, Lion, is his closest competitor.) But I’d put the Agassi-Graf marriage as a close second. Under one roof, we have two of tennis’ great champions—Laver marries Chris Evert—and remarkably little is of made of this.
2) When the GOAT for the women’s division is discussed, Margaret Court’s name is noticeably absent. I wonder how much her retreat from public life and some of her, shall we say, polarizing social views have affected the perception of her on-court achievements.
Q: Appreciated the recent plug on your SI column about the article on homosexuality and tennis running in the current issue of OUT magazine. BUT, therein lies the rub. Why is it that no mainstream tennis journalist (and that means the likes of you and Mr. Bodo) has covered the question of sexuality in themen's tennis game?* (Bill Tilden's escapades notwithstanding!). I'm a bit weary of the endless speculation (and slander--- Mr. Gimel-slob) re: lesbians and women's tennis, but rarely has a word been said about the men's game.*
A: I chose this question because I hoped it would encourage everyone to read that Out Magazine story:
But I’m not sure I understand your point. I don’t think the “mainstream tennis journalists” are avoiding the issue. If anything, there’s been restraint and a real restraint to “out” anyone. Until an active player comes out, I’m not sure what there is to say that isn’t speculative. I believe that an openly gay player would be able to continue his career just fine. Others clearly disagree.
Q: It's not topical, but I've always wondered how pros make their schedules. It seemed, for example that Fed plays Halle because it's quasi-local, but this year everyone else went to Queen's. Why did everyone else choose Queen's? I mean, I know there's the business of appearance fees, but what kind of guarantees do players get? For example, would a US tourney agree not to go after a higher seed once they've locked in a commitment from Roddick (and have to honor it even if a Djokovic decides he needs some match play)? To distill this back to the essence, what are the factors that tend to influence a player's schedule?
A: You’re right to note appearance fees. When an event is willing to break the bank, all conventional wisdom goes out the window. (Breaking the bank, incidentally, usually means going well into six figures). Why did Agassi forgo the Las Vegas event—and the rare chance to play a tournament and sleep in his own bed—in order to fly halfway across the world and play in Dubai? Um. Keep in mind, too, that events are often guaranteed a certain caliber or field by the tours (X-number of the top 10) so the tours sometimes broker schedules, especially when there are last-minute pullouts.
In the case of Queen’s versus Halle, this is utter speculation, but I can’t imagine that Federer and Nadal would be playing the same tune-up. First, they can make more $$ playing apart. Also, I doubt either wanted to run the risk of playing the other before Wimbledon.
Q: Once Brad Gilbert breaks free from the [LTA], what are the chances that Roger Federer would take him as a coach? Federer might be in need of a coach. or not. Do you think their personalities match? Personally I do not think so, Brad's too geeky wordy, but no one can deny his coaching capabilities, it worked with the two Andy's before. if somehow he can make roger win ugly against the "ugly" game of Nadal...wow! :)
A: BG: “Yeah, Rog, listen: You gotta go Al Davis on him. Just win, Baby. I’m mean take him to woodshed, sharpen the knives, draw the revolver, get on your bike, lace up the track shoes, and throw the kitchen sink at ‘em. It’s do or die time, back’s to the wall, there’s no tomorrow, win or go home, fourth-and-long with no time-outs, bottom of the ninth on the eighteenth hole, you know? We’re looking for the Kirk Gibson shot, Hill-to-Laettner, Montana-to-Clark, Miracle on Ice, Roger. You followin’ me, bro?”
RF: “Um, Mirka. You still got Roche on speed dial?”
Q: Don’t you think there is a huge potential conflict-of-interest when we have the Thorlo Sock Company actually sponsoring an event? We can easily get into a situation where the top seeds are provided with socks made from polypropylene nano-fibres, that wick moisture away from the body, while the lower ranked players are given cotton and wool. It’s like trying to play with wood and gut against some guy with an oversized graphite racquet and co-poly strings. But I guess that’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.
• Wow, that is disturbing. . .It’s like the broken window theory. Turn a blind eye to this and why….next thing you know, management companies will represent players AND own tournaments! Media personalities will fail to disclose their financial interests in the players they’re covering! The tours will represent players AND events! Thorlo must be stopped before conflicts of interest embed themselves in the fabric of the sport!