That, I think, is very close to how Pete Sampras felt, and this book will explore what that means and how it directed Pete's life and career. I'm glad to say this will be no kiss-and-tell bio, or explosive Jose Canseco-grade confessional. There will be no Pete Sampras celebrity champion as philosopher king or planet saver. Pete is like the Joe DiMaggio of tennis; dignified, private, above-the-fray, beyond gossip, reticent. This will be a hardcore tennis book, and to hail with the dirty laundry. It will treat the nature and substance of Greatness in athletics and the components of success, some of which will undoubtedly resonate beyond the confines of the tennis court.
On an entirely unrelated subject, Steggy and I have had extensive discussions about the growth and success of TennisWorld, and one of my concerns as the author of TW is that Steggy's role as a moderator and administrative helper has adversely affected her ability to participate in the general discussion in the Comments section. So we decided to go with a different approach to moderating the site. We will have an opaque, anonymous Moderator, who will go by that name (see first Comment, below), and be available via email should any of you have questions or issues relating to our standards, off-topic policies, etc. Steggy will now be free to crawl out of her bombproof, booby-trapped, well-camouflaged bunker hidden deep in the swamps near Houston and re-join you all in the verdant and sunny Tribal meadows. She will continue posting Comments and blog entries as herself.
And now for a red-meat tennis item. Many of you read and commented on regular Comment poster Sam's wonderful recent post, Tier Time! I was so impressed by the work Sam and Andrew did in creating a Player Quality Index that I'd like to make it an official feature of TW, which we can all refer to when the occasion warrants. Who knows, perhaps the ATP or WTA will also adopt Sam's statistically-based, objective standard for measuring the specific rungs various players occupy on the ladder of tennis Greatness (there's that word again!).
Sam has agreed to re-visit his original system and methodology, which I am officially dubbing Sam's Player Quality Index or SPQI (until such time as someone comes up with a preferable title), contingent on what input he gets from you all.
I'll start things off by saying that I think that GS wins ought to be weighted more heavily in comparison to YEC titles (although the fact that there is only 1 YEC means that whatever Sam decides, it won't overly skew the SPQI). I think Jenn was the first to suggest that finals and perhaps even semifinal showings at majors ought to be considered. This is an attractive idea, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the SPQI ought to really emphasize this whole "Tier" concept. We already have an ATP ranking system that rewards consistency and steady performance.
Guys (or women) who routinely get to quarters and semis at big events are acknowledged in the rankings. To me, the SPQI (Spicwee?) ought to separate the Big Dogs from the rest of the pack. The exception I would make in that regard would be for Grand Slam finals; there aren't that many Tier II players who reach major finals - or rather, there are a fair number, but they tend not to be the same ones. I would give players less credit for winning the YEC, and give them the equivalent of a Masters Series title for reaching a GS final.
Beyond that, a "quality wins" component would be justifiable; give the players bonus points (under the present system, they would have to be fractions of points, I think) for beating Top 5 players enroute to GS, YEC or Masters Series titles. This would increase Sam (and Andrew's?) work load, but it would be a useful feature.
And finally, I would consider awarding points for performance in sub-Masters Series events based on the quality of the event. I wouldn't rely on the ATPs tournament tier-structure for creating this scale, because the thorny guarantee issue means that some minor tournaments could in fact attract stronger fields than some of the ones that award more points and higher purses. The key would be evaluating each event on strength of field and assigning a value on that basis. That is, if San Jose attracted four of the Top 10, it ought to be worth more quality points than, say, Las Vegas, if The Tennis Channel Open only featured two of the Top 10.
That's my input, as one of you. The final decision will be up to Sam. So share your thoughts here for Sam and everyone else to read. Then Sam can run a model, revised version of the SPQI and once the kinks are ironed out, we'll use it as our official standard.
Last thing: The reports yesterday that the ATP will begin awarding an equal number of ranking points to Masters Series and Grand Slam winners were erroneous (but it is the kind of thing that might make you go, Hmmmmmm. . .). This morning, ATP Vice-President of Communications Graeme Agars notified the International Tennis Writers Association that the ranking points will remain: GS win, 2,000; Masters Series win, 1000.
Hat tip to Siva, aka Ptenisnet, for alerting me to this rolling story yesterday afternoon. I'm glad I didn't post on it. . .
