Take yourself 11 years back to the spring of 1997. Steffi Graf had been the No. 1 player for the past year and a half. Her unwaveringly powerful groundstrokes, her bullet of a serve, and her solid net game all contributed to her established reign as the undisputed queen of tennis. Then, suddenly and out-of-nowhere, an extremely talented youngster by the name of Martina Hingis shocked the world and stole the crown from her. This sweet, clever little princess snatched the crown from its previous holder before she even knew it was gone; furthermore, she wouldn’t let it go for another year and a half. Now, bring yourself back to the 2008 spring season. Justine Henin’s unwaveringly powerful groundstrokes, her bullet of a serve, and her solid net game all helped establish her reign as the idle queen of tennis. Henin, at 5 ft. 5 in., had been No. 1 for the past year and a half, but instead of having the crown stolen from her like Graf, she willingly gave it up with a sudden retirement (as she said, “the ‘fire inside’…just didn’t come back”). So, an extremely talented Serb by the name of Ana Ivanovic picked up the tiara, smiling, and delicately placed it on her head. Sound like déjà vu to anyone? And now that Ivanovic has the crown resting on her head, will it shake and fall to someone else or will it remain there for another year and a half? To put it simply, I don’t see Ivanovic, whether she wants to or not, holding on to her top spot.
Although the conditions surrounding the changing of the guard in both situations are relatively similar, the manners in which the two players got the crown were very different. For one, Hingis’ playing style required much more court intelligence than Ivanovic’s. Hingis, because her small stature allowed for less power, had to utilize all sides and angles of the court; contrastingly, Ivanovic stands almost 6 inches taller than Hingis at 6 ft. 1 in. and, because of this height, her game revolves around a blistering forehand and, just simply, all-around power. When Hingis took the No. 1 throne, the shift in ruling was one of mighty serve and groundstrokes to one of stanch technique and crafty use of the court. The transition of top honor this season has been one of dominant serve and strokes to, well, one of dominant serve and strokes. The shift in 1997 was a radical one. The difference 11 years later isn’t really much of a difference (except maybe in height).
After taking charge in ’97, Hingis proved her dominance by winning 4 of the next 5 majors (the only one she couldn’t nab was the 1997 French Open, where she lost in the final). To become No. 1, Ivanovic won a major too, which ironically enough was none other than the 2008 FrenchOpen. Hingis is certainly different then Ivanovic in another way: she was a prodigy. Yes, Hingis did have a venomous mouth that spat insults like a faulty cappuccino machine does boiling water, but she was a tennis genius, and a tennis genius at age 16. While Ivanovic is certainly a naturally gifted player, she has stated more than once that her hard work (in war-torn Serbia, which definitely proves her dedication to the sport) night and day helped make her what she is: World No. 1. Hingis made her ball-striking seem almost effortless, while Ivanovic’s constant squeals prove she has to work, and work hard, to win each point. The WTA rankings for the week of June 16, 2008 had Ivanovic’s fellow Serb Jelena Jankovic in a close second place (there are less than 1,000 points between the two Serbians). Hingis held her top spot for over a year and a half, receiving the #1 seed in every tournament she entered and dominating the entire time. Ivanovic looks pretty unlikely to keep hers because, depending on who ended up where at the end of the ’08 French Open, any one of the top 4 players could have been No. 1—Ivanovic just happened to squeak it out (a three-set nail-bitter of a win over Jankovic in the French semifinals certainly didn’t help her campaign to certify dominance). The fact is: Hingis had a solid hold on the top spot; Ivanovic, on the other hand, has a solid struggle for the top spot.
The characteristics and polar opposite personalities of these two players also drastically differentiate them. As I said before, Hingis had a mouth that was known more for its ability to throw up insults than to chew comments humbly (for Christ’s sake, she took a jab at her 1999 Australian Open final opponent and lesbian, Amélie Mauresmo, when she said, “She’s here with her girlfriend. She’s half a man already”). Many people thought she was a spoiled, cocky little brat; but all respected her because they knew that she was not the tennis player to face out on the court. On the other hand, Ivanovic is an extremely sweet, conciliatory 20-year old (Jon Wertheim, a CNN reporter, remarked about Ivanovic’s personality in an article about the 2008 French Open: “Many people…questioned her toughness and ‘too-niceness’ after her loss in Australia”). Her glittering personality seems to be built completely of sugar, but that sugar is a rock candy-type sugar that has hardened her on court (Wertheim goes on to say, “Many people…questioned her toughness…after her loss inAustralia. No more”). Ivanovic, now, knows when to be cocky and tough (on court), while Hingis really never did—she was always that way.
Ivanovic may be a sweet, unassuming player with a growing, complimentary fan base; but her mental toughness is a rabbit compared to Hingis’ eagle-like determination. As Hingis entered her first-ever Grand Slam final, the 1997 Australian Open, she faced a sturdy opponent in Mary Pierce, who had won that very same tournament 2 years prior. Hingis barely had 16 years added to her belt, but instead of capsizing in the final like the Titanic, she gave the French player her worst ever Grand Slam final defeat with a 6-2, 6-2 domination. Ivanovic was 3 years Hingis’ senior when she reached her first Grand Slam final, the 2007 French Open. However, Ivanovic’s results were the complete opposite of Hingis’; she won a pitiful 3 games, receiving a 6-1, 6-2 thrashing. Now, granted, her opponent was Justine Henin and she had dominated that tournament for the past 2 years, but Ivanovic didn’t really even put up much of a fight. Hingis went on to win 3 back-to-back majors after her ’97 French Open loss; it remains to be seen whether Ivanovic can do the same, especially with the pros’ identical playing styles (they all hit the ball really hard and really flat). In Hingis’ day, the players were much more varied in their technique then Ivanovic’s are now, and Hingis made them all look weak and feeble compared to her; Ivanovic just doesn’t issue that kind of confidence and domination right now.
To take nothing away from Ivanovic, her positive attitude and strong game really do seem to be pointing her in the direction of more major championships. However, right now, her hold at No. 1 seems to be breaking open more and more. The next major tournament,Wimbledon, is not her strongest, and especially with Venus Williams there, it’s going to be very difficult for her to follow in Hingis’ footsteps (as Mary Carillo, a famous tennis commentator, stated, “She’s the best grass court player of her generation”). Let’s go another major down the championship road to the U.S. Open, where Ivanovic has produced her worst results of the 4 majors (her best result at the U.S. Open was the 4th round in ’07). With so many mentally tough players in Ivanovic’s field (the Williams sisters and Sharapova immediately come to mind) and fellow Serb Jankovic nipping at her heels, her reign will surely be short-lived. In about a week, we’re off to the aforementioned Wimbledon. Can Ivanovic improve upon last year’s semifinal result and hold her No. 1 position? If the field’s as strong as last year’s, I doubt that will happen; but at least she can proudly say that she was No. 1 in the world, which only 17 female tennis players to this day can say.
The Spain of the 1960s found very few novilleros (young bullfighters) to idolize and to watch with focused, anticipated interest. The pickings were slim for such brute intellects to be accepted by an adoring community looking for someone to which they could attach themselves like little kids around a super-mall Santa Claus. The few of this brave group, whom the Spanish public accepted, reached the storied status of matador—a status worshiped as unfailingly as a pop idol. Fortunately, tennis’ modern version of the novillero, Rafael Nadal, is no pop idol; but rather a dedicated, talented, and successful Spanish tennis player (he’s No. 2 in the world behind the incomparable Roger Federer and has been for 3 years running). His first breakthrough surface was the famous European red clay and it was at the French Open where tennis fans really started to take notice of him.
Nadal earned the title “King of Clay” after the start of his reign at Stade Roland Garros in 2005 (he took down Federer in the semis on his way to the title that year and would later defeat him at the 2006 and 2007 French finals). The 2008 clay season, just like the ones before, brought with it critics’ doubts that Nadal could maintain his hold in Paris. The standstill No. 1, Roger Federer, needed only the French to certify him as “The Greatest Ever,” so his determination seemed deadly. And then there was the talented, up-and-coming World No. 3 Novak Djokovic, who started the year by stealing the first Grand Slam, the Australian Open, from its previous owner—yep, you guessed it—Roger Federer. The stage, or rather thestade, was set for two talented French Open losers to finally take the crown from its three-time holder.
The climbing pressure these two scavengers placed on Nadal seemed nothing more than a 5-pound dumbbell to him, and so, in usual fashion, he silenced his critics with wins at 2 of the 3 Masters Series clay events (one atHamburg, where he had never won before). He came into the 2008 French Open as the overwhelming favorite, a novillero ready to realize his famed potential. But was he still a novillero after taking three consecutive French Open titles? You bet. The one record holding him back was that of a fourth straight title, which would put him solely in the company of the legend Bjorn Borg—the only player to lift 4 consecutive Coupes des Mousquetaires.
Nadal entered the 2008 French Open with his usual attitude: a humble hunger that he would fill only with a fourthCoupe. His racquet and laser-like, penetrating topspin shots—especially his lethal forehand—overwhelmed his opponents. One-by-one his constant barrage of force and mere cleverness exhausted the entrants like dead bulls at the arena. Each of his first five opponents collapsed without posing a challenge, until he met Djokovic in the semis. Djokovic’s weathered horns came close to piercing Nadal in a third set tiebreak, but it wasn’t enough, and Nadal reached his fourth continuous final. His opponent on the other side of the net was none other than…Roger Federer. Everyone assumed this match-up, the third straight in the finals, would be intense, exciting, and, most of all, close. On the contrary, it was Federer’s worst defeat ever in a Grand Slam final. With a 6-1, 6-3, and 6-0 victory, Nadal raised his fourth successive Coupe without having dropped a set the entire tournament, joining Borg as one of the greatest clay-courters ever. He had finally graduated from accomplished novillero to legendary matador. Covered in his homely red clay, Nadal never seemed so blissful and his dominación never seemed so incontrovertible.
Garrett
Mark
metapansy
INK 