| |
Feedback:
friday, august 5
Sam Warburg's sister responds
Plus: Hantuchova, doubles
I am writing to you in response to the piece that you wrote about
World Team Tennis, "Hingis Tearing up WTT." The last three sentences
of the piece are particularly what I would like to focus on.
While I am fully aware that my younger brother Sam [Warburg] has not won
every match or every game that he has played thus far, I am curious
as to why of all the tennis professionals playing in the league,
you have chosen to target his record in such a negative fashion.
His losses this year have been to players who are ranked in the
Top 150. As a brand new member of the tour, and WTT
(a league that has an incredibly unorthodox format), it should
not be expected that he beats these people easily, or at all.
If that were the case, he would already be playing with the likes
of these players, and would have forgone attending college all
four years. What you also left unmentioned is that his lone win
came against JP Fruttero, another collegiate standout from Cal
Berkeley.
Which brings me to my next point, your comment about collegiate
play. Sam made a personal decision to remain in college all four
years. To Sam and to my family, it was more important to graduate
with a degree from Stanford, than to take a chance at the tour,
and possibly not "making it." My parents raised both
my brother and I to be team players. With that being said, we
were both very excited about the prospect of playing team tennis
in college. Sam had the choice of what he wanted to do, and he
choose to have a life, and remain in college, graduate, have friends
outside of the game, study hard and enjoy four years of his life
on a beautiful campus. Along the way, he just happened to have
an amazing tennis career, play for one of collegiate sports greatest
coaches, and be part of a Stanford legacy. I know that in speaking
for him he would never take one second of that back for anything.
So why is it an "ouch" that he went to college?
I wish that before you decided to write those three sentences
you had thought about that fact that some people make decisions
in their life based on their future rather than the present. In
the case of my brother, he is a talented tennis player, but more
importantly he is great person and a very well rounded individual.
Does he think that he will be making his entire career a professional
tennis career? I am sure he would be ecstatic about that, however,
if he finds that it isn’t fun, and he is no longer enjoying
it, than he will know that it is time to move on. In the end,
Sam has a diploma from Stanford, and no one can take that away
from him. Not even a losing record in World Team Tennis.
I hope that this letter helps you see another point of view.
Emily Warburg
Mark Lyons |
| Daniela Hantuchova plays in Standord in the summer of 2003. |
I read with great interest your in Tennis-X, and was struck by
one of your comments regarding Daniela Hantuchova's admission
of her family problems being the root of her weight loss.
You commented that your scoop on the subject had caused Hantuchova
some grief, and that she had been upset about the story; you also
noted that she was on good terms with you again after some initial
awkwardness.
But the use of the term "admission" implies that Hantuchova told
the story of her own freewill. Why was there friction if the story
was divulged freely? What else is there to the story that hasn't
yet been told? Did her story answer all of the questions you had,
or did it leave you wondering?
I've been an admirer of Hantuchova for a number of years—both
of her game and of her character, which took an incredible amount
of harassment during that summer of 2003, with the media having
a go at her at
every turn. It took a tremendous amount of grace for her not to
have lashed out at the press for that, and there's no doubt in
my mind that the abuse she took that summer was a fatal blow to
her confidence and her career.
I'd love to see her back in the Top 10, but with each passing
week, it seems to be wishful
thinking. Your efforts to bring tennis news and views to info-starved
fans (such as myself) is
greatly appreciated!
Cheryl Ernst
You over rate Kim Clijsters’ chances of winning the US Open
and under rate how tired Venus Williams was at Stanford.
Ginny Turnington
From my court, reducing professional doubles is not very wise.
The majority of players at my club (and most clubs, I suspect)
are, first and foremost (perhaps exclusively), doubles players.
It has to be at least two to one in terms of court use. If a tournament
bans or cripples doubles play, I certainly will not buy spectator
tickets to an event any more than I would watch long singles matches
on TV (other than the obvious choices like finals with Lindsay/Venus
and Federer/Anybody). I understand the tournament directors’
interest in keeping costs down, but they are turning their back
on their audience. This is "growing tennis"? I think
not!
Bill Fairly
I really do not understand why your web site is after Lleyton
Hewitt. You tried it during Wimbledon and now again during Davis
Cup.
The truth is Guillermo Coria is in the wrong profession. He is the worst loser the sport has ever
known. Plus, not to forget, he is a cheater in line calls. Ask Agassi about what he thinks about Coria if you
do not know.
The sport of tennis would be better off without the likes of Coria.
Way to go, Lleyton.
Suketu Shah, India
Thanks for posting my comment regarding consecutive Wimbledon
titles, Borg, Sampras, Perry, Federer and Laver. Reading it now
I see I could have made my point more clear: consecutive is consecutive,
I know, but after Laver won his first he won it the next three times
he was allowed to
play. He wins in '62, turns pro, can't play again till '68, wins
'68 and '69. I didn't mean to highlight Laver's greatness so much
as comment that that's pretty close to consecutive.
I seem to remember that when asked once about how his draw might
be weak at one particular tournament, Connors replied that he
could only beat the guys who came up against him, that it wasn't
his fault he wasn't facing other players in the draw. Laver's
record vis a vis consecutive Wimbledon wins is much the same thing,
no?
Skip Schwarzman
Cronin responds:
On Warburg: All great points and no offense to
Sam's personal choices. The "ouch" comes from the fact
that even the best college players – like Sam – are having harder
and harder times competing at the pro level, which is why so many
juniors are choosing to go straight to the pros, rather than go
to college. No one would disagree that the collegiate experience
is more valuable overall than going straight from high school
on to the Futures circuit, but the fact is that collegiate level
tennis is no longer proven to be a good primer for the ATP Tour,
unless you are merely thinking about playing doubles.
On Hantuchova, to clarify further, yes I
was privy to the information first and asked her about and it
wasn’t until then that she admitted it. She didn’t
just blurt it out. She’s a gracious and smart person and
many folks are rooting for her to re-join the Top 10, but she
still has many miles to go. I also said in the Tennis-X interview that I was unsure where
my relationship with Anastasia Myskina would be at Roland Garros and Wimbledon,
but it’s all good now.
On doubles: I’ve never seen a direct correlation
between the number of recreational players who choose to play
doubles over singles (that decision has much to do with conditioning)
at their club and whether those players will attend pro tournaments
to actually watch doubles over singles.
|
|
|
