A conversation with Martina Hingis and which has more parity, the men’s game or the women’s game?
Hingis and Chakvetadze
I left the Acura Classic Saturday and stopped off at Legoland on the way home. I wandered through a Lego brick version of Las Vegas – a model of a model you could say – and sailed past a Lego brick model of the Taj Mahal. I’m sure I was the only single adult there and that’s too bad because there were lots of things I couldn’t do because I had no kid in tow. Anyone have a kid I can borrow?
The revelation at the Acura Classic was Anna Chakvetadze who outlasted Venus Williams in a knock-down, drag-out three set battle in the quarterfinals. People compare Chakvetadze to Martina Hingis and not just because they are the same height and weight. They both have cerebral games instead of power games.
Today is the first day of the East West Bank Classic just south of Los Angeles so I asked Hingis if the comparison was accurate:
She’s very smart around the court and she has good vision. You don’t see anything specific that she’s winning matches [with] so I definitely see some similarities.
This last statement is interesting because Hingis is describing both her game and Chakvetadze’s game. You don’t see anything specific such as a huge serve or a big backhand or blinding speed yet they both win a lot of matches and, in Hingis’ case, 43 titles and five slams.
They also have a negative similarity. Both of them have weak second serves. Chakvetadze hit a 64 mph(103 km/h) second serve against Venus but, being the smart cookie she is, it was an ace that sliced wide and out of Venus’ reach. Chakvetadze did have a few problems with nerves. She served six double faults after going up 5-2 in the first set. I asked Hingis if she suffered from nerves early in her career.
Obviously, everyone knows that my serve was never a weapon. It was good enough and I had a high percentage on my first serves just to get me into play and that’s the most important thing.
Will a high percentage of first serves and cerebral play get Chakvetadze five slams in today’s game? Let’s see how she does against the current power players who’ve won slams. She’s 1-2 against Venus, 0-2 against Svetlana Kuznetsova, and 1-5 against Maria Sharapova (and that win was a walkover). Chakvetadze is also 0-2 against Justine Henin and 0-3 against Amelie Mauresmo, two slightly less powerful slam winners.
By that measure, it doesn’t look so good for Chakvetadze so I’m not willing to project five slams any time soon. What do you think?
Politics and the WTA
This year I’ve been watching the WTA auction off the year-end championship. They recently signed a $42 million deal to send the championship to Doha starting next year for three years. Istanbul signed the same size deal to get it for the following three years.
I had planned to ask Hingis if she felt comfortable having such an important women’s event take place in Muslim countries but we never got that far because when I asked her if the players had much input into the decision, she didn’t even know the event was going to Turkey. Clearly they don’t have much input.
Someone asked her if she wanted to be more involved in WTA decisions and she said she tried to be influential after her return to the tour last year but it was like “knocking on the wall and you’re not getting through.”
She said that language is also a problem:
When we had the board meetings at the grand slams, half of the people don’t even understand what we talk about, then it’s very hard to have an influence.
The WTA now provides translation at the meetings – no doubt Russian is one of the languages offered – but you get the idea that Hingis is old-guard in more ways than one. The WTA was founded by the players but these days they’re too busy with their careers and entourages. They travel like separate satellites that touch down next to each other during a match but go their separate ways as soon as the match is over.
The result is that there is no cohesive player input into the WTA’s decisions and that’s too bad. Lindsay Davenport is returning to the tour this fall – she plans to play singles in Bali in September. The more old-guard the better I say, let’s get Martina some help.
Parity in the Men’s and Women’s Game
There were a number of lopsided victories in the later rounds at the Acura Classic in San Diego so I decided to compare last week’s men’s event in Washington with San Diego to see if there was more parity in the men’s or the women’s game.
This is not a scientific sample as it only includes two tournaments and it’s also highly unfair because Washington was rockin’ last week. All five sets in the men’s semifinals ended in tiebreakers. Not only that but John Isner became the first player in the Open Era to win five straight matches with a third set tiebreaker. Think the serve is important to his game? I think so.
This also means that the Washington courts were faster than San Diego because it’s easier to hold serve on a fast court and that means more tiebreakers. And the serve isn’t as important in the women’s game as it is the men’s but let’s look at the results anyway since I took the time to compile them.
Bagel sets (sets with a score of 6-0) are a good indicator of lopsidedness and there were ten bagel sets in San Diego – including one in the final – and only two in Washington. Three set matches, on the other hand, are a sign of competitiveness. There were 15 three set matches in San Diego while there were 22 in Washington.
It’s even worse if you consider that San Diego had a 56 player draw while Washington had 48 players. That means Washington had eight fewer matches to come up with its numbers.
I hereby declare, unscientifically, that there is more parity in the men’s game.
Check out our new myspace page and add us to your friends network!