For the men, it's a U.S. wide Open

The millennium's first U.S. Open could hardly be more wide open as six different men have reached this year's Grand Slam finals. While all are threats to win, none rates as a clear cut favourite, writes PAUL FEIN.

THE NOISE, traffic, crowds and raucous ambience make Flushing Meadows an embarrassment to America's tennis establishment,'' admitted the late, great Arthur Ashe in 1990.

That is when compared to ``the gentility of Wimbledon, the savoir-faire of Roland Garros, and state-of-the-art Flinders Park,'' said Ashe.

On the barely endurable conditions at the U.S. Open, four-time singles champion John McEnroe said, ``It's total chaos.'' Mac should know because he often caused plenty of it.

Jimmy Connors thrived on that chaos, especially from the boisterous and often inebriated evening crowds. ``These fans are nuts and so am I,'' quipped the five-time titlist. ``We get along fine.''

But who's got enough game and character to conquer seven opponents as well as the maddening distractions that once provoked Kevin Curren to propose that an atom bomb be dropped on the site?

The millennium's first U.S. Open could hardly be more wide open and difficult to predict. Six different men have reached this year's Grand Slam finals; and while all are threats to win Flushing Meadows, none rates as a clear-cut favorite on the medium-speed Deco-Turf II surface.

To make sense of this almost-anything-can-happen men's field, I asked highly knowledgeable Tony Trabert, the 1953 and '55 U.S. champion and currently a TV tennis analyst.

``I pick Patrick Rafter to win again,'' forecasts Trabert. The long-haired heart throb, voted the most popular Australian in a 1998 newspaper poll, is fully recovered from shoulder surgery and proved he's back in peak form by making the Wimbledon final.

``Rafter is a tough guy to beat because he's a relentless serve- and-volleyer who keeps putting the pressure on you,'' explains Trabert. ``He's also gained confidence from winning the U.S. Open twice (1997-98) and doing well at Wimbledon. His semifinal victory against Andre0 Agassi was one of the best matches I've seen in a long time.''

Rafter can also beat the brutal New York heat. ``Rafter is very fit, more fit than a lot of the guys out there,'' says Trabert. ``And he's a terrific competitor. He'd won 11 straight five-set matches until he had to retire at 1-0 in the fifth set against (Cedric) Pioline with an injury last year at the U.S. Open.''

Trabert believes ``questionable fitness'' is the most likely reason Pete Sampras won't capture his fifth U.S. Open crown. ``When he won the (2000) Ericsson Open in four sets against (Gustavo) Kuerten, he could hardly stand up,'' recalls Trabert. ``He whispered to me afterwards in the awards ceremony, `Can we get this over with (fast)? I'm about to throw up.' And this is four sets of tennis on a hard court. Why does he throw up or get cramps, and the other guy doesn't?

``Pete is definitely not over the hill,'' says Trabert. ``He would win if he were in better shape. He seems to come up with more and more injuries. I don't think he's been fit for three or four years.''

Agassi, who hurt his back in a July car accident, is Trabert's second choice, if Rafter falters. ``He's not playing as well now as a year ago (when Agassi won his second U.S. Open after taking the French Open and making the Wimbledon final). But a lot depends on his dedication and how hard he works this summer.''

Kuerten grabbed his second French Open title in June with a thrilling victory over Magnus Norman by adding an improved volley and serve to his dynamic groundstrokes. But the popular Brazilian ``has to work very hard (to win points) on hardcourts, and that can eventually take its toll,'' says Trabert. ``And, if you can rush him, his long backswings are his downfall.''

What about the relatively unheralded Norman, who has intermittently led the 2000 ATP Tour points race thanks to capturing the Italian Open (beating six highly ranked opponents) and reaching the Australian Open semis and French Open final? ``Norman is a solid player, but I don't see him winning at Flushing Meadow,'' says Trabert. ``He doesn't have enough weapons, and I don't know how he'll handle the pressure in the later rounds'' - a reference to his nervousness in the Oz Open semis and very slow start in the final at Roland Garros.

As for 1999 U.S. Open semifinalist and 2000 Australian Open runner-up Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Trabert says: ``I don't trust his head. He's had too many ups and downs. He doesn't have a super knockout punch and his second serve can be suspect.''

Trabert considers handsome, No. 10-ranked Juan Carlos Ferrero - touted by experts as the next Spanish star because of his explosive groundies and poise - as a darkhorse. ``He was terrific at the French, very impressive in getting to the semis there and nearly beating Kuerten.''

Mark Philippoussis, the 1998 U.S. Open runnerup, remains, at 23, the semi-sleeping giant of men's tennis. Boris Becker, his recent advisor, says ``Scud'' has reached only ``40 percent of his capability.''

``Philippoussis's head is a little suspect,'' cautions Trabert. ``His shot selection is questionable when he hits his groundstrokes too hard. But his powerful game is very effective at Flushing Meadow. He certainly has a chance to win the title, and he's a likely quarterfinalist or semifinalist.''

Lleyton Hewitt, only 19, plays best at ATP Tour events and acknowledges, ``I still haven't made a Grand Slam quarterfinal.'' Trabert says, ``He'll have a good U.S. Open because he's good on hard courts, runs very well and has self-confidence, which you must have.''

Here's how Trabert rates the best of the rest:

Marat Safin - ``He could do well if his head is screwed on right. He has a tremendous number of weapons. He's one of the biggest question marks going into the U.S. Open.''

Tommy Haas - ``I don't think he's as good as people think he is. I've seen Haas not try 100 percent.''

Tim Henman - ``He's proved he doesn't win the big stuff. He doesn't seem to come through in the clutch.''

Roger Federer - ``I'm not that impressed with him at this stage. He won't get to the quarters unless he has a great draw.''

Jan-Michael Gambill - ``He had some good moments at Wimbledon (upsetting Hewitt and Thomas Enqvist en route to the quarters), but he's a darkhorse at best.''

Todd Martin - ``He can play excellent tennis. But he has trouble in the early rounds where he has to work very hard. And it costs him later, like in last year's U.S. Open final when he ran out of gas against Agassi.''

Is Pete Sampras the greatest player of all time?

Trabert: ``He's done poorly on clay which hurts the overall evaluation. Otherwise, his record has been terrific. I have to go with Rod Laver because he's done something no one else has done: win the Grand Slam twice (in 1962 and '69). Laver won 11 Grand Slam singles titles, and he couldn't play (the major events because they barred pros then) for five years in his prime.''

The women

After Venus Williams dethroned Lindsay Davenport in the memorable Wimbledon final, nine-time singles champ Martina Navratilova raved, ``A fantastic performance by a fantastic athlete.''

Another former tennis queen, Chris Evert, viewed the TV ratings- breaking triumph not only as a long-expected Grand Slam breakthrough for Venus and a catalyst for African-Americans in a sport hitherto dominated by whites, but as a continuing, unmistakable trend.

``Right now the women are taking over,'' enthused Evert. ``Pete and Andre are taking men's tennis on their shoulders, but the women have many at the top.''

Not everyone will agree with Evert's ``taking over'' claim. But the days are over when one female superstar, like Suzanne Lenglen, Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court and Steffi Graf, can rampage through women's tennis, or even when two giants, like Navratilova and Evert, can carve up the spoils of victory.

A stunning depth of talent highlights the distaff side in the new millennium. Four different players have captured the last four Grand Slam events, and eight different players have taken the last ten Slams. Furthermore, four different champions have grabbed the past four U.S. Opens.

All this parity makes predictions more hazardous than ever. So I consulted authoritative, intrepid Pam Shriver, a five-time U.S. Open doubles champion and singles finalist in 1978.

``I'll pick Davenport,'' says Shriver, now a TV tennis analyst. ``She'll be very, very hungry after losing the Wimbledon final. She's going to work really hard to be in top shape for the U.S. Open. She'll take the ascent of Venus and Serena as a major challenge. Lindsay likes challenges like that. Since the U.S. Open (in 1998) was her first major, and she had the sour taste of losing the title last year, she'll want it back even more.''

But how does the graceful Davenport stack up against the more athletic Williams sisters?

``The main area where the Williamses dominate Lindsay is speed, which is a big area. You can see what it brought Venus at Wimbledon,'' says Shriver. ``But Lindsay's serve is as good or better. And her groundstrokes are more consistent. If Lindsay hits big off the ground and serves well, I still think she's the best hardcourt player.''

Although Shriver gives Davenport a slight edge over the most famous female siblings in sports, she says, ``It certainly wouldn't surprise me if Venus won it. But it's been really hard for anyone in the past two years to win two majors in a row because there are so many people who can win them.''

Shriver, who mentors Venus with the WTA Tour, points out where Venus has most improved. ``Venus has gained confidence in her forehand and second serve, and that could be huge for her to get over the hump. And she is a lot better strategically. She thinks her way much better through matches. The win over (Martina) Hingis at Wimbledon is a perfect example of that because Hingis is so clever on the court. But Venus was right with her every step of the way.''

Like Venus, who was plagued for seven months by tendinitis in both wrists, Serena, still only 18, has been sidelined for much of 2000 by injuries. Serena hurt her back at the '99 Chase Championships, her leg at Amelia Island and has suffered from knee tendinitis. Despite all that, Shriver feels muscular Serena, who immodestly but rightly calls herself ``a great athlete,'' could repeat ``if she continues to stay healthy.'' Towards that end father-coach Richard Williams has hired an athletic therapist. Serena certainly boasts the numbers: she's whipped Davenport the last four times they've played and Hingis three of the last four. And in just two U.S. Opens, this Wonder Woman has captured the singles, doubles and mixed doubles titles, a feat achieved only by legends Court, Billie Jean King and Navratilova in the Open Era.

What about Hingis, who hasn't won a Grand Slam since the '99 Australian Open? Even the no-longer-cocky Swiss Miss concedes that she doesn't deserve to to be No. 1 anymore. ``Her dominant period is over,'' says Shriver. ``She had that window of opportunity before the Williamses got very good and before Davenport found her game. I do think she'll win some more majors. She can be successful if she takes more risks on her serve and comes to net more like when she dominated. Hingis is a safe bet to make the semifinals because she tends to be very consistent.''

``Seles is closer to being in the thick of things than people think,'' believes Shriver. ``She's lost 20 pounds. The key for Monica is to keep that (training) momentum up and lose another 10 or 15 pounds and maintain that. That (fitness level) is enough to make her a threat. Look at her at Wimbledon - she could have beaten Davenport.''

Shriver thinks Mary ``The Body'' Pierce, the surprise French Open champion, is overdue for a successful Flushing Meadows fortnight. Pierce has gone as far as the quarters only twice in eight tries. ``Mary can play some really good hardcourt tennis,'' says Shriver. ``When she hits her stride and plays her best, like she did at the French, she really is so good. It's just that she doesn't hit her best that often.''

Former whiz kid Jennifer Capriati, now 24, has rebounded to No. 15 and recently said, ``I definitely feel like I can contend with anybody now.'' Shriver agrees: ``On a hard court she can play just great. She just needs to get in a little better shape. She proved at the Australian Open (where she reached the semis) that she can contend again at a major.''

Shriver doesn't see French Open finalist Conchita Martinez, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Amanda Coetzer and tour glamour girl Anna Kournikova as contenders and is doubtful that inconsistent Frenchwoman Amelie Mauresmo will rise to the occasion. ``Amelie occasionally has a great run, like when she beat Davenport and Hingis back-to-back at Sydney this year. But she seems to have only two or three excellent weeks a year.''

For darkhorses, Shriver selects Kim Clijsters, a sturdy 17-year- old from Belgium, African-American veteran Chanda Rubin and 17- year-old Australian Jelena Dokic, who surrendered only 26 games in her first five Wimbledon matches.

``Clijsters is mature and strong and nearly beat Serena at the U.S. Open last year,'' says Shriver. ``Rubin's forehand is one of the best shots in tennis and makes her a threat.

``Dokic is not afraid of doing well at the majors,'' says Shriver. ``That's always a big plus. She's a good hardcourt player. And she's got a couple of weapons in her backhand and forehand.''

Will the Williams tandem, who won the '99 French and U.S. Opens and the 2000 Wimbledon, break the seemingly insurmountable doubles records that the great Navratilova-Shriver duo set?

Shriver: ``It's conceivable because it looks like they'll play only with each other, and if they win two Slams a year for the next 10 years, that's 20, which is where Martina and I (and Louise Brough- Margaret Osborne duPont) ended up. Yeah, they could do that. But they'll never get our 109-match winning streak.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Nirupama loses