Tennis Hall of Shame

She was like a little kid at Christmas. At least, that's how I remember the look on Martinez's face when she won Wimbledon in 1994: holding the trophy, sliding sideways onto Navratilova's shoulder, and grinning like someone had just given her the greatest, most coveted GIFT.

That Wimbledon final and the semifinal before it were the only times I can really remember seeing Martinez emotional in her long career: the one time where she let her competitive desires really show, perhaps because it was the time she really felt she had a chance at a great prize. Neither of the players she typically lost to tamely in GS events -- Graf, Seles -- was there to get in her way, and she must have known she could beat McNeil and that Navratilova's age would make her vulnerable to being made to run hard.

In recent years, Martinez's game has looked more and more at odds with the prevailing trends: heavy spin in an age of power hitting; one-handed backhand, and the player often stationed far behind the baseline. Martinez never even looked particularly fit compared to the others (the Daily Telegraph a few years ago described the modern female tennis player as having "muscles on her muscles". Yet I never remember seeing Martinez run out of gas during a match or even look particularly winded or discomposed after very long points. She must have *been* very fit, even if she didn't look it.

She was, however, extraordinarily silent -- and/or ignored by the press. I think the only time I can ever remember seeing or hearing her speak was right after that Wimbledon win. In recent years, when she might have had a lot of interest to say about the sport, I can't remember seeing a single interview.

She had some great moments: helped win not only Spain's first Fed Cup but its first *five* Fed cups; three Olympic medals; two other GS finals; many clay court titles. The game will miss her and her variety.

Posted by wendyg at 05:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If there's one thing more annoying than another it's the misrepresentation of the French Open's decision to pay the women's singles winner the same as the men's as "prize money parity". It's not. Not even close. It's even more hypocritical than paying the winner less, which reflects the true state of affairs: the women are paid less than the men except in the singles qualifying rounds. The fact is that players are *not* paid to play matches, that's the fun part; they are paid to train six to eight hours every day, travel 300-plus days a year, and put up with being trashed by fans, critics, and journalists and having to pee in cups and report their whereabouts at all times to the anti-doping authorities. .

Here (PDF) is the actual prize money breakdown from 2005 and 2004. Note that although more of the top female stars still play doubles, the men's doubles money is higher.

In her book about women's tennis of a few years ago (published only in French, I'm afraid), Nathalie Tauziat commented that more important than the gender difference, however, is the percentage of prize money awarded to the winners. Changing the percentage so that somewhat more was distributed for the earlier rounds would be fairer, and would also make it easier for those players to be able to afford the coaches and assistance to help them play their best tennis -- which , as fans, is what we should all want to see. She blamed the American habit of always quoting the winner's check, and noted that more emphasis on the size of the total purse would help. Unfortunately, I think tennis, too, has fallen victim to the increasing gap between what the stars get and what everyone else gets.

wg

Posted by wendyg at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)