From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Ramblings
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:22:55 GMT


   I am just starting to read _Hard_Courts_ by John Feinstein.  Expensive
book even in paperback.  It's a nice read so far, though I should be
wary (as Shun pointed out) since it's easy to be lulled to equating
a book that's good to read with a fair assessment of what is really
happening.  One thing the book makes you aware of is that while
we may admire the pros and the way they play, it's one thing
to admire the life, but another to live that life.  For example,
despite my liking Lendl the player, Lendl is portrayed as an
efficient acquirer of money, looking for ways to get endorsements,
etc., believing that Lendl offers a service (tennis) and it
will take money to acquire that service.  He isn't the only one --
a lot of others also are like that.

   It also makes one think whether the image that players portray
on tv, are the way they really are.  Chesnokov has seemed to be
a fairly serious person on court, but supposedly is quite a 
humorous person according to the book.

   I also wonder if the book has changed how some people have
behaved.  Michael Chang used to invoke the name of Jesus Christ
early on in his career, but he never uses it now, presumably
because it bothers people to hear it.  I doubt he is any
less religious, but he certainly doesn't show it anymore.
Agassi also had brash reputation, claiming that he could
take Connors down easily in three sets a few years ago in
the US Open.  Connors took exception to that, and while
he lost in three, Agassi claimed that he played tougher
than he had expected.  I think it took a while for Agassi
to repair that damage.   Chang has now seemed much more
articulate than he used to be, and now makes interesting
insights into his matches.   Krickstein, who has been
portrayed as a very shy person, recently seemed a bit more
talkative in front of the camera.

   I am also wondering if the money in the game has affected
players that are up and coming.   I have friends who like s
baseball, but claims the outrageous salaries, and the ease
of trading players from team to team, rather than have a cohesive
team is destroying baseball.   Is money also doing that to tennis?
Does it matter?

   Mike Lupica, a sports reporter, claims that what today's
players lack is the kind of intensity that drives players
like Connors.  Connors never gives up, and Lupica likes
to cite the match between Connors and Pernfors where Pernfors
was easily winning two sets to love, leading 4-1 in the third, when
Connors fought back for the win.  He claims today's players
are money grubbing and complain and whine about life in the
high pressure world of tennis, and they have no right to
do so.  Not so much because he dislikes whining but 
because they can only live their tennis lives once.  They
should accomplish all they can and enjoy all they can because
one day their tennis lives will be over, and when they look
back, they may regret that they tanked this match or complained
too much, when they could have done something they could be proud
of, look back, like Connors, and say they had no regrets for
the way they played.

   Here in r.s.t., we tend to be purists.  We don't care so
much about what kind of money or guarantees or whatever
players are getting.  What we see is the tennis, and the
personality that players portray no court and in interviews.  Sometimes
we think we know what the players are really like, through
articles or on-court demeanor, or even books like Hard Courts.
My guess is that we don't know.  What we see is tennis, and
we watch it for how people play on court, not how their lives
are lead off-court.  Maybe that's fine.  Maybe tennis will
continue to be played ten years from now as it is now,
and the money situation won't become a problem.  Or
perhaps, there does exist this money at all costs mentality
that we don't see, and that this is eroding tennis.  

   It would be neat (though difficult) if we, the members of
the group, could somehow have access like the reporters
have access to what players are like.  Of course, we have
no clout, no interviews, etc. and some people think that
personal lives should be just that.  Personal.  So, I
read a book like Hard Courts, and say that it would be neat
to know these players and what their lives or like, and
they think about tennis, etc.  Yet, sometimes it may be
better not to know.  To watch tennis just for it's own
sake, and root the players we like, and not give ourselves
reason to see what the players are really like.

   Just another one of my ramblings.....

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis