|
|
Sampras, with 12 Grand Slam titles to his credit, was pretty useless sitting with a towel over his head while Martin and Courier lost the decisive three singles matches. Anyone here at VT could do that as well as Pete does -- maybe even better. We cheer more loudly. But Pete is pretty decent with a racket in his hand. We'll never know what would have happened if Sampras had played in the place of either Martin or Courier. (For a blow-by-blow account of the bizarre events that almost prompted the U.S. to replace Martin with Sampras, see ESPN'S Tennis page.)
As most of our readers know, Sampras agreed to play in this tie, but only in doubles. He said he didn't want to be seen as jumping on the bandwagon or stealing Courier and Martin's thunder, or some other cliche after Courier/Martin engineered a dramatic upset over Great Britain in May. Fair enough. And Coach Gullikson supported Sampras' classy decision. But now that the U.S. has lost to the Aussies, this could be Gully's last tie as coach. There will be calls for his scalp for not playing Sampras in singles on Friday and Sunday.
Perhaps that criticism is warranted. But at VT we try to look at the bigger, long-term picture. Our view is that Gullikson never should have been in such a position.
We think the U.S. Davis Cup players should be chosen one of two ways: 1) The team of players remains the same all year. For example, Courier and Martin, or whoever, are chosen in January to be the Cup players for the U.S. for the entire year. Barring injury or a dramatic drop in an individual's performance, those two guys play every tie of the year. Under this plan, if Sampras suddenly gets the urge to play Davis Cup, he has to wait till next year and commit to being on the team for each tie next year. Using this criteria would avoid any confusion over who is playing and would create the sort of team spirit the U.S. or any Davis Cup team needs. 2) The other possibility would be to show no loyalty to players at all. That is, the coach picks whoever he wants for each tie. Under this method, Sampras could have played singles, and either Courier or Martin -- presumably the lower-ranked Courier -- would have sat down.
But what Gullikson has done instead is use an approach half-way between our two alternatives. It creates confusion, because no one is sure just how real a ``team'' it is. So Sampras plays, but only doubles. That's pointless. Pete is not a doubles player. If he's going to play at all, it should be in singles. If not singles, wait till next year.
In other words, when Sampras offered to play Davis Cup, Gullikson should have: 1) Told either Courier or Martin that they can't play singles in this tie because a higher-ranked player has offered to participate. Or 2) Told Sampras, ``No, thanks. We have a lineup set for 1999. Come back and talk to us in January about playing in all the ties next year.'' One or the other. But the in-between approach is failing.
Furthermore, the U.S. desperately needs to establish a regular doubles team. Using makeshift doubles teams, as the U.S. does, is not a long-term solution. Though Sampras and O'Brien won on Saturday, it's only because the team of Sandon Stolle and Mark Woodforde was also an improvised, last-minute arrangement. Doubles is a specialty. It is a vastly different game than singles. But it is also worth one crucial point in Davis Cup play. The U.S. needs to find a team that plays together on the ATP circuit week in and week out, even if they are marginal singles players like Francisco Montana and Don Johnson. Notwithstanding Saturday's win by Sampras and Alex O'Brien, it has been years since doubles has been a strength for the U.S. in Davis Cup play. That's inexcusable.
-- July 19, 1999
Back to the Vitartennis home page