Pity Party

It's funny, but every now and then we go through a spell of synchronicity here at TennisWorld, where it seems that either you or me are thinking about something at about the same time it begins to show up in the comments, or in a post. The most recent case is that of Maria Sharapova, who was bounced out of the Kremlin Cup the other day. Some of you have already discussed Joel Drucker's recent piece (over at ESPN), and his speculations on Sharapova's recent woes.

I think Joel goes too heavy on the Electra theme, and inadvertently gives Yuri Sharapova too much credit for his role in Maria's career. Maria is a smart, tough, experienced girl, it's impossible that she doesn't , at some level, understand the conspicuous shortcomings and parasitic nature of Yuri. He is part of her baggage, just like poor movement or that fall-over-backward forehand she sometimes lapses to using. By the same token, Yuri helped bring Maria this far, and as the family is far beyond experiencing material hardship, why not let him hang around, playing Vince Lombardipov?

I don't doubt she loves the man - hey, this is her father. And she has all kinds of good reasons for doing so beyond that fact. It's easy to forget that making Maria a champion was Yuri's chosen profession and passion, and that she became one means he was a success, no matter what you think of him, his methodology, or his persona. More importantly, Maria seems to greatly enjoy being a champion - after all, what's not to like? She why shouldn't she feel an enormous debt of gratitude to her creator, benefactor, and coach, with a capital "C."

Many observers believe that Maria is "manipulated" or "dominated" by Yuri, some go as far as suggesting that there is an unhealthy, psychic two-way infatuation in their relationship. Perhaps there is, but you could also have said that about Jimmy Connors and his late mother, Gloria. Their closeness seemed to border on the unseemly, but set aside the less savory aspects of Connors's personality (after all,  being vulgar isn't considered a clinical disorder) and what do you have? A guy who enjoyed staggering success at the only occupation he ever cared to pursue, a husband, a father, and now a successful coach and icon of the game. So what if you or I don't like him? If they put all our names in a hat in an identity-switch game and you got drawn to be Jimmy Connors, would you be bummed out, knowing that you could have become, oh, Eric Menendez?

Tennis is not some Tennessee Williams play. The players - especially the champions - are tough, pragmatic, proud, stubborn individuals, engaged in a harshly competitive enterprise that in its most basic form is a quest for filthy lucre - and a lot of it. If you think that's cynical, try organizing a tournament held for the pure love of the game. This is not to say the players don't also love the game, but it's naive to imagine that someone can spend her young life fighting for money, round-by-round, as it turns out, and not develop a a shrewd, tough, practical view of the world.

In that essentially practical, professional view, you don't make many changes in a winning game plan. Heck, you can't even get these girls (and, increasingly, boys) to venture to the net more often, no matter how adept they are there, once they establish a winning tradition playing from the baseline. Tennis, in myriad subtle ways, is always about winning - even those who play "pretty" tennis do so because they think it gives them a better chance to win.  And to this point, you'd have to be nuts to suggest that the Sharapovas' approach to tennis up to now has been anything but productive and successful, if not necessarily appealing to an idealist. So why should Maria, at least up to this point, have contemplated shoving Yuri in front of a bus? The results spoke for themselves.

Things may be a little different now, which is one thing that Joel nailed pretty well in his story. The fact remains that Maria was not just beaten at the majors, she was pulverized. And not always be the likes of stonecrusher Serena Williams. To me, though, it is all about her shoulder, unless she has been faking the injury, or its severity, which is a suspicion that would probably say just as much about the person entertaining it as it would about Sharapova's integrity. Besides, why would Sharapova unduly emphasize her shoulder ailment? It only gives succor - and confidence - to her rivals, and if there is anything Sharapova has not been in her career, it is suicidal (that would be early Amelie Mauresmo, or Marat Safin, at almost stage).

So it seems to me that Sharapova's problem ends exactly where Joel's speculations begin: with her shoulder. This seems a crystal clear case of a player whose chief weapon, and the weapon around which her entire game is built, has been damaged. This is like Rafael Nadal blowing out a knee, or Andy Roddick developing a phobia about serving the hard one down the center stripe. Take away Sharapova's serve and you've taken the guidance system out of a missile, or destroyed the blueprint of a home under construction. When Sharapova is serving freely, comfortably and effectively, everything else falls into place - or falls into as much of a place it can, given the girl's ancillary limitations. The Roddick analogy is useful, because while Roddick is a better move, even in relative terms, his serve also is foundational to his game.

To some, this argument might seem like a general condemnation of Sharapova's game, but that's neither accurate nor just. They say that if you're picking a basketball team, you would start with a big, strong center, and that if you were starting a football team, the player you would want to build it around is a quarterback. So it is with tennis. The most proven method of creating a great game is to start with a powerful serve, although it's obvious that you can wind up with a great game even if you don't build it around one. Conversely, the serve is of such critical importance most of the time that when it's not working, all the other bits begin to fall apart, too. And this is true for men as well as women.

One thing to remember about Sharapova's current condition is that it isn't just that her shoulder hurts and her serve isn't quite what it has been, or needs to be, in order for her to win. It is downright lousy and, given the degree to which she has relied on it, shockingly unreliable. It isn't that she's having "trouble" with her serve; rather, her serve has become so untrustworthy that the rest of her game has fallen apart.

I noticed in the previous comments section that one poster found it sad that Lansdorp has asked to see a check, after which he could re-construct Sharapova's game in next to no time. This is typical Lansdrop; he's gruff, outspoken, and don't care about nothin'. Unfortunately, his harsh mercenary demand practically guarantees that Sharapova would sooner blow her foot off with a shotgun than start placing it where Lansdorp says as she begins her toss. This is too bad, because I think Lansdorp is the guy who could fix her game. And despite the bizarre and crude nature of what is, in the end, his appeal to her, he is justified - if not especially clever - in demanding that Maria pay as she goes. From what I know of the situation, the Sharapovas could have been more generous with Robert back in the day.

The operative word here may be "karma." I couldn't give a hang about the psychological issues being bandied about, or the "real" nature of the relationship between Yuri and Maria. But I do think that Yuri mishandled the relationship with Lansdorp, and in the end may be the most detrimental thing he has done.