Serena's Sweetest Science
In a second haymaker of a one-two punch, Serena Williams declared that she's likely to join her sister Venus on the sidelines for the remainder of 2010. She made the announcement not long after her sudden decision to enter the Linz tournament, followed by her quick decision to withdraw from it. Now comes the thunderbolt suggesting that her year is over.
In a way, Serena's announcement is absolutely unsurprising. In a post for ESPN last week, I wondered if Venus' decision to end her year—one that began with Venus establishing her status as a contender for No. 1 in 2010—foreshadows the fall of the house of Williams. That's a dramatic way to put it, but let's face it, no empire lasts forever. And most dynasties, family-based or otherwise, are much longer in the building than the crumbling.
By the time Venus gets back to London and Wimbledon, the only major she's won since 2001 (and boy has she won Wimbledon—five times in 14 appearances), she'll be 31 with a long history of wear and tear. It now seems almost certain that Serena will not end the year ranked No. 1, even though she's still obviously the WTA tour's best player—by a comfortable margin.
Until she isn't. The thing is, we won't be able to say she's not until she goes out there and gets beaten. If you think about it, you couldn't come up with a more crafty career blueprint than the one she's drawn up, consciously or otherwise. For as much criticism or discontent as Serena creates with the way she manages her career, she's positioned herself as something like the heavyweight champ. In the sweet science of pugilism, the champ doesn't have to do a darned thing except fight for the championship with a reasonable amount of frequency—something Serena does. In tennis, though, you have to beat your three or four legitimate rivals and a bunch of tomato cans on at least a few of the four major occasions in tennis, the Grand Slam events. And even tomato cans land lucky punches now and then.
Serena has behaved more like a heavyweight champ. She's picked her fights carefully (or has been forced to do so because of fitness and injury issues), it seems, understanding that at some level it's unwise and perhaps even pointless to go out and lay your reputation on the line week after week. What do you really have to prove, after a spell?
This sensibility is very common among top players; there are concessions to its intrinsic wisdom throughout the rulebook. On the whole, though, the ATP players are far more amenable to acting in concert as a group, or union. The WTA players take a far more noticeable "me first" approach.
Tennis and boxing are two vastly different sports. The premium on consistency and versatility is far greater in tennis, and young players are easily sucked into the system, partly because of habit and early training, but also because the tournament schedule gives them seemingly endless opportunities to expend themselves, bust out the whupping stick, and show the world what's what. But as a player gets older, he or she begins to see the way tennis is organized as a form of bondage. I've never had a problem with players rebelling against system. I've just criticized them when they go about it disingenuously, and want to have it both ways.
But really, what's the point of having to beat-up week-in, week-out on poor Zoni Vonareva? What on earth can that prove that we don't already know?
Venus seems to have embraced a more conventional approach to her career, but that may be mostly because she's had less than Serena. And the funny thing is that as long as Serena can win those two or three critical matches every year, she has nobody to answer to and, perhaps just as important, she's protecting her status. You can't be beaten if you don't play, right? And you're more likely to win when you do play if you've generated an aura, created some sort of X-factor. It's risky business, because you can fall fast and hard if you don't step up on the few occasions when you must. But Serena has done that, perhaps better than anyone in tennis history.
So if you're Serena, all you need to do to keep that circular process rolling is make sure you win the big ones that you do chase. Right now, when at least three of the four majors rolls around, the spectre of Serena casts a pall over the WTA field. The other women are hamstrung between opportunity and dread.
I don't think the players plan these things. A young Serena, or one with a slightly different temperament or personality might be out there, all bandaged up, whacking groundies as indefatiguably as a Wozniacki or Dementieva. Serena's approach seems to have developed organically, although there must have been a certain amount of ducking and dodging involved. She's the heavyweight champ. She fights when she chooses to, or is physically able to, and what's anyone going to say?
Of course, there's another factor in play here. You'll note that for Olympic Games eligibility, players merely need to "make themselves available" for Fed Cup. Venus and Serena did that for the upcoming final against Italy. Theoretically, at least, that ought to be good enough to qualify them for Olympic participation. I'll have to find out if a player who is available but then withdraws from Fed Cup because of injury is still considered qualified for the Olympics. And what's the USTA—or anyone else who mistrusts the Williamses—going to do, lobby to keep them off the team when they happen to be two of the best players ever and currently rank as the only U.S. women with any real shot of earning medals?
But remember, the Olympic games are in London in 2012, nearly two years distant, and an awful lot can change in the interim. Venus will be about 33 for those games. Serena will be 30. Doubles, anyone?