The Country Pundit

The Russian Question

On The Baseline asks, "Should [Russian tennis authorities] choose the superstar who has never bothered to play for her country in a team competition, or rely on the hardworking players who have supported their nation [and won the 2007 Fed Cup for Russia] for their entire careers?"

The superstar in question is Maria Sharapova, who needs neither introduction nor link. The "hardworking players" are, severally, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anna Chakvetadze, Nadia Petrova, and Elena Vesnina.

I'm neither Russian nor an authority on tennis, but my gut reaction is to bench Miss Sharapova in favor of the others. Certainly, she brings a lot of glitz, glamour, and sex appeal to any Russian Olympic team. You could almost bet on NBC's cameras being quite interested in covering the Russian team, and there would be a fair amount of publicity for Maria Sharapova with special guests the Russian Olympic contingent.

Therein lies the problem: Do the Russian authorities want to have someone on the team that's focused on the Nike pre-match press conference to announce a new Olympic design for her on-court attire, or do you want someone who'll probably be more obscure than not when preparing for the match?

Maria Sharapova is probably a better choice than Elena Vesnina from a purely statistical standpoint. But that depends upon Sharapova being healthy and Sharapova being focused, and I think it's fair to ask if she will be. Manny can be Manny, but world-class tennis seems to be a lot more capricious, and the talent a lot closer, so letting "Maria be Maria" could be a bad thing.

Another factor I consider relevant is the correlation of talent vis-a-vis Sharapova and the others. Benching the former is not like benching Wayne Gretzky circa 1986 in favor of some guy brought up from the WHA because he's a drinking buddy of someone in the front office. An argument can perhaps be made that Vesnina should be benched for competitive purposes, but Kuznetsova is currently world #2, Chakvetadze #5, and Petrova #8. That ain't nothing to sneeze at.

This question may be related to the situation the United States had to and has to ask each time it assembles a mens' basketball team. In 1992, we wanted to win, and assembled the Dream Team. We had capable, competent players who worked together as a team, and we annihilated the other national teams. In later years, it seems, we've gone for the glitzy picks (Hello, Allen Iverson!) and well, to put it bluntly, we've lost. At some level, you want competent and dedicated men (or women, whichever) who don't lose focus on why they're there, which is the earning of a gold medal.

This is not to equate women's tennis with men's basketball, because they're different sports, but rather to illustrate the foregoing principle. The Russian national authorities should pick the women who have gone to bat (or the baseline, as it were) for their country. In a competition where national pride is inextricably intertwined with personal achievement, a lesser player who comes out on the court with fire in her blood may be more valuable to the national reputation than a fragile glamour queen, no matter how good-looking and possibly good the latter may be.

---

-This is all academic anyways; if all goes well, that 2008 women's singles gold medal is going in Belgium's column, assuming there still is a Belgium at that point.

-Am I being hard on Maria Sharapova? Sure, I am. I'm trying to be objective about her, and that may yield unpleasant results. A snide thought occurred to me as I wrote this: "Well, a fragile Sharapova versus an undercompetitive Vesnina? Either way, the slot might be a loss, so one might as well go with the patriotic one."

Posted by Country Pundit at September 18, 2007 07:58 PM | TrackBack