Tennis mailbag, with CNN's Candy Reid
(CNN) -- Do you have a question about tennis for World Sport Anchor Candy Reid? E-mail candy@cnn.com.
Q. Hello Candy, I so much love your way of presentation and also the way you answer people's questions. My question is, at the end of any grand slam for instance, U.S. Open, the winner will be given a substantial amount of money with the runner-up and it appears that other players who do not make it will go away without any prize. Now are the other players given anything at all from the cash prize given to the winner and the runner-up? I will be happy if the question is answered because it worries me to see some players go at the early stage of the game, it is quite frustrating. Tennis is such a good and professional game without drug scandals like sprinting.
Kennedy, Manchester, UK.
A. Kennedy, you'll be pleased to hear that everybody in the main draw leaves with some money and often players who don't qualify make some. At the U.S. Open for example, the winner banks a million dollars, but even those who lose in the first round make $14,000! If you go on to the WTA Tour Web site
you'll see an amount of money listed by each tournament. That is the total amount of money awarded, for singles, doubles and when applicable mixed doubles. It's widely believed that the top 150 ranked players actually make a good living from tennis.
Q. Dear Candy.
My questions: 1- Why must male Tennis players keep their shirts buttoned almost up to their throats, while the women players can display almost their entire chests? The heat factor for the men is no joke, especially for the hairy chested guys.
2- During a rain delay & the players go off court to wait, are they kept apart? Can they speak to anyone? Some of those delays seem to last forever, so what are the rules for them?
Appreciate any light you can shed on my questions.
Sincerely, Harry Riss, Israel
A. It's strange isn't it Harry -- many of the women wear as little as possible, while the men, i.e. Rafael Nadal, seem to be almost totally covered up. What do you think of those "clam-diggers" he wears? They look awfully uncomfortable and I'm not too keen on those sleeveless shirts!
As for your other question, the players are allowed to consult with their coaches or anyone else for that matter during rain delays. If you're losing it's wonderful to take a break and discuss tactics with someone in the know. On the other hand, if you're on a roll there's nothing like a rain delay to reduce momentum. Think back to the 2001 Wimbledon championship men's semi-final. Many believe Tim Henman would have beaten eventual champion Goran Ivanisevic had it not rained -- but that's the way it goes!
Q. Hi Candy. I've been reading your mailbag recently and am quite interested in the questions and answers. I saw you on CNN playing tennis with Andy Roddick and am now aware you have a background in the game. I follow tennis closely and go to Wimbledon every year and also went to Roland Garros last year and intend to go this year. I'm sure I'm speaking for a lot of people who are fed up of the comparisons between Federer and Sampras. I'm also fed up of the likes of Mr. Baddoo (sorry but true), Cliff Drysdale and Pat McEnroe telling us that Federer is more versatile. Sampras in 1990 was almost a baseliner on hardcourts. In 2000 Sampras transformed into a serve and volleyer on both grass and hardcourt but probably still not clay. That was helped by Paul Annacone in late 1990s inspiring Pete to be more aggressive and chip and charge and stuff. But he forewent some of his baseline game in the process especially on his second serve. Can you give us an analysis of their strokes and give us a good comparison of their games? I think you'll be able to do it in an unbiased way.
Thanks. Laurie Burnette, UK
A. It's easy to forget how good an all-round player Sampras was Laurie. I suppose "Pistol Pete" will always be remembered for his serve because it was his major weapon, but there's no doubt that his groundstrokes, volleys and especially that overhead were fantastic too. (He was number one for a record 6 years!) The one major trophy missing from his C.V is of course the French Open, but Federer has still to win that too.
Sampras always had problems on clay because of his "chopper" grip. Since the ball bounces higher on clay it's harder to get over the ball with a chopper grip. Players now mostly hit their groundstrokes with western grips which makes it much easier to produce top-spin, but much harder to hit the ball flat, like Sampras used to do (making him virtually unbeatable on grass!)
I would say that Federer's groundstrokes are slightly stronger overall than Sampras's were -- he can hit the ball flat, with top-spin, or with slice whenever he wants. One thing they certainly have in common though is the ability to hit the backhand up the line. Watch Federer closely next time -- he wins so many points that way.
As for the volley, well I believe that Sampras was slightly superior. Federer has great touch, but sometimes he can get in trouble at the net, whereas Sampras always looked comfortable, especially with the difficult half-volley. And his overhead was just superb, especially when he jumped up to hit it. Federer has a very different style on the 'smash' but is just as consistent.
Sampras probably served more aces, but Federer's serve is just as effective. He is very good at placing his serves and his second has so much spin on it I don't know how anyone returns it. His opponents are forced to hit high backhand returns more often than not and it's extremely hard to get any power on that shot which makes it easy for the Swiss to control the point.
So in conclusion: Federer wins at the baseline, Sampras at the net and I'd say it's equal on the serve. Mentally, Sampras was the toughest there has ever been, but I'd say Federer isn't far behind and it's that toughness that separates them from the rest.
Federer shows more personality on the court and can produce any shot at any time, but he's only won 4 grand slams compared to Sampras's 14. So he still has some way to go to be mentioned in the same sentence as Pistol Pete!
