Columnist Dean Juipe: Hewitt’s win softens loss of old stars

Dean Juipe

Monday, July 8, 2002 | 9:16 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

There will be those who will write or say today that the highlight of the Wimbledon men's final Sunday was the male streaker who proved to be surprisingly elusive as he showcased his wares.

Evading towel-carrying security personnel with a series of quick moves, the interloper drew laughs and embarrassed chuckles until running out of steam and allowing himself to be nabbed during a break in the second set. As diversions go, he served his purpose.

Yet it would be a cheap shot to credit him with upstaging what really was going on at Centre Court, where Lleyton Hewitt let it be known that he is clearly now the No. 1 player in the world.

Defeating No. 28 seed David Nalbandian 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 in a briskly paced match that hearkened back to the distant days when baseliners and not power servers ruled, Hewitt validated his 2001 U.S. Open victory with one of even greater magnitude. And with it the Australian shed some light on a sport that has been struggling to find a beacon.

Crocodile tears had been flowing in the tennis community since aging stalwarts Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras hit the skids. Both were eliminated early at Wimbledon, each to opponents (Paradorn Srichaphan and George Bastl, respectively) that only the most astute fan might recognize.

"The Party's Over" reads a headline in this week's Sports Illustrated, tracing the decline of Agassi, Sampras and American colleagues Jim Courier and Michael Chang. Their 25 Grand Slam titles are strictly rear-view mirror stuff, the magazine rightly pointed out.

Yet in the midst of that debris maybe a more important story is emerging, one that could deserve a banner of its own. "The Party Has Just Begun" might be apropos, with Hewitt at the focal point of an argument that the time has not only come but is right for a new wave of male stars.

Remember, it was the reliance on the power game on the men's side -- as well as the emergence of Martina Hingis and the Williams sisters -- that led to a unique situation that tennis as a whole did not completely enjoy: Its females had become far more interesting than its males.

With Sampras at the forefront of the men's game, pro tennis lacked cohesive action as the guys traded unreturnable serves. If it hadn't been for Agassi's uncanny prowess in the art of the counterattack and his diligence in conditioning as a way of negating the advantages of Sampras and the like, the sport's appeal would have hit rock bottom in the 1990s.

To me, Hewitt gives men's tennis a shot at redemption. While he doesn't seem especially colorful or magnetic, he's skillful and he keeps the ball in play -- which, for a spectator, may be the single greatest consideration.

Losing only two sets in the championship and visibly wearing down Nalbandian in the final, Hewitt, at 21 years old, became the youngest Wimbledon champion since Boris Becker in 1986. Given that old-timer Goran Ivanisevic took last year's title in something of a snoozefest, it was a pleasure seeing youth served.

Why begrudge a changing of the guard? A new generation is at the threshold of men's tennis, and maybe it's not as threatening or as dire as many of us once thought.

If Hewitt's game is any indication, it may prove to be refreshing.