1996
No. 11 rank—but the All-England Club uses a precise mathematical calculation to determine its seeds based on the players’ previous two years of grass-court prowess. It’s consistent, if unfair. But the U.S. Open’s 1996 abstract theorem, its own organizers admitted, was based on their prediction of the tournament’s outcome. Perception-wise, there was a big problem with that. All the ranking-versus-seeding switcheroos favored the home court. Granted, two decades ago American men’s tennis was robust, with six players in the top 15, as opposed to zero as of midsummer this year. But Chang’s bump from No. 3 to No. 2 (at the expense of real No. 2 Thomas Muster) and especially Andre Agassi’s elevation from eighth to sixth seed were widely speculated as an attempt to give Chang and Agassi a better chance to reach the semifinals, along with No. 1-ranked Sampras. And by doing so, boost TV ratings for the tournament’s marquee final weekend. U.S. Open officials denied any such impropriety. Yet the optics were positively awful, especially since, to make matters worse, the seed shuffling was announced after the 128-player draw. If the tournament had explicitly wanted to give the impression that it was stacking the deck, they couldn’t have done a better job. (The women’s seeds were not altered.) Muster, the Austrian who won the 1995 French Open, was unabashed in his criticism. “You can’t make the draw and then put the seeds in then,” he told the press. “It’s like cheating…. It’s just to put Agassi not to face Sampras in the quarters.” Muster wasn’t alone. “It is an insult to the players, to the ATP rankings, and to the game,” unseeded Ukrainian Andrei Medvedev told The New York Times. Yevgeny Kafelnikov, that year’s winner of the French Open, took his irritation a step further. The Russian player, who would have taken over the No. 1 ranking if he’d won the
Stacking the Deck When the U.S. Open Planted Some Bad Seeds
By Joe McGovern
Pete Sampras puked. That’s the defining moment, twenty years later, of the 1996 U.S. Open. In the fifth- set tiebreak of his quarterfinal encounter against Spain’s Alex Corretja, defending champ Sampras spilled his guts on the green hardcourt of Louis Armstrong Stadium. (Arthur Ashe Stadium would debut the next year.) “He is a hurtin’ cowboy right now,” John McEnroe said from the USA Network commentary booth. Stooped and sickly, Sampras not only saved a match point at 6–7 in the tiebreak, but went on to win the match, plus the semi and final, for his eighth Grand Slam title. But Sampras’ regurgitation on the side of the court was actually nothing compared with the mess that was caused two weeks earlier by the U.S. Open’s organizers. For reasons that were at best clueless and at worst scheming, the tournament decided to deviate from the ATP’s official computer rankings and seed players in the draw according to a formula of their own creation. Subjective seeding is a custom practiced at Wimbledon. Not that it’s free of controversy there—Corretja, in fact, boycotted the tournament in 2000 when he was denied a seed despite his
Louis Armstrong Stadium in 1996. ap photo
18
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker