By Richard Pagliaro | Sunday, June 28, 2015

Pam Shriver knows quite a bit about delivering Grand Slam success.

The devoted serve-and-volleyer amassed 22 Grand Slam doubles championships, including 20 major titles with fellow Hall of Famer Martina Navratilova.

The ESPN analyst also knows a little bit about major disappointment.

"One of my bold predictions, even before she teamed up with Martina, was that [Agnieszka] Radwanska was going to win a major this year. Which now looks like one of the all-time worst predictions," Shriver says with a chuckle.

TN Interview: Brad Gilbert on Federer's Challenge, Djokovic's Wimbledon Defense and Serena Slam

Unpredictability, of course, can put a twist in every Grand Slam plot. Another reason why Navratilova and Shriver's 109-match winning streak, which remains the longest doubles winning streak in the Open Era, continues to astound.

In 1984, Shriver and Navratilova became the first female doubles partners to win the Grand Slam. Wimbledon starts tomorrow with two Grand Slams still in play: world No. 1 Serena Williams can complete her second Serena Slam and move closer toward her first calendar Grand Slam by winning Wimbledon.

Lucie Safarova and Bethanie Mattek-Sands enter SW19 halfway toward the doubles Grand Slam.

Will Williams, Safarova and Mattek-Sands continue their Grand Slam quests? We posed this and other questions to Shriver. 

A past president of the WTA Players Association, a former member of the USTA Board of Directors and the mother of three, Shriver maintains a very busy schedule. We caught up with her before she left Southern California for London for this Wimbledon preview interview.


Tennis Now: Immediately after winning Roland Garros for her 20th Grand Slam title, Serena admitted she was thinking about Wimbledon. In your view, will Serena win the Grand Slam? How will she handle the pressure of her pursuit of history and the fact she has been beaten early the last two Wimbledons?

Pam Shriver: It's funny because I'm not sure people are talking enough about the fact she can win her second Serena Slam with just seven more match wins. There are sort of two Slams in play here. Obviously, Serena can look back at her last two Wimbledons and realize she did not perform up to her standard under pressure. Whether it was the Cornet match or the Lisicki match, she did not come out like how Serena normally comes out at the pressure situations. It's hard to say.

Her year has already been an unqualified success by winning two majors. Can she get into the frame of mind and just play it match-by-match and realize her year by anyone's standards, even the great ones, two majors in a year is a great year. Against any opponent, on a grass court, with her serve, she can dominate Wimbledon. But, we've also seen that tied-up Serena, who can't quite swing away and feel in the groove, in the zone, relaxed and she gets really, really tight. I think now all the players can recognize, in a second, literally in one game what Serena are they playing against. Because it's so different: Her whole athletic movement, the way she strikes the ball, her form. In my eyes as a commentator, it tends to be very obvious. The French Open, I thought, was one of Serena's great efforts in majors: To lose five sets and still win it. To repeatedly struggle and repeatedly fight through it.

So how will she be at Wimbledon? I'm a little surprised, given the extra week of grass season, that she didn't elect to play a tournament. I would have thought she would have loved to play one [grass-court tournament]. I think probably doing three weeks in a row, though she's done it now plenty of times, may have been the concern. It makes me nervous though that she's not playing [a warm-up tournament] at all.

TN: Serena pulled out of Rome with the elbow and arm issue. She said after the French Open final that the final was really the first time she felt her arm loosen and she unleashed some of her biggest serves. Do you think the arm issue may be more than we know? Or do you think those aches and pains just come with the territory being a 33-year-old world-class athlete competing in a 19-year career?

Pam Shriver: I think whether it's Federer or Serena — these great champions that have had such longevity — we have to give them space to manage their amount of play as to how they feel is best. So, we've always known on the physical side, it can be a bit of a mystery what she's feeling, which I absolutely think is smart to do: keep it close to the vest. So that's possible. Grass is not easy on the arm. The ball can get heavier, as on clay, because it can get damp. The Wimbledon Slazenger balls, I think, are one of the heaviest balls ever, ever. Also, there's more stress on the arm because on grass courts you do get those unpredictable bounces. So you tend to have more miss-hits on grass. I think the wear and tear on the arm can be harshest on grass courts. It's something to be aware of.

TN: You won the Grand Slam in doubles with Martina. Lucie Safarova and Bethanie Mattek-Sands are halfway to the doubles Grand Slam. What is their biggest challenge? Will they do it? Lucie has had such a great year.

Pam Shriver: It all started at Wimbledon last year, too. Lucie has always been a respected, sort of mid-range, tough player, for years, but also sort of known as one that gets tight under pressure. She seems to have matured beautifully, emotionally.

Of course it's possible for them to win the Grand Slam. But it's not like you look at Safarova and Mattek-Sands and say they're in like Martina Hingis' class of the late '90s. I think it would be an incredible feat in this day and age, especially for those two, if they are able to win all four in a calendar year. I would say it's most unlikely. But if they both decide that this is their priority, because it's certainly the best chance for Mattek-Sands to make tennis history, anything is possible. Lucie Safarova, the way she's playing at the moment, has an outside chance to sneak in a singles major title at some point. If they decide this is their priority and if they decide they're going to go for it. And if they practice their doubles and they literally prepare for the major doubles like they prepare for the major singles, then you never know. That could really help them.



TN: Aside from Serena, who do you see making a run to the final? Petra Kvitova? Maria Sharapova? Lucie Safarova? Sabine Lisicki has been there before. Few predicted Ana Ivanovic's run to the Roland Garros semifinal earlier this month, who could pull off something like that at Wimbledon? If Serena does not reach the Wimbledon final, who is most likely to be there?

Pam Shriver: Well Kvitova, clearly, she's been the best grass-court player for the last three years—even better than Serena when you think about Serena's recent losses at Wimbledon. Even go back to the year Kvitova made the semis for the first time [2010], losing that semifinal to Serena. You could see even then Kvitova understands how to play her way around a grass court. Her lefty slice serve can be unbelievable. I still remember Kvitova's match with Venus last year, one of the best matches of the year, in my view. While we're speaking of Venus, I'll throw in the thought of Venus making a really good run if she's feeling well. Lisicki has been there before. The one time she needed to produce a performance in the final against Bartoli she really, really, really got locked up. She really couldn't play at all. So that's always in your mind. Is someone emotionally big enough to win Wimbledon? Kvitova has proven herself.

You always have to mention Sharapova as a champion because if things fall her way, we know that five times before Sharapova has been able to step up to the occasion and win a major final. It's funny because there are two ironies at work when you consider Maria broke through to win her first major on grass in 2004 and now grass seems to be her least favorite surface and clay her favorite surface.

TN: What's your view on the Genie Bouchard saga? It's sad to see because she is talented and does seem to work hard, but confidence has gone off the cliff?

Pam Shriver: It's just totally a result of last year, the coaching change, getting used to a new landscape. I have so many flashbacks to my year after I got to the final of the U.S. Open [in 1978], and winning only like two or three matches the next year. And by 1980 or '81, I was playing better than I had ever played before. I don't think this year is a big panic for Bouchard. If it continues past this year, then there's a problem.

TN: Are you surprised that the Martina and Aga coaching partnership did not work out? Why has Radwanska struggled this year?



Pam Shriver: Because she's done so poorly, I've actually have watched so few of her matches this year. And one of my bold predictions, even before she teamed up with Martina, was that Radwanska was going to win a major this year. Which now looks like one of the all-time worst predictions. It's fun to predict sort of an outside, dark horse player to win a major. I just thought, based on her last few years, she might just learn to sneak one out. And then literally I think she's run out of gas, emotionally.

Obviously, the Martina thing did not work out. Martina knew it pretty early. I think they both knew it. I think probably chemistry-wise, Martina might not have...these are big teams that you have to fit into. There's just a lot going on and Martina would have been an outsider with one of the greatest tennis records of all time coming into a camp. Radwanska's game, I wouldn't say it is totally opposite to Martina's game. Because Radwanska uses all of the court, she is comfortable moving forward, she's fine hitting mid-court volleys, I mean there's more similarities between them than what you would think. But they're still so, so different in terms of point construction and their mentality on the court. In the end, I think it was worth a shot for both of them. But unlike many of these coaching matches with former greats and players of today that have been really successful, this one, unfortunately, didn't work.

TN: Andy Murray has credited coach Amelie Mauresmo with helping his success this season. Which other women coaches could you see moving over to coach a man and pull it off as Amelie has?

Pam Shriver: Well, if I didn't have three kids I think I could (laughs). By the way, I think it has to be somebody who when they played, played tactics and strategies similar to the guys. That's why I think Mauresmo was a good pick. Because the way Mauresmo approached her tactics, a lot of it was built behind pressuring the opponent, coming to the net, using different kinds of spins, using all of the court, she was a good athlete, she also understands the mental frailty side of things. So Mauresmo understands the physical side, the emotional side.

I think Martina [Navratilova] would actually be able to coach a guy with no problem whatsoever. I'd say a good woman coach could coach any guy who is open-minded, like Murray is, to listening to a female. Those would be people like Kathy Rinaldi, or really anyone who is a good coach. The just need to understand that men with their physicality can use their power and speed that they can do things that most women can't do.

TN: Looking at the younger women like Madison Keys, Belinda Bencic, Sloane Stephens, Camila Giorgi, Garbine Muguruza, Karolina Pliskova, CoCo Vandeweghe, who is capable of making a move deep into Wimbledon's second week?

Pam Shriver: Keys, of course, winning Eastbourne last year came into Wimbledon quite match beat up. She sort of started Wimbledon injured. I think with this extra week, that sort of thing should be preventable. I know Keys has had a rough time since the Australian semis, but I think with her serve on a grass court, besides Serena's serve, I think Keys' serve on a grass court can just win service games to 15 time and time again. I think if anyone can challenge Lisicki's record of 27 aces it will be either Serena or someone like Madison Keys could get up there. Her serve is that strong.