OT: French Open, American Men
Every year, the outlook for USA Men just gets worse and worse.
Off the top of my head as it stands, USA has Isner and Steve Johnson left after TWO DAYS of play, we aren't even through the first round yet.
Sock got bounced early, and this is supposedly his best surface. Querrey, Ryan Harrison, Jared Donaldson, D. Young, Tiafoe, Escobedo, all gone.
Watching what has happened to men's tennis in America is painful. I always hear about all this young up and coming talent (Fritz, Tiafoe, Sock mostly), and none of these guys has put anything together.
I can almost draw a parallel to this and men's soccer. The whole developmental system is flawed. And I still have a hard time accepting that you can't find 15-20 elite soccer players, and 5-10 elite tennis players in this entire population.
I grew up in the late 70s, 80s and 90s, and even in that era of American tennis excellence - with McEnroe, Connors, then Agassi, Sampras, etc. - I have just never been able to get excited about the sport. Even so, I still seem to watch Wimbledon every year, at least the championships. Weird, eh?
That's for sure.
But it sure as hell doesn't help when we have no one in this country we can promote and get behind. Guys like Agassi, Sampras, Roddick, ESPN was able to push these guys and give them the spotlight because of their game and personality.
Agassi had different shoes and shirts for all four majors. I know because a bought a lot of his Nike gear in the 80's. Tennis was cool back then.
Roger has made tennis cooler than ever. But we desperately need an American to crack the reign of the "big 4".
man, for someone that doesn't have time to sit on the internet all day because you have a job you sure are quick to reply to posts all day long. very impressive.
has never been kind to Americans...but every so often we had a shot there back in the day, with the likes of Chang, Agassi, Connors.
I get more concerned/disappointed when Americans aren't advancing to the later rounds on the hard court majors and Wimbledon where we use to always have contenders.
That said, this generation has been completely dominated by 2 players (Rafa/Roger) and now Djokavic and Murray coming along as of late. Would be nice if we had a Wawrinka type American who had the talent to at least break through and make the finals or win a couple of these, but the sport is simply too top heavy for a "good" and not elite player to advance to the semis consistently.
It's kind of a bizarre sport in my opinion. Some weird things that I've encountered:
1) Unlike many other sports that my kids play (soccer, basketball, lacrosse, field hockey), in tennis there is basically no yelling from the observers. There's really no talking. I think there's more applause in golf. It's an odd, silent sport. I think that's a deterent to interest because it doesn't register as highly with the "cool" factor for high school kids.
2) It costs MONEY!!! For a sport that really only requires a racquet, a $2 can of balls and an open public court, it is an incredibly expensive sport. To be good, you have to play year round. Because of the weather in many states, that means you have to buy a membership to a club somewhere that has indoor tennis. This gets access to courts and instructors; however, when you actually go to play a match, you have to pay for the court time. That racks up $$$.
3) Instruction is very limited. The way it generally works, when you're playing for your high school team or a club, you get very limited instruction. It isn't like baseball and other sports where a significant amount of time is spent drilling the minutae of fundamentals. Instead, you get some general comments. To get actual instruction, you have to schedule lessons with a tennis pro / instructor separately. This is even more $$$.
My family is somewhat fortunate because I played tennis in high school and have been able to shave costs by giving the instruction, but it is not an expensive sport.
With this. Most tennis players are not 6'5-6'9, shredded, physical, etc.
They are relatively average height and are not built like brick shithouses. They are athletic and in incredible shape, but tennis players don't need to have that type of "build."
6'1.
Nadal is 6'1
Stan is 6'0
Yes, there are players in the top 10 that are at or around 6'2. But height has absolutely nothing to do with being a successful tennis player. Hell, David Ferrer has carved out a steady top 10 career and he's not even cracking 5'10.
I would actually go a step farther and say once you get past 6'6, it actually hinders your performance as a tennis player.
Guys playing basketball and football are physically imposing specimens. They are all completely shredded and are nothing but raw, physical strength. Guys playing tennis may be quick, but I have a hard time comparing them to the mainstream American sports.
But the leverage of a 6'6" serve is a sight to behold.
... and before I forget, HELLO!
Yes, I agree with that. Watching John Isner serve is ridiculous.
But the dude can't move.
Faster is better for any sport.
But you are trying to connect height with success in tennis. And I don't agree with that. And most of the tennis stars of today are relatively average height, within that 5'11-6'2 range. And basically none of them are ripped up, because that would actually be a deterrant to the precision that tennis requires. 99.99 percent of tennis players are built exactly like soccer guys. And that's a physique that the common man can earn through enough running and conditioning. I can't be 6'8 and 225.
The builds are just different man. I don't know how else to argue it. USA men are not drawing from a smaller pool because they are all going to the main sports. There are other factors that are much more important at play, including the development and the overall cost of tennis.
The population is here. That's not the issue.
Two of the greatest players of our generation, Fed and Nadal aren't that height. And they are still playing at a ridiculous level against those 6'6 guys.
Plenty of future stars and current players in the top 20 (Thiem, Nishikori, Goffin, Pouille, Federer, Nadal, Djoker, Stan) are not approaching or will approach 6'4 anytime soon.
I'm just not going to say someone who's 6'1 or under can't be an elite tennis player. Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The average male in the United States is just under 5'10. The notion that 6'1 Federer is an argument against the importance of height is just wrong. And the issue isn't being "ripped up", it's being athletic. You don't think a guy as quick and strong as Nadal could have been an effective point guard? Or a safety in the NFL? Of course he could have.
The builds are not that different. A lot of 6 foot guys who are great athletes in the US are playing other sports. Defensive backfields, backcourts, and baseball outfields are full of those guys. How good a country is at a sport will always be primarily a function of the level of interest among the general population. I'm not saying other factors arent' important, but clearly the fact that basketball, football, and baseball are more popular does draw some potential talent away from tennis and this does affect the quality of our professionals.
WIth all that being said, why USA had a dominant men's tennis program in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now nothing?
There's 321 million people in this country, and growing at a ridiculous rate. I just will not accept that the organization cannot find 5-10 elite tennis players to compete at majors. Sorry.
I think the level of interest dropped. These things are not static over time. As tennis got less popular, the highest levels of American tennis degraded.
Note that I'm not making a very strong or provocative claim here. I don't doubt that your criticisms of the infrastructure of American tennis are accurate. I simply believe that multiple factors caused the decline and one of these factors is the decline of tennis's popularity and the rise of the popularity of other sports.
Appreciate the insight!
That if you are 6'2, it's going to help more than if you are 6'0.
What I am arguing is that in tennis, there is a much bigger chance to make it as a star compared to the the NBA/NFL, knowing that tennis is a lot more of a skill/precision/art type sport compared to the NBA and the NFL where brute strength wins 9 times out of 10.
football and basketball because it's cool and/or accessible.
Obviously the tiny proportion of guys that end up playing in college/pros are the physical specimens you speak of. But there are millions of kids that are good athletes, exactly the height and build and athletic prowess of a Federer/Nadal, etc that play wing on a HS basketball team that won't get a college scholarship because they're too short but could have been outstanding tennis players. I know because I was one of those guys and there were several others on my HS basketball team.
To get them to move to a sport they'd have a chance in would require someone saying, hey junior, you're good at high school basketball and you'll be a starter on varsity, but if you want to be a professional athlete, you should switch to tennis or soccer. So first you have to convince them of that before resources even matter.
And I'm not sure I could have been convinced to play tennis. I didn't want to sacrifice my life and studies to chase a lottery ticket with tiny odds of ever paying off. I think that's the message most kids get now, and it's the right message.
This is just incorrect. 6' 3"+ is the exception to the rule (Isner, Karlovic, etc).
The majority of top tennis players are right in the sweet spot between 5' 11" - 6' 2"... Crazy seeing you vehemently defend such a misguided comment.
Though it's a younger sport, same thing with triathlon. Top elite of the sport pretty much only includes Gwen Jorgenson from America. There's no one else in either the ITU races nor Ironman that can compete and win at the highest level.
Clay is absolutely not Sock's best surface.
Now comes along Jack Sock, a 22-year-old born in Nebraska and currently residing in Florida, who unabashedly calls the slow stuff ''my favorite surface.''
Nice try though.
His favorite...or his best? Read what he said.
He's made it public, he's had a ton of success on clay, any time the talking heads discuss his game they always bring up clay as his best surface.
I didn't just pull this out of my ass.
lemon in the butt is now officially "a thing" on this blog.
Just like MTV, I was there to see it get started!
I've never heard "talking heads" say "wait til the clay court season comes around" in regards to Sock. His best surface is hard courts. He's won more titles, more match wins. He typically has gotten deeper in bigger hard courts vs clay courts. His 1 clay title came in Houston, which the best clay courters never play. He's a hard court player who has tools that can be applied to relatively successful clay court play (his big, heavy forehand).
and rich kids are often, not always, but often lazy, don't want it bad enough. When there's no worry about money you don't work your @ss off like a kid who carries the weight of providing for his family on his shoulders. Also there's the whole matter of paying for equipment and coaching which is no small matter. There are plenty of courts around for kids to use but without training and equipment and ability to go to tournaments, not much development happens. High school is typically too late to pick up the sport and compete on a international level.
Sampras, Chang, and Agassi were all products of immigrant families where the entire family was invested and focused on the kid doing well. If you're looking for the next champions they will likely come from a similar situation.
can't handle the truth.
Too much focus on football, basketball, baseball in the US for other sports to get the best athletes.
As I said before, you don't have to be the best athlete in the world to be a good tennis player.
You have to be athletic, sure. Tennis is about precision, smarts, etc... Losing players to basketball and football is not the reason tennis struggles in the states, IMO. The skills required to excel in football and basketball are vastly different.
This sort of comment effectively encapsulates the problem. We approach the issue as one of raw athleticism, rather than skill development. Same thing with soccer.
I would imagine it's for rich kids in the north as you have to play indoors 6 months a year. I doubt tennis is a sport of the "south" (outside transplants in Florida), so it's basically California, Florida and some rich New England types - so unlike soccer which is still relatively open to most of the country (although you have to be well into the middle class to afford club soccer in northern climates), I doubt tennis is.
As I drive around most parks (and I am at a lot for soccer) I NEVER see anyone play tennis. Used to be a lot more popular when I grew up. I do see adults playing when I drive by schools... but not kids.
If you took the populations of countries like Spain, France, Switzerland, the countries that excel in tennis, they are about equal to just California alone. And then if you add in Cali, Florida, NE, etc... You are getting close to 100 million total people.
Did the USA just get lucky with guys like Agassi, Sampras, etc... in the 80s and 90s? And if so, why are they having so much trouble just finding ONE star like that again??
I saw a stat that said half of college tennis teams are comprised of foreigners. We are losing interest before college age. Someone earlier mentioned they see adults playing tennis but no kids. The adults aren't able to provide any interest in their kids.
So that's something I guess?
I don't get it. There are plenty of tennis players in the US, so you'd think eventually we'd have a couple elite players. Not to mention Nick Bollettieri's very own IMG is a mecca for tennis talent. Why haven't they produced? The game is just dominated by a few guys and for whatever reason our country hasn't been able to produce one in a while.
I don't buy any of the argument that the best players go on to basketball and football. Tennis is a completely different skill set. It's not brute force and power.
I'm stunned USA hasn't been able to produce ONE player that can consistently stay in the top 10-15 and make deep runs in majors. Almost every time a major rolls around, I can picture the exact minute the article will come out about the last USA man standing.
I agree with you - I don't think it's the quality of athletes. I think a big part of it is that Americans grow up playing almost exlusively on hard courts, and hard courts teach you to serve big and hit your forehand big. That used to be a winning formula in men's tennis, but when the strings changed 15 years ago, that stopped being a winning formula. Now, the game rewards movement, defense, variety, and point structure. Europeons grow up playing heavily on clay, which rewards all of those things. Surprise--the sport is dominated by Europeons.
It blows my mind that USTA didn't see this coming and adapt, since the game changed so rapidly when the polyester strings took over. USTA now has these commercials lauding the fact that they finally have some legit europeon red clay courts here for top juniors to practice on. Juuuust a little bit late to that party.