J. McEnroe: American men lack passion that othe...

America hasn't had real contenders since Pete was in his prime and Agassi, though past his prime, was still not "old" yet in the mid 90's. We had players contending in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. I don't really know what happened to American (men) tennis? Unfortunately, I don't see anybody coming down the pipeline that is going to change that. So it looks like the 2010's are going to be more of the same.

Some of you might think I'm oversimplifying this, but the thing that I think is the biggest problem for American tennis of today?...

...I think that the new crop of players has far, far too much reliance on the serve as the weapon in their playing arsenal, as opposed to a weapon.  There's just too much emphasis upon it; yeah, it can carry a player through the early rounds of a tournament, but when you reach the later rounds, and face players who have a good return game as part of their arsenal, down you go.

Mardy's the best guy we've got now in terms of his not having this one-dimensional reliance upon the serve, and he's my favorite American male player right now because of that.  Blake also has / (had?) a good all-around game, but his playing days are very much numbered - it would surprise me if 2012, or possibly 2013, isn't his last year.

I tend to agree with McEnroe on this one.  He probably wanted to say it another way but decided to be politically correct instead.  The bottom line is, American players don't seem to care much whether they win or not...period.  Roddick seems to be genuinely bothered when he doesn't do well but the others act as if they've enjoyed the trip, they're out of the event so let's go find some cold beer.  As for Isner and the serve, what else can he do?  Realistically, at his height, he will never be a good mover.  It simply isn't possible.  That said, it has to be the serve for him.  Roddick is injured more often than not now a days, Blake is already on the ash heap of history, Querrey will never be a decent tennis player....blah blah blah.  That's where men's tennis is for the Americans.  It is all about apathy.

Sad thing is, who is coming down the pipeline? Nobody! Maybe American Tennis is representative of what's happened to Americans in general? We have become a lazy country over the past 20 years. People in other countries are still hungry. They probably don't spend their entire time growing up on the internet and playstations. To be fair, I do think other countries that basically have 2 avenues for athletes to go (soccer and tennis)  might have an advantage getting the best talent. But that was also the case in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, so this doesn't explain everything. I guess American kids aspire to grow up to be reality stars nowadays.

.I think that the new crop of players has far, far too much reliance on the serve as the weapon in their playing arsenal, as opposed to a weapon.

Uh Little Kitty..there are big servers in other countries as well.  By the way, being a part of Jr. USTA, I know for a fact that serving could be emphasized even more with our Junior players.  So many coaches worry about the serving second, but you gotta be able to serve and get the ball in the box to begin the point.  If you can't hold serve, you can't win the match.

Dude,

In the U.S., tennis is still very much a rich-man's sport.  Look at the indoor fees, tournament and travel fees for our Junior players.  The everyday family cannot afford all of this, and despite what USTA says, there are not enough funds that are available for lower and middle class folks to have private coaches, play at indoor facilities, local and out-of-state fees for USTA Sanctioned tournaments.

 

That's not a problem unique to the US, though. There are far poorer countries than the US, and they too often cannot afford the costs of having a child play tennis. When you see players come out of these smaller countries, the family almost always is fairly well-to-do, as they must be if they can afford to have their children go off to other countries to attend tennis academies.

My thought on it is it largely a cultural thing and a byproduct of our society here today. First off, kids have more choices as to what sport they want o play here, probably more than anywhere else in the world. That's not only from an accessibility standpoint, but also from an interest stand point. That is to say, there is nothing keeping kids from playing, say, stickball in another country, but when no one cares about baseball, the kids are not going to keep playing it. Soccer is the worldwide phenomenon, of course, and then after that, there's really nothing else that is close. Baseball is big in the Latin American countries and in Asia, Tennis is big over in Europe and in South America, but not so much Asia, Basketball is big over in China and in Europe as well, but not much of a Latin American game. So in these other countries, you have a narrower channel of sports to focus on, whereas in the US, there is just about everything. Couple that with a mentality that children should have diverse interests and be well rounded, and you don't see that immensely focused regimen that breeds these top players like you see in other countries. I think when you combine this with the fact that the game is more accessible to more people internationally than ever before, and these programs are able to dedicate more resources than they used to (even though it is still less than the US overall), and it's just a combination of things. So in a sense, as a country, we lack passion for the sport.

If you look at it from another perspective, though, I don't know that we should be pinning this on the players instead of the system. Consider France. Look at their country and how many players they have churned out over the years. Clearly they have a flourishing tennis environment capable of turning out professional after professional. I mean just look how many French players are always in the draw at these Slams and advancing in the tournament. But maybe here you can make an argument that they lack passion. As a country, no, they certainly love their tennis and are passionate about it, but to have that many players in the top 100, to have the extremely talented players that they have had, players in the top 10 in recent years, how is it that none of these guys could ever crack the top of the game? You would think that with all of their incredible talent that someone would have come along by now and break into the top 5, and it hasn't happened. I think that's where you say "the players lack passion". Monfils is an incredible talent but horribly inconsistent and really seems to struggle with his interest level in the game at times. He cannot keep up a consistent, level effort and attention to the game. Gasquet is supremely talented, but he has the issues with anxiety, and who can blame him when he was anointed the next great French champion at the age of nine? They crushed him with the weight of expectations and it has kept him from reachin ghis full potential. You have guys like Tsonga, Simon, Llodra, Mahut, Chardy, Benneteau, Paire, Clement, Gicquel, etc that all vary in terms of skill and ability. Where is their champion? So I think you can look at the criticism from a number of angles.

Mafioso, I like your post.  I realize that tennis players from other countries usually come from well-to-do families also.  I was simply responding to 'American Men lack passion...'

My thought on it is it largely a cultural thing and a byproduct of our society here today. First off, kids have more choices as to what sport they want o play here, probably more than anywhere else in the world. That's not only from an accessibility standpoint, but also from an interest stand point.

Yes, but this was also the case in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

Couple that with a mentality that children should have diverse interests and be well rounded, and you don't see that immensely focused regimen that breeds these top players like you see in other countries.

I differ a bit on this also. I went to High School in the early 80's. Kids then played multiple sports. Today, I see more kids focusing on one sport by the time they get to High School because being a jack of all trades usually doesn't get you to the professional level in today's world.

I think when you combine this with the fact that the game is more accessible to more people internationally than ever before, and these programs are able to dedicate more resources than they used to (even though it is still less than the US overall), and it's just a combination of things.

I agree with this.

I have given this reason before, but I also think the diminished TV coverage of Tennis has contributed to this significantly. I can remember watching tennis on TV during the 70's and 80's (major networks)  a hell of a lot more than you see today. This may seem too simple of a reason, but at the most basic level, kids want to go into the most visible sports. Surely there is a correlation between dimished Tennis TV coverage over the past 20 years and decreased overall American Tennis talent.

I dunno, my youngest brother is still in high school and it really seems like a lot of kids his age are just all doing multiple clubs and sports all throughout the year. At the end of the day, if you're playing high school tennis and not going to a tennis academy of some sort, the odds of you ever making it big are very slim. I think that is more what I was getting at. The kids go up playing multiple sports, so going to high school, even if they decide to pick one when they get to high school, if it happens to be tennis, it's already almost too late for them. I agree with the TV coverage as well. There are many times you cannot even find tennis coverage live on the Tennis channel because they have some other show on for whatever reason.

I think it's because all the most promising U.S. tennis players are now going into soccer. Yeah, that's it.

That's my point. You are probably too young to remember or even know this, but we used to not have a 100 cable channel options at our disposal. Tennis used to be showcased on CBS, NBC, and ABC (ESPN equivilent). It used to not be relegated to the tennis channel.

The bottom line is, folks in this country are no longer interested in tennis.  Truth is, the game bores a lot of people.  Serve and volley routines are part of the past and to a large degree, so are actual rallies.  The average point now a days is probably less than 6 or 7 strokes.  Aces and service winners are nice but they have very little entertainment value.  Players now require four balls with which to choose from, some of them bounce the ball 20 times prior to serving, some of them scream bloody murder on every shot, they towel off after every point and so on.  Some matches are entirely too long due to the players moping around tinkering with momentum or some other crazy notion.  Tennis is no longer about a player walking up to the line and getting the point started and that is a shame.  Roger Federer might be the last player of that type.

Good post NC4Bush. Although I've never been a huge fan of Federer, he does have similarities to my all time favorite player, Bjorn Borg. On the court he was all business, rarely showed any emotion, and was successful in doing so, without the grunts, temper tantrums, and other garbage that is displayed today. Five stars to ya.

The average point now a days is probably less than 6 or 7 strokes. 

Respectfully, what tennis matches are you watching? In both Men's and Women's tennis, most of the players are banging it from the baseline, and are not shortening the points by trying to get to net (multitude reasons for this).  Points are probably lasting just as long if not longer than the Johnny Mac and to a degree Pete Sampras at his prime days.

 

Some matches are entirely too long due to the players moping around tinkering with momentum or some other crazy notion. 

Dude, there has always been 'sportsmanship' in tennis.

Very overlooked issue with tennis in America as oppossed to other countries is that other countries often have government run and/or supported tennis schools. Kids in many parts of Europe are identified and recruited as potential future tennis players and sent to schools that are combinations of regular schools and tennis acadmies where they spend as much time learning to play tennis as they do school work. Some of these schools are state/gov't run and some are state/gov't funded. There was a story about this on 60 minutes a couple of years ago when Joker was coming into his own and a bunch of other Serbian players were rising in the rankings. It's nothing new, many of the Czeck players in the past and Russian players came from such schools. America has nothing like this.

As for the rest. I've been saying for years that America should concentrate on developing net skills as a top priority. The speed of the game makes it impossible to have a serve and volley dominated style like the sport once had, but that doesn't mean net play should be ignored which it largely is in America. There is no better way in my opinion to break down the games of players like Joker, Fed etc than to be the one type of player they're not used to playing and have little experiencing facing...Someone who comes to the net at every possible opportunity. With the focus on the big serve and the whack whack whack baseline game, this hasn't happened here or anywhere for that matter. Which is the point of why it should be done.

Very overlooked issue with tennis in America as oppossed to other countries is that other countries often have government run and/or supported tennis schools. Kids in many parts of Europe are identified and recruited as potential future tennis players and sent to schools that are combinations of regular schools and tennis acadmies where they spend as much time learning to play tennis as they do school work. Some of these schools are state/gov't run and some are state/gov't funded. There was a story about this on 60 minutes a couple of years ago when Joker was coming into his own and a bunch of other Serbian players were rising in the rankings. It's nothing new, many of the Czeck players in the past and Russian players came from such schools. America has nothing like this.

This is true. For whatever reason, American tennis has declined over the past 15 years.

Very overlooked issue with tennis in America as oppossed to other countries is that other countries often have government run and/or supported tennis schools.

Again, in the U.S., tennis is a rich man's sport.  More and more kids whose parents have the money are being home schooled, living with personal coaches, and/or going to tennis academies.  With the Junior USTA tournaments that I am involved with, I know many, many kids whose parents are doing this for them.  USTA does not have the funds to provide these options to the lower to middle class families, which doesn't even include the travel to and from tournaments, as well as the entry fees.  The entry fees just for a Sectional Tournament is in excess of $100.  And what about the airfare, hotel, and rental car fees?  Have I mentioned the cost of a personal coach?  Oh, by the way, many of the rich kids have their coaches travel with them to these Sectional and National Tournaments.  Who foots the bill for this?  Oh, yeah...the rich Momma and Daddy!

I agree and it has pretty much always been that way. But I don't think that's the major factor. Where I grew up, we had 7 tennis courts at the local park and 5 at the high school. They were always busy, with a wait list to use the ones at the park almost all the time. The town was not very affluent then, just your average middle class NY suburb. 30 years later, the town is very affulent now, but the tennis courts at the park are seldom used. Neither are the basketball courts. The courts at the high school were paved over and replaced with a student car parking lot which is filled with Ininitis, BMW's, Acuras and Lexus. And those are student cars.

These kids don't go out. They sit in front of their computers and TV's and the closest thing these kids come to getting tennis elbow is suffering from Smart Phone Thumb. It's a different country today. We played tennis because it was something to do. A couple of kids from my graduating class went on to play tennis at the collegiate level, and one of those played in the US Open one year. The only electronic games that existed was Pong and Atari. We had no computers, nobody had TV's in their bedrooms and only 4 or 5 kids in my graduating class of 500 had cars.

What I'm saying here is that while you're right in saying tennis is a rich man's sport, there is availability for the sport to be played by kids today just as there was 30 years ago. But it's not played today. The overall interest has severely declined.

Mel,

I like your post and you make valid points.  With that said, pull up the Sectional Tournaments of the different regions, and you will consistently see a wait list for the 12s and 14s.  There still is interest in tennis, with rich Mommy and Daddy footing the bill.  It's ashame really.  I personally know kids who are privately coached 7 days a week.....and some of these coaches have given them the ultimatum of only playing tennis and no other sports, or they would not coach the kid anymore.  Two of these coaches I personally know, played in the U.S. Open.  What happened to the days when kids played more than one sport and developed a healthy balance and more skills?