Saturday, July 26, 2008

The (Sad) State of American Tennis




Non-Slam Tennis doesn’t get much coverage on SportsCenter, but in between the seven Favre stories on Thursday you may have noticed that Roger Federer was bounced early in this year’s Rogers (ironic?) Cup by Gilles Simon. Rest assured, the game’s greatest player is not finished. Yes, Nadal gave him a spanking earlier this year in the final of the French, and, yes, Rafa was able to do the unthinkable (at least to anyone who didn’t watch last year’s Wimbledon final) and dethrone the Fed Express at the All England Club. While it is no longer a forgone conclusion that Roger will break Pete Sampras’ record of 14 majors, I do believe he’s not going to retire with merely the 12 Slams on his current resume. In fact, I’m making a bold prediction that Fed will win another Slam long before we see another American holding up a champion’s trophy from any of the Slams.

In the same tournament this week, the top two Americans, James Blake and Andy Roddick, were also tossed out early. They are both still hovering in the top 10 in the world, but neither is on his way up in the rankings. Sadly, there is no one else even close. Sam Querrey and Mardy Fish are the only other Americans in the Top 50, #38 and #41 respectively. Contrast that with Spain— nine men in the top 50—or France—seven—and you start to see a gloomy picture of American Tennis. The women’s game isn’t much better. I mean the biggest splash this year from an American woman not named Williams, is the Tri-State area’s own Ashley Harkleroad, (pictured) who graced the pages of the August issue of Playboy Magazine.

Usually you’ll see an article similar to this one around the first week of the French Open. Americans traditionally do not do well on the red dirt of Roland Garros, but this isn’t the European Clay Court Season. This is the American Hard Court Season. This is our time to shine. Guys like Simon should not be winning tournaments in Indianapolis. I’m not saying he isn’t a good player—you don’t crack the top 25 or beat the world number one without a fair amount of talent, but still . . .

So, why are Americans lagging behind in a sport they have dominated for most of my lifetime? Over the last year I have been teaching tennis, mainly to juniors, at a semi-private tennis club here in the Scenic City. I have come to the conclusion that the developmental system in place for tennis in this country is seriously flawed, catering only to those who are financially secure.

You may be saying to yourself, tennis has always been an elitist sport. What’s the big deal? Surely someone will come along soon and reclaim our tennis supremacy. I’m not convinced. Much of the world has already surpassed us, such as Western Europe and the old Eastern Bloc countries and there is a large chunk of the globe, namely Asia, which is nipping at our heels. I don’t believe we will be able to compete on an international level if tennis continues to exclude a large majority of its population here in the U.S.

When I was growing up in Chattanooga in the late seventies and early eighties, tennis was at the height of its popularity in this country. It was truly a golden era in the sport. No one can deny the impact guys like Connors and McEnroe (and Borg) made on tennis. Public courts sprang up all over the place, and it was odd to drive by on a sunny, weekend day and not see them filled up with players of all levels. My, how things have changed. When was the last time you saw all the courts across from Red Bank Middle School being used? The city has already torn down two, leaving just five rapidly decaying courts for the entire city of Red Bank. The Red Bank High School team doesn’t even play or practice there anymore. Instead, they head over to Rivermont and use the six free courts closest to the baseball fields. Those courts are actually in decent shape, but it still seems odd that a town the size of Red Bank doesn’t have a decent public facility.

Those of you familiar with the area might know about the beautiful tennis facility know as The Champions Club, which is actually in the same city park as the Rivermont courts I mentioned. These courts are super, and there are 26 of them. My only problem with the facility is that you have to pay to play. If I would have had to pay to play when I was growing up, I never would have learned the game. I mean we were cheapskates. We used to buy Tretorn pressureless tennis balls because they would last forever—they actually got harder with age! So having to pay for court time would have absolutely stopped us in our tracks, and we would have found something else to do, which is exactly what is happening today.

The state of high-school tennis in this area is in shambles. The private schools are in pretty good shape, but other than that, the level of competitiveness is laughable. The USTA has instituted a “No Cut” Rule, which sounds egalitarian, but it just turns into a great big mess. You end up having 30 or 40 kids trying to share one or (maybe) two coaches and six courts. Ridiculous.

Even the private schools have some problems. Baylor’s two-time State Champion, Bo Seal, was forced to leave the area after his sophomore year because there just wasn’t enough competition for him here. He opted to finish high school at a private tennis academy in Florida. Imagine if someone had told B.J. Coleman in his junior year he would have to leave McCallie if he wanted to become a better football player. Nonsense.

Patrick McEnroe recently took the job at the USTA as Director of Player Development. He has a hard task ahead of him. I’ve heard rumors about other, more exclusive tennis academies on the horizon. I guess the feeling is if we can get the cream of the crop better prepared, they will go on to reach great heights. That may be the case in the short run, but for the long haul if the USTA doesn’t do something about making tennis instruction and courts more accessible and affordable, we may be heading for an extremely dark age in American Tennis.

4 comments:

Chris Carpenter said...

Hasn't tennis always been an elitist sport? It isn't expensive to play at all, but it still gets associated with the wealthy. Am I wrong that guys like McEnroe and Sampras were from pretty well off folks?

Also, what is the deal with Roddick? Was he over-hyped and never that good, despite his U.S. Open win, or has he underachieved? Same with Blake?

I feel like technology killed tennis, especially the men's game. It stopped being fun to watch post-Golden Age when everything was power, power, power. The women's game was still interesting because you had volleys, rallies, etc.

On the other hand, a match like the Nadal/Federer classic could be what it takes to get American boys back into tennis. I liked tennis as a kid after I'd watch Becker and Agassi and Edberg and Lendl - that was when I wanted to go play. If nobody is watching, I imagine nobody is playing either.

Maximum Jack said...

>>Hasn't tennis always been an elitist sport?<<

Yeah, I mentioned that in the article.

>>Am I wrong that guys like McEnroe and Sampras were from pretty well off folks?<<

It is a ridiculously expensive sport, and pretty much any American you've ever heard of has come from at least the Middle class. As you mentioned, not expensive to play, but to get good it takes lots of expensive lessons. To become a ranked player at any level, including juniors, you have to be able to travel to tournaments. I'm teaching kids that are off to some tournament nearly every weekend.

>>Also, what is the deal with Roddick? Was he over-hyped and never that good, despite his U.S. Open win, or has he underachieved? Same with Blake?<<

Good questions. I think Roddick's serve was so damn good, that he was able to coast to a few wins early on in his career. Now that he's been on the tour a while, the other pros have figured out his weaknessess, namely his return of serve and a very mediocre backhand. He's still a threat on hard courts, I think he's having shoulder issues currently-- or at least that was his excuse for not making the French Open.

James Blake is an example of someone, who I think, has overachieved. He's not big, he's not strong and he doesn't have a really big weapon, save maybe his footwork/speed, yet he's been in the top 10 for what seems like forever. I did always think he could make a run in New York (his home town), but it just hasn't happened.

>>I feel like technology killed tennis, especially the men's game. It stopped being fun to watch post-Golden Age when everything was power, power, power.<<

Nail on the head. During the 90s and early 00s, tennis was not very fun to watch. Ivanisevic? Philippussis? Stich? Even Sampras made tennis look boring. Only Agassi was fun to watch, and of course Agassi V. Sampras was great. It took a generation for the athletes to catch up to the technology. We're seeing that today. Long points from the baseline. The serve and volley is nearly extinct. I've been watching tennis pretty religiously for about 25 years now, and I can honestly say that three of the best matches I've watched in my lifetime have been this year. Those being: Nadal Vs. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the semis at the Australian. Andy Murray Vs. Richard Gasquet in the 4th Round of Wimbledon. And of course, Rafa Vs. Fed in the final at Wimbledon. Actually, Murray and Nadal had a pretty awesome match under the lights in Toronto last night.

Chris Carpenter said...

Yeah, you pretty much had that exact sentence now that I look back. Must have read right over it.

I've always found the 'call your own lines' aspect of junior tennis to be weird. What other sport, besides golf that pretty much always does it, puts 12-year olds in charge of administering the rules. Even when I play now, I'm never sure if a ball is in or out. I'm more than happy to replay anything close. I guess that is off the topic a little, but has always bugged me.

Maximum Jack said...

Not only do they have to call their own lines, but they have to keep score too. Have you ever explained tennis scoring to a six-year old? It's not easy.