Tennis Notebook: U.S. men no longer dominate

Tennis Notebook: U.S. men no longer dominate--
Where to begin on this one? Can't argue with the headline, really. Are they writing headlines in Argentina or Spain saying, "We Rule Men's Tennis?"

Let's see, it's Federer (Switzerland), Hewitt (Australia), Roddick (U.S.) and Safin (Russia), in the top spots, so no, I guess they aren't likely to be making that claim.

And if it's Davis Cup we're going by, well, Spain, the 2004 champion, is already out for 2005.

The first paragraph is really quite comical, as Connors and McEnroe were an entirely different tennis generation from Sampras, Courier and Agassi. In fact, I remember everybody wondering what we were going to do back in the mid-80s, when McEnroe stopped winning Grand Slams, because there was no one else on the horizon. And then, in 1987, Agassi arrived, with Chang, Courier and Sampras right behind.

And call Andy Roddick of a lot of things, but don't call him inconsistent. That adjective is reserved for Marat Safin's personal use, as long as he plays. Roddick, on the other hand, can be penciled in as a semifinalist, at worst, at every major save the French.

There are several other clues that the reporter isn't all that conversant with tennis. Depth in choosing a Davis Cup squad is of limited value, which is why Croatia can beat the U.S. and the Slovak Republic can beat Spain. And "Marty" Fish?

Mr. Ruzanic seems to be prone to a little Becker exaggeration of his own. Did the U.S. ever have 60 or 70 players in the top 100? I'm too lazy to do the research on THAT, but I doubt it. At least he gives credit to the boys in the 12s, 14s, and 16s age divisions who are, in fact, dominating the world right now.

But there are no guarantees that this will translate into greater glory in the Davis Cup, or anyplace else. Tennis at its highest level is not played by countries, it's played by people, and they don't always fulfill the hopes we have of them.