The American Game: Is It In Crisis?
The November/December issue of Tennis magazine is a special report on the state of the American game. Heavyweight freelancers Doug Robson and Christopher Clarey contribute, and two of the magazine's staff, Christopher Chung and Steve Tignor, also pen articles on the theme. Chung's about "straightening out the collegiate game," and Tignor's about where U.S. dominance went. I just received my issue today, but I've read everything, and there's not much to argue with from my perspective. In addition to the print articles, which are not available online, is a "web extra" roundtable discussion with Eliot Teltscher, Pam Shriver and Jim Courier. The link is here. I disagree with Pam Shriver on college tennis and agree with Jim Courier on the flat world. There's lots of other ideas to chew over and they touch on the "hunger" issue that always rears its head in this conversation.
But for a really strong statement on the issue, you've got this Dale Robertson story in today's Houston Chronicle, that quotes legendary coach John Wilkerson as saying:Our kids get the money and the fame, and they stop trying to improve," he said. "We don't excel nowhere anymore because we get too much too soon. We're developing a bunch of wussies."
The article is full of that kind of straight talk, which I've found is a prominent characteristic of the best junior development coaches. And if you want to hear Wilkerson's theory on why there are no more serve-and-volley players in tennis, that's there too.
6 comments:
Good stuff Colette! I was quite surprised when I opened up the Tennis Magazine yesterday and found those articles. I am 24 now and I think if I could go back to college as a 24 year old I would be a much more solid player. The difference between being a senior at 21 versus 24 can definitely make a big difference.
I think they should eliminate the gray area in college tennis. Keep the age rule, but allow players to take prize money. This will solve a lot of problems and it is not like these guys are making money. In fact, most guys even top 400 in the world are barely breaking even or losing money. This will help tennis in general because money is a big road block to getting on the road, especially when the tournaments are all over the country and international.
If people are potentially going to get aid under the table, it is going to happen anyways. At least we have opened the gates to go after all recruits under the age rule.
Again, the articles were great. Maybe in the next Tennis Mag they can touch on one of the core problems in American Tennis...any guesses?
From the start of 1956 to the end of 1973, a grand total of 5 major titles (out of a possible 72) were won by American-born players. Why, when the earth wasn’t quite so ‘flat’ did American men struggle to win the biggest tournaments? Was it a lack of hunger, too much money or a lack of work ethic? No! The simple answer is that the American players weren’t good enough. The game and the American players were dominated by a country that had less than 5% of their population but still managed, somehow, to produce the greatest dynasty, the greatest generation and the single greatest player the game has known.
However, between 1974 and 2003, 11 American men won 47 of a possible 80 major titles, even though the world was just a bit flatter than before and even though the consumer culture was, supposedly, making people a bit softer and a bit less ‘hungry’. Why the sudden shift in fortunes? Quite simply, the players were better and, fortunately, most of them came from home environments where the belief that being American is all it takes to succeed hadn’t had the chance to become deeply entrenched.
Exactly what I have been babbling about on this board for months now. Mr Wilkerson hits the nail on the head. People use the excuses that serve and volley cannot be taught anymore because the racquets are too powerful, or the return game is such that it would be a lost cause. The bottom line is, WINNING. Parents, most coaches, and then as a result, young juniors, all want the "W" now. What does that mean? It means a whole country of clones. Bashers from the baseline, and the rare one's who come through are the athletic, mentally tough cookies. That is the only separation!! They may make top 100 (see Vania King, Jamea Jackson)..admit Sam Querrey may reach higher..but for the most part, the rest are headed to College tennis..though nothing wrong with that, unless you have higher goals, but continue to have mind-boggling stupid vision. (anybody's guess who that may be). The rest of the world is not off the hook either..but the other countries seem to have the mental game to excell at the baseline. Here's how visionary the USTA is: Lets start to board the top few players in USTA rankings..make them play on clay so they can withstand longer points, and develop fight and patience..and then we can catch our foriegn counterparts, and in the next junior Davis Cup, or, ITF where the USA gets humiliated in the past...we shall unleash these Chris Evert mentality baseline machines. Real innovation. If anybody out there had the guts to take an willing athletic kid, and teach them serve and volley, or at least, the inclination to close the net after groundstrokes that have your opponent scrambling..and NOT WORRY about trophies or USTA approval, then perhaps another Edberg or Navratilova could emerge? You know the shots I am talking about. When Suzie 5 privates per week hits a cannon of a forehand, and watches it everytime, instead of closing, because she knows her opponent will scramble and hit a high ball...and YES..at 10-16 years of age you MAY LOSE THE POINT..but who cares? I'll tell you: The parents, most coaches, the kids..and all of this led by the USTA way of thinking.
steven s has distilled the current thinking and motivations in U.S. junior tennis perfectly. His analysis speaks volumes about why this appraoch is doomed to fail in producing American champions. We are moving away from the attacking tennis that made American hardcourt tennis great. Pressure tennis and closing in on net when you have your opponent in trouble a la Connors, McEnroe and Sampras. I really don't understand why American tennis has evolved into the Agassi baseline grinding approach over the attacking Sampras style which was much more successful, huh? The USTA has also bought into this appraoch to produce a nation full of baseline grinders, tsk, tsk.
Everything about USTA tennis development is about rankings, and the fast track. Serve and volley and attacking mentality does neither. The USTA is right about one thing though. The mental toughness. Any great tennis player needs this, but especially with the way the game is being taught today. Does anybody remember when Martina Navraltilova brought her 46? year old body to England a few years ago? I think it was a warm-up tournament where she played Hantuchova really tough? Even at her age, that style of play, when executed well can give anybody trouble. But it must be started at an early age, and it takes long to develop. Its suprising to me that with Billie Jean King in the mix, the USTA does not encourage this type of development! Talk about an attacking player!
I generally agree with most of the comments about how the U.S. players could benefit from learning how to attack the net better; however, I think a clarification should be made that this does not necessarily mean serve-and-volley on most points. I'm not sure that going all the way to a serve and volley style is the answer because it's not just the U.S. players who aren't doing much serve-and-volley, it's the entire ATP top 100.
I recall that only a handful of players from all countries in the ATP top 100 serve and volley on most points. I think Dent, Myrni and maybe two others do it.
Post a Comment