U.S. Open Tennis: The American Tennis Boom Was a Fluke
No one tuning in to the U.S. Open men's and women's semifinals and finals this weekend is going to want to hear this, but I have bad news: the vaunted American "tennis boom" of the 1970s and '80s was a fluke. We were supposed to see tennis broken out of its country-club, upper-crusty enclaves and delivered to the masses. And for a while, it worked. The result, in fact, is the massive National Tennis Center complex, which annually hosts the U.S. Open.
America took to tennis for a while. Public courts sprang up everywhere, young kids got racquets and took lessons, and a generation of marketable American stars -- Chris Evert, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, even a naturalized Martina Navratilova -- emerged. It inspired a mega-generation, which included Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, and the Williams sisters.
But then the nation lost interest. Or more accurately, had its interest diverted, into Tiger Woods' brand of golf, a resurgent Major League Baseball, fantasy football, big time hoops, X-Games -- the whole EPSN-ificated suite of competitive contests. Now the bottom has fallen out of American tennis. I live in Los Angeles, a one-time tennis hotbed, where on any given day, the city's vast supply of public tennis courts is...completely empty.
A common lament at this year's U.S. Open is that we have no up-and-coming male pro players, and when the Williams sisters are finished, the situation looks grim for the ladies. Jimmy Connors, doing commentary for the Tennis Channel, said that the country is already a generation behind on junior development and unless something happens soon in terms of catching up, we'll fall two generations behind.
Nothing is going to happen. It's important to remember that this is historically consistent. Tennis has always gone through boom and bust cycles in America. We had great champions in the 1920s and '30s, like Bill Tilden and Don Budge, but tennis became a second-tier sport again after World War II and didn't really pop back into Americans' consciousness until the '70s and '80s boom.
This is evident in the caliber of world-class players we have today. Andy Roddick is the only American man in the top ten. James Blake, a class act, if never a serious threat as a Grand Slam champion, has fallen out of the top ten. The next few American men, guys like John Isner and Sam Querrey, are rising, but it's hard to see them challenging the raft of European and South American players who currently dominate the game. On the women's side, it's even worse. Melanie Oudin was a great story at this year's Open, but the top women are from the countries of the former USSR, Belgium, and France. We have Venus and Serena, but they're not going to be around forever.
The experts who monitor the game can talk all they want about identifying juniors early and getting them into tennis, or adopting some of the passion, innovation, and sheer love for the game that we see in the likes of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. But it's not going to work because the broad public support for the game isn't there. Trying to force things back to the way they were in the 1980s is a futile undertaking. I hate to be pessimistic, but I take some solace in my belief that the cycle will come back around in another 20-30 years and America will go tennis mad again.
By then, this false debate over the future of American tennis will be long forgotten. We'll be less likely at that time to see a manufactured, built-by-pros U.S. challenger to the world's tennis elite. These young men and women won't play because everyone wants them to -- they'll play because they love the game and can't imagine doing anything else. Tennis is an individual sport. The most important motivation doesn't come from the group. It comes from within. And the sooner we confront the fact that the U.S. tennis boom was an anomaly rather than destiny or the norm, the sooner we'll solve the "problem" of American tennis.
Oh, and by the time we stage our comeback, maybe we'll have a roof on the largest tennis stadium in the world, so our national tournament isn't stalled for days by rain in September.
Follow Matthew DeBord on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mattdebord
Len Berman: Top 5 Sports Stories
I miss the good old days. George Steinbrenner calling out players. Hank Steinbrenner saying something dopey A-Rod making ridiculous headlines. These days it's just win win win. They're both good and boring.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
My youngest son recently quit varsity baseball and football and went to tennis full time; my older son was a varsity baseball player. I do not play tennis; I was a college soccer player. But I can honestly say that tennis may be the most demanding sport around, especially mentally. Its just you out there alone, no one else to blame if there is a mistake. No one to depend upon except yourself. No one to help you rally from behind when you are down 5-4 and its match point with the other guy serving. The pressure can be intense. In addition, the stamina, reflexes, and speed necessary for this sport are second to none.
I've never met a high school football, baseball, or basketball player tougher mentally than a good high school tournament tennis player.
Personally, I really couldn't care less whether the top tennis stars were American or Martians.
As long as there are at least 2-3 players around to play tennis at its highest level (a la Federer-Nadal, Sampras-Agassi, etc.) then I'm happy.
The nationality of the players makes no difference to me. The quality of their play does.
Which courts in LA are you referring to Matthew? I'd like to know since it can be a challenge to find a court at primetime. It doesn't matter to me how many millions of people are tennis fans. As long as there are a few. As far as I can tell the sport seems to be growing, but either way it has been around for hundreds of years in different forms, and will not die. I hope the USTA and ITF do not decide to mess with the format or rules to conform to television. Why alienate the core tennis fans to have a few iffy fans watch it on tv? Tennis is the only sport I watch with regularity. It's a sport with tradition and drama having an international reach. Players like Bagdatis or Wozniaki can come from smaller countries and be champions along side the US, Russia, Spain and France. It's not for everyone, but thats ok with me.
Tennis is the fastest growing sport in America. They track it by the # of tennis balls and racquets sold. Look it up if you dont believe it. Tennis is a great sport that you can play your entire life. Once you get comfortable with hitting the ball and serving you will love it. Give it a try it's great exercise too.
The 70's saw a lot of distinctive personalities enter the sport. Agassi was the last mens player with a personality. After the 70's, the robots took over and the humans lost interest. Also, the equipment started turning it into a boring servers game. Now clay is the only surface that produces good rallies in the mens game. I'd say, like baseball, require play with wood rackets again. Then you 'd see some strategy return.
Oh my lord, a tennis player! Good for you!
It is all well and good to think that the future of American tennis lies within the grasp of organizations that run it. But is it?
The last time I looked, tennis was a fairly strenuous sport. The last time I looked at the numbers I saw that 1/3 of American school children are obese. The National Association of Sport says school children should receive 200 minutes of PhysEd per week but fewer than 10 per cent of public schools offer any kind of daily PhysEd. Strenuous sport doesn't seem to have a very bright future in a country where PhysEd is less and less valued in our schools.
And as other posts here have noted, actual tennis seems pretty analog compared to the thrills and spills of the digital world. On days when internet cafes are full, often the loneliest places are playgrounds and tennis courts.
Any grand strategy for the future of tennis in America has to confront some pretty sobering realities.
They take the fun out of early for would be competitors with every little niche of Tennis being someone's profit center. They pick your pockets from the first time you sign up. Oh you have to be a member of the USTA to even play in most Touraments. Pre- Registration and rule my God the rules. What did they think would happen when they raped Tennis for profit ??? Oh thats right they did not think the $ signs were in their eyes.
Athletics is history. Most kids today play on computers not at sports. The future of mankind is cerebral not physical. In the future, all competition including wars, will be conducted through the proxy of the computer. The matrix is upon us.
It is now much tougher - more expensive - for U.S. players to jump from college into the pro circuit.
The dollar - euro exchange rate is awful. And, most of the pro tour is in Europe.
Even if a good American college player wanted to play on the tour, it's
Many of the college scholarships are given to former low-level pros.
Just not much opportunity for American kids.
And, Americans like to root for Americans - Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi...
The interest in Tennis and Golf has diminished, for many nothing more than a passing fad.
While some may wish the above was not true, it is. Neither Tennis nor Golf are now growth sports and are shrinking.
Tennis is great.
Always has been and always will be.
There will always be new talent rising
Anyone who doubts for one second that professional sports are personality driven need only check the TV ratings for men's golf.
Take a peek at the ratings difference when Tiger Woods plays vs. when he doesn't.
Personalities drive interest, interest drives ratings, ratings drive the sports' financial success or failure.
Players who are widely loved and players who are widely despised are what determines the popularity of most professional sports.
Diehard fans don't need personalities. They'll follow the sport because they love the sport. People who "like" a sport , or can take it or leave it, will follow that sport when it has compelling personalities who grab their interest.
It is those "part time" fans who determine whether a sport is "up" or "down" in popularity.
They are also what determines whether tennis courts are full. It's those same fringe fans who filled golf courses when Tiger came on the scene. With tennis & golf particularly, the more people who follow the pro game, the more who play the amateur variety.
It ain't rocket science, and it is fact.
Tennis was better with wooden racquets.
My first racquet was a feather-light widebody oversize graphite model, so contrary to many responses to my stated opinion -- not everyone who feels wooden racquets are better for the sport are people from the wood generation.
Despite growing up with graphite racquets, I have watched a lot of matches from the different eras and played with racquets from all eras. Wooden racquets are better for the sport for several reasons.
A. Wood is a soft material that absorbs ball shock, leading to fewer injuries and makes the game more enjoyable because there's no impact pain.
B. Wood is a low-power (flexible) material that reduces ball speed, allowing serve and volley to be viable without making the serve too powerful. It also reduces injuries due to slower ball speeds (less lunging when trying to return serves and other shots, for instance). Because wood is low power, pro players used natural gut string which also offers better control and is much softer than other strings, which leads to fewer injuries.
C. Wooden racquets in the original "standard" size offered very small racquet heads and dense string patterns which encouraged control, finesse, and correct technique. This leads to fewer injuries and a more aesthetically appealing game.
D. Players could have longer careers in the wood/grass era. Instead of being considered over the hill at age 28, players in their 40s could reach slam finals.
Pro tennis should not be played on concrete. "Hard" courts are hard on the body.
Good post.
The switch from wood really did change the game and not for the best IMO.
Unfortunately it's unlikely that the genie will ever be put back in the bottle.
I'm a member of a USTA team and so get their publications. The facts are very different from what the writer describes. Tennis is booming! In terms of actual players playing, the numbers have increased in recent years more than any other sport in the U.S. Now, if he's only talking about people in the pipeline to play it professionally, he has a case. But American tennis associations have made a concerted effort over the last decade or so to introduce more people to the sport and keep them playing. They didn't want to see the sport die, or be consigned to kids w/ money, so they have done a tremendous amount of outreach to amateur players all over the country.
Some of the methods the USTA has used to "grow" the sport include: a special way of teaching tennis to very young kids that gets them up and playing immediately (shorter courts, streamlined rules, etc.). They also have a highly organized structure of amateur match play all over the co. , allowing players at all levels to play throughout the year. And they encourage coaches to have a no-cut policy on high school teams, so that all students who are interested in tennis can learn the game, practice and play, without the "shame" of being cut. The USTA has worked hard to democratize the game and is succeeding hugely. That said, all sports have a lot of competition these days.
I have been playing and covering tennis for a few years and have worked at many print and online publications. Tennis is always a forgotten about piece of the sports section puzzle. If you wanted to find a typo, broken link etc. on a sports site, jumping into the tennis area is usually a good bet. I think the heads of the WTA and ATP tour need to sit down in a room and analyze what made the NFL America's current National Pastime. They have a condensed product (16 regular season games, as opposed to the schedules of MLB, the NBA and NHL) so every game is an event.
While McEnroe is getting press this week for complaining about the roofless Arthur Ashe stadium, if you gave him a choice between that roof for free and a greatly reduced tournament schedule, I promise you he'd pick a shorter schedule. And this doesn't need to come (completely) at the expense of the smaller tournaments.
If the Grand Slams were held every year and, say, a dozen other tournaments were held every year, the ATP and WTA could then have certain smaller tournaments be played every other year so that each time it appears, it feels like more of an event. ...
My comment got cut off, so I posted the full thing on my blog: http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
