ESPN Article On The Future of American Men's Tennis
Tennis fans, I missed the earlier discussion on Wimbledon, I was on 'holiday' as they say. But, I still caught a couple of matches, and on today I say this article. An interesting theory by one of the experts (Brad Gilbert, nonetheless) is that American youth need to play more clay court tennis in order to increase movement, develop strategy, and learn working the point. He thinks American male tennis players are one dimensional. Also, there is a consensus that Korda will be the American male that breaks through and establishes himself as a top 5 player. There's a lot of good stuff in this article.
Question for experienced MGoBloggers: What's the point of putting "OT" before your post?
10.1.1To indicate that it is an extended discussion of an unresolved topic, i.e., an OverTime topic. This post clearly fits the bill.
EDIT: wow, I guess the sarcasm was too subtle and needs to hit you in the face for you to get it. Obviously it means off-topic. With that said... /s
I didn't know that! I always thought it meant "Off Topic" - indicating that it was not about the normal Michigan sports topics but allowed in the between seasons slow periods.
That would be "OTT".
NTTAWOTT
I would like to be able to assume that every clearly wrong comment is sarcasm but I don't think that is a safe assumption.
I'm the future of American men's tennis. Me, Clarence Boddicker. I'm about to transform the game...
I think Korda has a shot. And yes, growing up playing on a variety of surfaces can definitely impact the US talent pool. I am also disappointed with how the changes in racquet technology and the slowing down of grass surfaces have eliminated the serve and volley game. It’s made tennis more boring.
They're right, of all the younger American men currently in the top 100, Korda is the one that's got the brightest future. I do think playing on clay (real clay, not the green crap that is more prevalent here in the states) at a younger age would certainly help. However, I think a lot of it comes from the differences in development programs here in the stats vs abroad. I think Europe and other parts of the world have better programs put in place to develop proper stroke technique and better tactics for match play.
Watched basically all of the Korda match the other day against Khachanov. It was one of the strangest things I have ever seen. There was like 12 breaks in the 5th. Korda had so many chances to win, and he would have been able to beat FAA- so disappointing.
His biggest weakness right now is serving- he's gotta ramp those speeds up, which he will. The rest of his game is basically set.
Fritz also showed up pretty well against Zverev- I still have hopes for him.
I'm not sure about Opelka or Tiafoe.
As far as the juniors, I'm not very well versed with those guys, but hopefully there are some good players on the way.
But yeah, I'm supremly confident that Korda can get it done and carry the mantle.
I played in HS back in the 80's and was ok-enough to have played MIAA (think, Alma College or Calvin). After 20+ years of not playing much at all, I took lessons at a club and basically started over. I had an instructor who was my age and he said all they teach now is baseline. There's very little in the way of net-drills or strategy built around serve and volley. For instance, I specifically remember a half-volley drill that was taught as a means of following your 1st and 2nd serve to the net. No more. Now it's forehand, forehand, forehand. Next session, backhand, backhand, backhand. *shakes fist at the sky*
I agree with half of this.
I do not think that the USA training does enough to vary things up, other than trying to overpower the opponent. That's why guys like Opelka, Isner, Querrey are basically one-trick ponies. I think Fritz has the most potential out of the group of guys that rely on power because he moves pretty well for a taller guy and can handle longer rallies- he does have a lot of work to do left.
Korda has the most potential out of all the current flock because his game is absolutely smooth all the way around, he can handle any surface, and he has incredible touch around the net. He just has to get a serve.
I disagree with the implementation of serve and volley in 2021. There is a reason it is not done anymore- the players today are just too strong and can pass with ease. It worked back in the day because the racquet technology was not there and the players were just not able to thump as hard. There really should be no focus on developing players who can serve and volley- it just doesn't work anymore.
Having a good net game in 2021 is important, but not critical. As long as you can hit the occasional drop shot and get some good touch on close-up plays, the modern player will be fine. I don't think Federer or Djoker have exceptional net games because they really don't come up to the net a ton. Federer's SABR technique is successful because it just comes out of absolutely nowhere. It's just a totally different game now.
Totally agree re athleticism and racquet technology. But baseline all day is not fun to watch or play.
If going to the net is a lower percentage play now, fine. But changing speeds and angles can still put an athletic opponent on defense and that strategy shouldn't be different from one era to the next. That's part of what the article mentions: Americans aren't learning tactical play.
And that I do agree with. But I think there's a difference between tactical play and serve/volley. I wish our best batch of stars had a bit more flexibility to their game, outside of Korda and to some extent, Tiafoe.
They definitely need to train on clay and slower surfaces more often.
I call BS with the clay court.
If this was true, we would have development problems with women as well as men. But that is not the case, women are doing fine just playing hard courts while growing up.
The problem is with the fact that the men's game is evolving into a sport where you need to be 6'4"+ with amazing lateral quickness in order to compete at the highest level. Unfortunately, that kind of athleticism is in VERY high demand with much more popular sport like football and basketball.
And if you have that kind of quickness and athletic abilities, it would be in your best interest to pursuit football or basketball as the top 200 player in those sports are millionaires while a top 200 player in tennis can barely make ends meet. Women's tennis don't have to compete against that kind of economics.
It is just a simple ROI problem, no need to complicate things.
Yep.
Honestly, we've been having these "what is wrong with men's American tennis" for 15 years now (ever since Roddick started staring into the Federer brick wall).
The structural reasons that you outlined are reasons why these articles likely will re-appear in the future too.