Across The Net: U.S. Men’s Tennis Eras

Posted by Dan Martin on 10.02.2006

World #9 James Blake defended his generation and won his fourth tournament of 2006 all in the same week. Does Blake's argument hold water? The record books demonstrate that Blake and Andy Roddick still have a lot of work left to do.

This Week in Tennis

James Blake won his fourth tournament of the year by defeating world #3 Ivan Ljubicic in the final of the Thai Open 6-3, 6-1. Blake is cementing his case to play in the year ending Masters Cup by finishing in the world's top 8. Blake has also been runner-up at three tournaments this season. The big question for Blake is can he win big matches in Grand Slams in 2007. To this point he looks like a contender in NY and less dangerous in London, Paris and Melbourne.

20 year old Thomas Berdych stands one match away from entering the top 10. He will face Russia's Davis Cup hero and world # 22 Dmitry Tursunov on Monday in the rain delayed final of a tournament in India. Both Berdych and Tursunov deserve attention as potential contenders for major titles in 2007.

Generational Decline?

I was planning on skewering the USTA for failure to promote tennis among young people in the U.S., but that can wait until next week. However, this week James Blake made a defense of the state of U.S. men's tennis. Blake who played collegiate tennis at Harvard before leaving school early and turning pro is someone worth listening to (yes, that Harvard). His point was that world #6 Andy Roddick has been an elite player since 2003 and that Roddick is only 24 years old. Blake, who is ranked #9 in the world, is 26 years old. Both players seem to have at least several years of being in the top fifteen in front of them. How bad can U.S. tennis be if two U.S. players are in the top 10?

Blake's points are all well taken. However, this generation of men's players pale in comparison to two previous epochs in American men's tennis. Blake was quick to point out that prior generations of players left big shoes to fill. To gain perspective let's look at what these two previous generations accomplished.

Generation: Connors, McEnroe, Gerulatis, and Tanner

I would normally define a tennis generation as happening every five years. Thus, Roger Federer is part of a different generation than Rafael Nadal. However, Jimmy Connors' insane longevity cause his career to overlap a great deal with John McEnroe's career, a player seven years Jimmy's junior. For simplicity's sake, I have merged Connors and McEnroe's generations.

Trends: Either Connors or McEnroe played in the U.S. Open final from 1974-1985. Connors won the title in 1974, 76, 78, 82, & 83. McEnroe took home the title in 1979, 80, 81, & 84. Connors finished five consecutive years ranked #1 in the world: 1974-78. McEnroe finished four consecutive years ranked #1: 1981-84.

Grand Slam Breakdown: 17 Grand Slam Titles
Connors and McEnroe combined for 15 Grand Slam titles. Vitas Gerulatis and Roscoe Tanner each won 1 Australian Open title.

Trivia: Connors won the U.S. Open on three different surfaces: Grass 1974, Green Clay 1976, Hard Courts 1978, 1982, 1983. Connors reached the U.S. Open Semifinal at 39 years of age in 1991 and John McEnroe reached the 1992 Wimbledon semifinals at age 32.

Generation: Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang and Others

Trends: A U.S. born player finished #1 in the world for 8 consecutive years: Jim Courier 1992, Pete Sampras 1993-1998, Andre Agassi 1999. A U.S. born player won at least one Grand Slam title during each calendar year from 1989-2003. Three players attained the #1 ranking and Michael Chang reached #2.

Grand Slam Breakdown: 27 Grand Slam Titles! 20 Grand Slam Runner-up Finishes
I'll take this player by player.

Michael Chang:
Title - French Open 1989
Runner-up finishes – French Open 1995, Australian Open 1996, U.S. Open 1996

Pete Sampras:
Titles – U.S. Open 1990, 93, 95, 96, 2002, Wimbledon 1993, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 2000, Australian Open 1994, 97
Runner-up finishes – U.S. Open 1992, 2000, 01, Australian Open 1995

Jim Courier:
Titles – French Open 1991, 92, Australian Open 1992, 93
Runner-up finishes – U.S. Open 1991, French Open 1993, Wimbledon 1993

Andre Agassi:
Titles – Wimbledon 1992, U.S. Open 1994, 1999, Australian Open 1995, 2000, 01, 03, French Open 1999
Runner-up finishes – French Open 1990, 91, U.S. Open 1990, 95, 2002, 05, Wimbledon 1999

Others:
Todd Martin – Runner-up 1994 Australian Open and 1999 U.S. Open
Malavai Washington – Runner-up 1996 Wimbledon

Trivia: Andre Agassi won the career Grand Slam in 1999 when he won the French Open. Agassi also won the 1996 Olympic Gold Medal in Singles. Pete Sampras finished a record six years at #1 and won a record 14 Grand Slam singles titles.

Generation Roddick, Blake, Ginepri and Fish

Trends: Roddick has reached one Grand Slam final each of the previous four years, Roddick has been ranked in the top 3 in 2003, 04 and 05

Grand Slam Breakdown: 1 title, 3 runner-up finishes

Andy Roddick:
Title – U.S. Open 2003
Runner-up finishes – Wimbledon 2004, 05, U.S. Open 2006

Robby Ginepri:
Semifinal finish – U.S. Open 2005

James Blake:
Quarterfinal finishes – U.S. Open 2005, 06

Mardy Fish:
Runner-up finishes - Masters Cup Cincinnati 2003
In all fairness to Fish, he has had major injury issues since 2003.

Numbers do not lie. This generation has had some impressive Roddick-centric results, but beyond Andy no one has shown any stamina in Grand Slam tournaments. Also, the French Open in particular and clay court tennis in general has become a black hole since the hey day of Agassi, Courier and Chang.

While Blake is correct this generation has done reasonably well, it has yet to live up to anything near the Connors-McEnroe or Sampras-Agassi eras. There is a lost generation of U.S. tennis players that includes Brad Gilbert, Tim Mayotte, Aaron Krickstein, Jay Berger, and "Dr. Dirt" Tim Wilkerson. None of these are household names. This lost generation fell between the Connors-McEnroe and Sampras-Agassi generations. Roddick has outperformed anyone from the lost generation, but the rest, Blake included, may be headed for a similar fate of historical anonymity. The sad fact is that while youngsters such as Donald Young, Sam Querrey, and Scoville Jenkins show promise, there does not appear to be a Sampras around the corner to erase our collective memories of Jay Berger. So tennis fans in the U.S. either need to get past jingoism and embrace players such as Federer and Nadal or be resigned to the fact that Vince Spadea, a solid journeyman and contemporary of Agassi and Sampras, will be more and more the norm in future generations.

Why is this?

Tennis is the most international sport outside of soccer, but because it is an individual sport a nation only needs to cultivate one talent in order to be relevant. Marcos Baghdatis of Cyprus is currently #8 in the world. Cyrpus has a player in the top ten. Also, nationality has become increasingly minimized as a relevant factor in player development. Marat Safin was sent to train in Spain by the Russian Tennis Federation. Any number of players travel to U.S. tennis academies in order to develop their talents. Spain, Sweeden, Argentina, France and Nick Bollettieri's Tennis Academy seem to be the five best places for a junior player to hone his or her skills.

In my next column, I will look at how the USTA has contributed to the marginalization of tennis in the U.S.