I found “On The Decline Of American (And Australian) Men’s Tennis” fascinating. Both Ubaldo and Steve Flink are long-time tennis friends of mine and because they are I feel comfortable offering some interesting food for thought.
The question that was posed concerning the US and Australian decline in men’s tennis is tremendously complex and there are no “set” answers as to what brought about this demise. What’s more, the numbers don’t tell the full story about what has taken place.
I sent the article to a long-time Australian friend, who has a playing background but more important, has been involved in the game “Down Under” for ages. He understands the Tennis Australia system thoroughly. He provided some insights and I will offer mine based on my experiences with the USTA. (As background, I was a “hack” of a player; served as a Boys’ National Team Coach and as a clinician; and have been a tennis journalist for fifty years.)
In both the US and Australia, the national tennis federations have done a horrific job. They continually change course with regard to plans and direction which results in more than mixed messaging – more like a GPS offering “re-routing” or “make a U-turn”. Politics and egos regularly add to the situation’s befuddlement. While this is a conundrum seen in most sports organizations, in tennis it is worse because those in leadership roles, for the most part, share one distinction – They were players. Broadly speaking, just because an individual reached elite status on the court doesn’t mean they have the wide-ranging vision that is necessary (essential is probably a better word) to establish meaningful, building block, step by step development programs. As administrators (and often the same holds when former players try to establish new careers as coaches), it is difficult for them to move beyond the linear focus that served them so well as competitors. For them the future was…the next match, the next tournament and little beyond.
More to the point, federations “do not a player make…” They should offer opportunities to travel and most importantly, financial support, but overall these organizations have yet to take a youngster from the beginning stages of his/her career to a world ranking. This is why, and I realize this is so logical it is often ignored, local coaches, who are much more than teachers but more importantly, communicators, are so essential. If they are able to establish solid working relationships with those responsible for player oversight on the national level, a win-win result…but this rarely happens for a plethora of reasons highlighted by personality differences.
As my friend noted, “It is also amazing how gullible people can be. Coaches get a hold of a viable prospect, and many years pass, until it’s too late.” It is like a seesaw, actually a metronome, always ticking away. Some coaches receive kudos and in time develop a cult-like following. Others who are not dynamic self-promoters, receive little recognition, yet they may actually be better coaches. But, as the saying goes, “BS sells…”
My friend added, “Australia is behind the ‘eight ball’ in the global game because of distance…” There is also the fact, “…Europeans are less prone to thinking of themselves as troops of a national sporting campaign, though an exception is France. Their country’s players see themselves as competitors, not tomorrow’s ‘our world number one’ as Ash Barty kept being referred to during all of last year. That is, until she didn’t make our (Australian Open) final as everyone had hoped.”
In the US, different words can be used but the problem is the same. Youngsters as soon as they evidence almost any repeated success are baptized “The Next”. The “blessing”, as it were, results in microscopic – “Is he/she really…” – analysis, (in both countries), after a couple of good tournament performances. Those caught in this dance try to keep up but the music is constantly changing so their dance moves become muddled. More and more today, there is an added problem. The coach of “the phenomenon” is a parent. Having failed in some competitive sport, they try to have “a new career” as a coach but have little real tennis expertise. Further, parenting a child doesn’t guarantee that the individual is aware of the emotional balancing act that is an intricate part of being a coach/dad or coach/mom. Nonetheless, parents/coaches regularly discuss the sensitive juggling that is required when they have, in truth, been learning tennis as a “father” or “mother” observer.
Tennis is a complex sport. Not only must an individual have some athletic ability, but the skill must be supported by someone (often the family) and bolstered by an individual’s self-confidence, along with either boldness or stubbornness (or both). Perhaps even more important is having the ability to deal with defeat and still make progress. Because of these and other requirements, tennis in the US and Australia doesn’t get extraordinary athletes. It, and I am speaking broadly, gets the “mechanics” not the “creative architects” for the most part. (Yes, I know that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are “creators” but someone like Schwartzman is, and this is not to be demeaning, a very good “mechanic”.)
Another major issue is appeal. With all the sports offerings in the US and Australia why would tennis be especially captivating? True, it is a family game so it regularly becomes part of family members DNA. Still, there needs to be more to spur interest in the sport and as I pointed out above, both federations have failed almost completely in messaging.
Unfortunately, working with “social media attention spans”, which are notoriously short, efforts to call attention to players have become quick to mention “blips”. The article talked about prospects such as Brandon Nakashima and Rinky Hijikata and their position as “up and comers” yet neither governing body has made a novel effort to call attention to the game’s future. It is still selling Lleyton Hewitts …
My friend pointed out, “The European tennis ‘boom’ coincided with the lifting of the Iron Curtain that created a greater freedom for a true competitive mix…” Tennis had been viewed as a bourgeoisie activity that now was open to the “striving masses”. Cheryl Jones, my wife who was a very reputable player in her younger days, has written about the game for years (often for Ubitennis). She interviewed and wrote about Jennifer Capriati numerous times. One of Capriati’s most telling comments was about “having fire in her belly to succeed…”
With many US players this is missing. Oh, they talk about commitment, about how hard they work, but, more often than not, it is all talk. They simply don’t “burn with desire” because there is really no need or inspiration to become a forest fire. A few “ember” wins here and there is enough to maintain, so these people think, status as a tennis player. Not to go “overboard philosophically”, tennis doesn’t consume their souls. They play it, enjoy it and are rewarded by their results, but when asked to reach within and respond to what it means to be a player, it is quantified in wins and losses…not an “I can touch it, taste it” expression of feeling.
These are, in my view, the most relevant aspects of this multi-faceted problem. I thank you once more for bringing this debate to my attention, and I hope I have been able to give “some interesting food for thought” myself.
