share
email
font size
options
 
Saturday, July 11, 2009

You’ve probably noticed by now that one of the undercurrents of this blog is my interest in sports outside the traditional Big Four.

Thus far, the journey has taken us through college football, college basketball, track and field and soccer. Sometimes what I write generates interest, and sometimes it generates tumbleweeds.

Today, I’m killing this blog’s audience once and for all.

I’m writing about tennis.

For all that I’ve ever said about the other sports I cover, believe me when I tell you that tennis is one of my very favorites.

So when I heard that Andre Agassi was coming to King of Prussia to play World Team Tennis for the Philadelphia Freedoms, I made sure my calendar was clear.

Even though he’s been retired for a few years now, Agassi remains a star. If I went out on the street and asked 10 random people to name one American tennis player, I bet a few would pick him, and not just because he's married to Steffi Graf.

The real reason why Agassi is still so well-known is his place as the last link in a decades-long chain of American dominance in the sport.

From the mid-1990's through their famous 2002 U.S. Open final, Agassi and Pete Sampras were at their best on tennis’ biggest stages. Sampras held the Grand Slam singles titles record for a time, winning the last of his 14 in the aforementioned duel at Flushing Meadows.

But Agassi countered Sampras' resumé with nine Slams of his own, inclduing the 1999 French Open. Not only did that title clinch the career Slam for Agassi, but it came on the famed terre battue that Sampras never solved.

In the early 90's, Jim Courier and Michael Chang also stood among the sport’s elite. Before that, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors seized the spotlight with big games and bigger tempers.

(I grant that I wasn’t alive for much of the McEnroe-Connors era, but I’ve been told that The Inquirer used to send staff writers to Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. I guess the company had money to spend once upon a time.)

These days, however, tennis registers only a blip on the American sports radar. Golf now has more of the “country club” audience, while baseball and (above all) the NFL are now year-round affairs.

But tennis has also been complicit in its own demise, at least in this country. Notwithstanding Andy Roddick’s epic loss to Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final last Sunday, Roddick’s 2003 U.S. Open title was the last men’s singles Slam won by an American.

(If only he’d hit that backhand volley in at the end of the second set...)

Americans want to see Americans win championships in international sports, plain and simple. If that doesn’t happen, they go elsewhere. It’s part of why soccer is where it is in this country, for example, and even if the U.S. wins a World Cup they’ll probably have to win more than one for the sport to really go mainstream nationwide.

(Note that I said nationwide, not locally in Philadelphia. As you’ve probably heard by now, that’s another story.)

Anyway, back to tennis. I played the sport fairly often (if not too well) growing up, and the four Grand Slams have been appointment television for me for many years. There were public hard courts near my parents' house, and I took lessons under a big inflatable bubble a few miles down the road.

I imagined Sampras leaping for overhead smashes at the net, and Agassi returning blistering serves with impeccable backhands (which he's still got, by the way).

I ended up with a forehand that could sustain a decent rally when playing with family and friends. Such is life.

Nowadays, kids in Switzerland watch Roger Federer hit groundstrokes that resemble impressionist paintings. In Spain, they marvel at Rafael Nadal’s ability to surf across red clay. Andy Murray has inspired Great Britain to believe that he might end a Wimbledon drought for the home nation that rivals anything William Penn or the Cubs could offer.

Here in America, we pay all that little notice. Most of the tennis fans I know are resigned to the sport’s rank on the totem pole, though Twitter and other social networking sites have made their sighs louder.

Agassi held a press conference before last night's match, and I asked him whether tennis can make a comeback in the United States. You'll see his answer in the video player below.

I also talked to Jan-Michael Gambill, an American who rose as high as No. 14 in the ATP rankings in 2001. Gambill was in town with the Boston Lobsters, who beat Agassi and the Freedoms.

Now I turn the question to you. Can tennis in America return to prominence? Or is it gone for good?

Posted by Jonathan Tannenwald @ 2:01 AM  Permalink | File Under: Riffs | 5 comments
5
Comments   
Posted 10:53 AM, 07/11/2009
Steffi1
You focus only on men's tennis. Women's tennis has been energized by the likes of Venus & Serena Williams, constant grand slam winners. Funny, no mention of them! The problem with men's tennis is that none of its greatest American men are winners--most, like James Blake and Mardy Fish, tend to choke at the most meaningful moments. And God Bless Andy Roddick, but he choked as well. Meantime, the Williams Sisters are rocking it in singles *and* doubles, and not a mention about them. Maybe it's the attitudes of sports writers that need to change.
Posted 11:57 AM, 07/11/2009
PhilCali
Jon, I am old enough to have seen the Mac/Connors era and it was awesome. The majors are also a must see for me. The Wimbledon final was epic regardless of Roddick losing. I am actually a big fan of Federer so either guy winning worked for me. Maybe that match can propel a U.S. resurgence. Thanks for giving the sport some ink.
Posted 01:27 PM, 07/11/2009
Jonathan Tannenwald
Steffi, you are right that I should have given credit to the Williams sisters. But it's been a while since they really generated huge enthusiasm for tennis. That's in part because their matches against each other, including the recent Wimbledon finals, have not produced great tennis. They dominate everyone else, but against each other they often do not play at their best. It would be great if Maria Sharapova would get back to full strength, or if Dinara Safina would finally win a Slam. But until then, we are going to continue having the kinds of tournaments like we had at Wimbledon this year.

I also think that American women's tennis is going to have its own depth problems in a few years. Once the Williams sisters retire, I don't know if any of the current young players - specifically Melanie Oudin and Madison Brengle - will be able to rise to that level. The lack of promising youth players in American tennis is a problem that afflicts both genders.

As for the "chokers": Federer and Nadal have more talent, plain and simple. Roddick played the best match of his life against Federer but it was still not enough. Blake and Fish are good players, but Blake is aruguably past his prime and Fish has never risen even to Blake's level. Look at their current struggles in the U.S.' Davis Cup tie against Croatia.

Thanks again for your comment. But I think you understand why in this instance I focused on the men.
Posted 02:52 PM, 07/11/2009
TheReck82
Roddick is a faker. The US sports media hyped him up because he fits the bill of another good looking white guy that looks angry. Other than the Wimbledon final he hasn't done anything in the last 4-5 years. Excellence in tennis requires hard individual work and young kids today aren't willing to put as much effort into it as the greats of the past (Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Krickstein). That's just a fact in this heavy twitter/facebook age.
Posted 12:21 PM, 07/12/2009
CleanupPhilly
My family is pretty tennis-mad, even though most of us don't play seriously. I think Tennis could benefit from more of what we do here in Philly, making it accessible to people, and not just in the summer as camps, but in conjunction with schools. You see that with soccer now. I had to watch the US play Haiti in the Gold Cup on Univision, in Spanish, but the kids in my family are big soccer players who appreciate the game. It's just what every Catholic school kid in the 50s and 60s did for that difficult to understand sport called football. The kids played it, grew up with it, and it shaped how they view the world and who they are. If Tennis had more practice venues, which for me, would include just a place to lob a ball back over the net from a machine, or just practice against a wall, I'd be able to appreciate the game more. Tennis suffers from its blue blood image. Now that yanks realize that soccer is a gentleman's game played by hooligans, it's poised to challenge any drama and conflict offered up by the NFL or NBA, without the overpaid drama queens and steroids. Tennis should be doing what soccer is, and what football did in the 20th century.
About Jonathan Tannenwald
I fell in love with the Big 5 at first sight upon moving to Philadelphia in 2002. At various points in my journalistic career, I've covered all six of the region's Division I teams. During that time, I've eaten many soft pretzels from the Palestra's concession stands, which is how this blog got its name.

I also contribute to the Inquirer's women's basketball blog, Women's Hoops Guru.

Soft Pretzel Logic is on Facebook. Click here to become a fan, share links and post on the discussion boards.

You can also get the latest blog posts and college sports headlines via Twitter. Click here to sign up.

I invite you to share your fan photos of the games you attend. Click here to submit your photos, and click here to see photos from fellow fans.

You can contact me by email by clicking here.

Soft Pretzel Logic Videos
The Big Dance
The Big Dance brings together the latest news and commentary on college sports via Twitter. To join the conversation, hashtag your tweets with #bigdance. If you want the code for your blog, email me and I'll be happy to share it.

What's the Spectacle of the Week?
Ohio State at Michigan (12:00 p.m., ABC)
Kent State at Temple (1:00 p.m.)
Penn State at Michigan State (3:30 p.m., ABC)
Delaware at Villanova (3:30 p.m., Comcast Network)
California at Stanford (7:30 p.m., Versus)
Oregon at Arizona (8:00 p.m., ABC)