PDA

View Full Version : Are Americans simply subpar in tennis?


Pureracket
Oct 14th, 2007, 12:36 PM
1 T1 title out of nine does not seem to bode well for the American women in tennis. Yeah, there are two Slams, and there might be a few more, but I'm not sure the playing field is even anymore.

Are the American women simply not good enough anymore?

BuTtErFrEnA
Oct 14th, 2007, 12:48 PM
they lack numbers that is all....if they still had the numbers they once had it would be different....but when all you have is two players who play the game to their own tune you can't expect normal results....granted JH is the only belgian but she plays normal...the russians who are probably, if not, the greatest in number now, play normal schedules as well and therefore when two people who don't play normal schedules don't play that often you can't expect them to win lol

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 12:52 PM
1 T1 title out of nine does not seem to bode well for the American women in tennis. Yeah, there are two Slams, and there might be a few more, but I'm not sure the playing field is even anymore.

Are the American women simply not good enough anymore?

Well American women in tennis are basically reduced to 2 players these days : Serena and Venus.
Serena only played 4 T1 and did quite well : win in Miami, final in Moscou, a qf against Schnyder at Rome (she lost only 7-6 in the 3rd) and a retirment in her first match at Charelston.
Venus results in T1 were quite bad but she only played 3 and lost against decent players (Sharapova, Jankovic and Chakvetadze).
The problem is that there is no sign of some young players able to play at the top level, when the others country have these players.Serbians have Ivanovic and Jankovic, Russians have plenty of young good players, Czechs have Vaidisova, Safarova etc.., even France has Golovin and now Cornet who could do some damages soon.
I can't think of a young US player atm who could be able to win big in the future.

Lunaris
Oct 14th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Usually a future great player impresses at Slams in their teens, not everyone can fulfill their potential but it is an indication of future success. Graf, Seles, Hingis and Serena won Slams in their teens, Navratilova made two slam finals when she was 19, Venus made US Open final when she was 17, Henin was in Wimbledon final when she was 19. From current youngsters, Ivanovic made RG final and Wimbledon semifinal, Vaidisova has two slam semis, Golovin reached US open QF last year. There is Sharapova of course. None of them are americans. All the US have now are the WS and a bunch of veterans in the top 100 and it doesn't seem to change in the near future.

Pureracket
Oct 14th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Well American women in tennis are basically reduced to 2 players these days : Serena and Venus.
Serena only played 4 T1 and did quite well : win in Miami, final in Moscou, a qf against Schnyder at Rome (she lost only 7-6 in the 3rd) and a retirment in her first match at Charelston.
Venus results in T1 were quite bad but she only played 3 and lost against decent players (Sharapova, Jankovic and Chakvetadze).
The problem is that there is no sign of some young players able to play at the top level, when the others country have these players.Serbians have Ivanovic and Jankovic, Russians have plenty of young good players, Czechs have Vaidisova, Safarova etc.., even France has Golovin and now Cornet who could do some damages soon.
I can't think of a young US player atm who could be able to win big in the future.Even with the current state of US players, though, there seems to be a deficit @ the top. The top two American women were whipped rather soundly to foes that would normally be walkovers for them.

Donny
Oct 14th, 2007, 03:56 PM
The US is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. What exactly do you mean by "Americans"? Is there some typical genetic grouping that all or most Americans fall into? If so, then surely the WS wouldn't apply anyway. Or do you mean players that spent most of their developmental years training and practicing in America? If it's the latter, then a large number of top players are "American".

There's nothing wrong with American coaches or training facilities. Americans simply don't like playing pro tennis apparently. I don't think you can label Americans sub par at tennis anymore than you can label Russians sub par at American football.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 03:58 PM
Even with the current state of US players, though, there seems to be a deficit @ the top. The top two American women were whipped rather soundly to foes that would normally be walkovers for them.

They're getting "old".I saw a pic of Serena in Carig's sig and the woman was so fit it was scary.Look at her now.I'm sorry to say it like that, but even with her talent it's not possible for her to whipe the floor with the opposition like she used to do in the past.The game has improved, like on the men's side.It's very physical now and I think it's difficult for both Venus and Serena to be at the top of her game all year.Sure they can always manage her way to win in a slam here and there, but the game is very demanding and Serena for example has rarely easy matches.She simply as not the level (mainly physically) to do what she did in Miami all year.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:01 PM
The US is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. What exactly do you mean by "Americans"? Is there some typical genetic grouping that all or most Americans fall into? If so, then surely the WS wouldn't apply anyway. Or do you mean players that spent most of their developmental years training and practicing in America? If it's the latter, then a large number of top players are "American".

There's nothing wrong with American coaches or training facilities. Americans simply don't like playing pro tennis apparently. I don't think you can label Americans sub par at tennis anymore than you can label Russians sub par at American football.

Maybe he just meant "American players" as players from the US country ? :rolleyes:

Donny
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Maybe he just meant "American players" as players from the US country ? :rolleyes:

That's my point: That way of thinking is irrational to me. If you're going to say "Players born in America are maybe sub par" then then it logically follows that you'd come up with some explanation as to why Americans, as a group, aren't more abundant in the top levels of the sport.

The Williams sisters and Davenport weren't all GS champions because they all happened to be American, especially in the case of the WS. They became grand slam champions because they had a father who was motivated to make them the best, and because they were supremely talented. Davenport also was supremely talented.

In other words: Being born in America says nothing about how likely you are to play tennis and become good at it. I could just as easily say that women named Marion are subpar at tennis.

mckyle.
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:18 PM
We're not sub par. We're just equal with other countries now. We used to be about 10 levels above, but now it's just equal. It just feels like we are doing poor because we have high standards.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:25 PM
That's my point: That way of thinking is irrational to me. If you're going to say "Players born in America are maybe sub par" then then it logically follows that you'd come up with some explanation as to why Americans, as a group, aren't more abundant in the top levels of the sport.

The Williams sisters and Davenport weren't all GS champions because they all happened to be American, especially in the case of the WS. They became grand slam champions because they had a father who was motivated to make them the best, and because they were supremely talented. Davenport also was supremely talented.

In other words: Being born in America says nothing about how likely you are to play tennis and become good at it. I could just as easily say that women named Marion are subpar at tennis.

If you think of it, the natural born player who had great results are Evert and King and after that there's a big gap to Capriati, Davenport and the WS.As you said, success of the sisters is mainly due to their father so US had very few top players juding by the population, the facilities etc...It was maybe masked by the fact that players like Seles or Navratilova became Americans but today it's flagrant.Why the US federation (USTA ?) isn't able to find talented young players and help them to become champs when Russia (for example)is able to do it with a lot less money and facilities ?

ys
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Currently this is very simple. When at least one of The Sisters is really on top of her game, there are just a couple of players from elsewhere who can slug it out with them. But when the sisters are not playing or out of shape, it is really a thin air..

matty
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:27 PM
I've read and have to agree that Tennis is not as popular in the US as it is in Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia etc. I also wonder if there is less competition here when players are younger. Just a thought, perhaps not based in fact.

Pureracket
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:27 PM
That's my point: That way of thinking is irrational to me. If you're going to say "Players born in America are maybe sub par" then then it logically follows that you'd come up with some explanation as to why Americans, as a group, aren't more abundant in the top levels of the sport.

The Williams sisters and Davenport weren't all GS champions because they all happened to be American, especially in the case of the WS. They became grand slam champions because they had a father who was motivated to make them the best, and because they were supremely talented. Davenport also was supremely talented.

In other words: Being born in America says nothing about how likely you are to play tennis and become good at it. I could just as easily say that women named Marion are subpar at tennis.I see your point, but I certainly don't agree with it. You made an earlier post about facilities and such, and I agree; however, I do think that playing under the American flag does by in large make a difference, regardless of what route in the US was taken in order to get to the top.

Even with Richard doing what he did with his daughters, they were still after the "American dream" of success and wealth. As with the Williams Sisters(visiting Chrissie, hitting with John McEnroe, tutored by BJK), I'm sure Lindsay's legacy is partly attributed to the fact that she is an American woman.

Certainly, you can't be saying that the success of American female tennis players is incidental.

matty
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:28 PM
If you think of it, the natural born player who had great results are Evert and King and after that there's a big gap to Capriati, Davenport and the WS.As you said, success of the sisters is mainly due to their father so US had very few top players juding by the population, the facilities etc...It was maybe masked by the fact that players like Seles or Navratilova became Americans but today it's flagrant.Why the US federation (USTA ?) isn't able to find talented young players and help them to become champs when Russia (for example)is able to do it with a lot less money and facilities ?


Didn't (Sister)Jaegar and Austin retire prematurely?

Pureracket
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:29 PM
We're not sub par. We're just equal with other countries now. We used to be about 10 levels above, but now it's just equal. It just feels like we are doing poor because we have high standards.I don't really know if we're equal.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:33 PM
I've read and have to agree that Tennis is not as popular in the US as it is in Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia etc. I also wonder if there is less competition here when players are younger. Just a thought, perhaps not based in fact.

I think that players coming from Eastern Europe and Russia seemed a lot more motivated to train hard and win because they actually need the money.

matty
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:44 PM
I guess there was a gap between Evert and Capriati, but if Jaegar wouldn't have retired so young there probably wouldn't have been such a big gap.

Got this from Wikipedia on Andrea Jaegar: Born June 1965

Jaeger reached the singles final of Wimbledon in 1983 (18yrs old) and the French Open in 1982 (17 yrs old). She reached the singles semifinals of the Australian Open in 1982 (17) and of the U.S. Open in 1980 (15yrs old!?) and 1982 (17). She also won 11 singles titles. In mixed doubles, Jaeger won the French Open with Jimmy Arias in 1982. She retired at 22 to devote her life to public service as a nun.

Wow, she was really talented and she was happy to give it all up.

mckyle.
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I guess there was a gap between Evert and Capriati, but if Jaegar wouldn't have retired so young there probably wouldn't have been such a big gap.

Got this from Wikipedia on Andrea Jaegar: Born June 1965

Jaeger reached the singles final of Wimbledon in 1983 (18yrs old) and the French Open in 1982 (17 yrs old). She reached the singles semifinals of the Australian Open in 1982 (17) and of the U.S. Open in 1980 (15yrs old!?) and 1982 (17). She also won 11 singles titles. In mixed doubles, Jaeger won the French Open with Jimmy Arias in 1982. She retired at 22 to devote her life to public service as a nun.

Wow, she was really talented and she was happy to give it all up.

According to her, she lost those slam finals on purpose because she knew the other players wanted it more :o

Donny
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I see your point, but I certainly don't agree with it. You made an earlier post about facilities and such, and I agree; however, I do think that playing under the American flag does by in large make a difference, regardless of what route in the US was taken in order to get to the top.

Even with Richard doing what he did with his daughters, they were still after the "American dream" of success and wealth. As with the Williams Sisters(visiting Chrissie, hitting with John McEnroe, tutored by BJK), I'm sure Lindsay's legacy is partly attributed to the fact that she is an American woman.

Certainly, you can't be saying that the success of American female tennis players is incidental.

I think that, in general, what we call talent is evenly distributed amongst the entire human population. America was, and is, by far the largest Western country. Up until about twenty years ago, the Western World was the only part of the world that either took interest in tennis, or had the resources necessary to play. So it wasn't exactly odd that Americans dominated the sport. Before, that mantle belonged to Britain and Australia. Does it surprise ANYONE now that Britain and Australians aren't winning slams anymore?

And now, for whatever reason, American aren't playing tennis in large numbers. Of course, every generation you're bound to get a Serena or a Justine- but on average, the countries that have the most young athletes training seriously in the hopes of being pro players, will have more top pro players.

matty
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I think that players coming from Eastern Europe and Russia seemed a lot more motivated to train hard and win because they actually need the money.

Yes, I think that's very true. Although with the way the current US economy is going, I'm sure we will have even more youngsters in similar situations to E. Europe and Russia!

miffedmax
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:47 PM
I think a couple of things are at work. First, for a long time tennis was THE sport for American girls who wanted college scholarships or a chance to play sports professionally. A lot of American girls are opting for sports like basketball, soccer, etc. these days.

Also, it seems that sometimes having strong players at the top for a long time stifles development of younger players. As one person pointed out, there's a gap between Evert/Navritalova and Cappy, Davenport and the Williams sisters. Germany has yet to produce anyone even close to being a top player since Graf retired. There's a big gap between Navritalova and Mandlikova and Dani and Nicole (I know they're separate countries now, but I think the example still suffices). Britain's been in a slump since the Wade/Barker days.

I'm not sure why having top players seems to retard development (there are certainly plenty of opps to play and nobody takes Fed Cup seriously) but it does seem that periods of dominance are followed by periods of weakness. Sometimes just for a few years, sometimes for a decade or more.

I think we'll see a good crop of young Americans toward decades end.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:48 PM
Yes, I think that's very true. Although with the way the current US economy is going, I'm sure we will have even more youngsters in similar situations to E. Europe and Russia!

lol

matty
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:50 PM
According to her, she lost those slam finals on purpose because she knew the other players wanted it more :o

Well, I guess if that's the case, than she just wasn't cut out to be a great champion,anyway. She needed more of the "fierce competitor" spirit.

ys
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Yes, I think that's very true. Although with the way the current US economy is going, I'm sure we will have even more youngsters in similar situations to E. Europe and Russia!

The methods that E. European and Russian coaches are using would have been considered inhuman and could be even considered illegal in USA.. It's training at least 6 hours a day. Instead of school , if needed. With treatment that borders on physical punishment, if needed. It's a system, designed to grow warriors, not just players. Extremely effective system, as they have only a minor fraction of pupils under training comparing to USA.

Lunaris
Oct 14th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Also, it seems that sometimes having strong players at the top for a long time stifles development of younger players. As one person pointed out, there's a gap between Evert/Navritalova and Cappy, Davenport and the Williams sisters. Germany has yet to produce anyone even close to being a top player since Graf retired. There's a big gap between Navritalova and Mandlikova and Dani and Nicole (I know they're separate countries now, but I think the example still suffices). Britain's been in a slump since the Wade/Barker days.
Sukova, Novotna anyone?
Ok, they weren't as successful as Navratilova but who was?

I think that players coming from Eastern Europe and Russia seemed a lot more motivated to train hard and win because they actually need the money.
I am not sure that is the case or at least it sounds like a generalization to me. In fact only richer people could afford to let their children really focus on playing tennis and become pros. At the beginning of your career it's a rather money demanding sport and you have to invest a lot into it. It also is a rather hazardous business because you never know whether it will pay off so you would consisder twice whether to take it seriously. Which I think is different to for example football (soccer) or ice-hockey where all you need is a ball or a puck and stick and a random place to play. Besides these sports are more interesting for young children to begin with than tennis because they're way more popular. Hantuchova's parents are wealthy, Vaidisova's stepfather too wasn't in money shortage when Nicole started her career

thrust
Oct 14th, 2007, 05:25 PM
The US is one of the most heterogeneous countries in the world. What exactly do you mean by "Americans"? Is there some typical genetic grouping that all or most Americans fall into? If so, then surely the WS wouldn't apply anyway. Or do you mean players that spent most of their developmental years training and practicing in America? If it's the latter, then a large number of top players are "American".

There's nothing wrong with American coaches or training facilities. Americans simply don't like playing pro tennis apparently. I don't think you can label Americans sub par at tennis anymore than you can label Russians sub par at American football.
I assume the thread author was indicating players born and raised in the USA. True, many foreigners train and live here but do not consider themselves Americans. Sereana and Venus are,by far, the best American female tennis players. Even mother Davenport is far superior to the younger American players. For some reason, American kids today don^t seem to have the drive or interest in becoming top ten players. If things don^t change soon American Tennis will be like English Tennis. God forbid-lol!!

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 05:26 PM
Sukova, Novotna anyone?
Ok, they weren't as successful as Navratilova but who was?


I am not sure that is the case or at least it sounds like a generalization to me. In fact only richer people could afford to let their children really focus on playing tennis and become pros. At the beginning of your career it's a rather money demanding sport and you have to invest a lot into it. It also is a rather hazardous business because you never know whether it will pay off so you would consisder twice whether to take it seriously. Which I think is different to for example football (soccer) or ice-hockey where all you need is a ball or a puck and stick and a random place to play. Besides these sports are more interesting for young children to begin with than tennis because they're way more popular. Hantuchova's parents are wealthy, Vaidisova's stepfather too wasn't in money shortage when Nicole started her career

I agree, but after they're detected some are able to train elsewhere like Kuzy/Safin in Spain, Kournikova/Sharapova in US, Petrova in Egypt (I think) etc...And after the Kournikova's example, I think a lot of families in Eastern and Russia thought that it could be a way to win lot of money (kinda like what Richard Williams did with Serena and Venus earlier).I heard Mauresmo confirmed that once, saying that the girls came on tour very young but that they trained very hard and aren't afraid of the fight.They come on court to win and are more mature than the players from richer countries.

Lunaris
Oct 14th, 2007, 05:50 PM
I agree, but after they're detected some are able to train elsewhere like Kuzy/Safin in Spain, Kournikova/Sharapova in US, Petrova in Egypt (I think) etc...And after the Kournikova's example, I think a lot of families in Eastern and Russia thought that it could be a way to win lot of money (kinda like what Richard Williams did with Serena and Venus earlier).I heard Mauresmo confirmed that once, saying that the girls came on tour very young but that they trained very hard and aren't afraid of the fight.They come on court to win and are more mature than the players from richer countries.
I just didn't like your post cause it sounded like a generalization. I personally don't think that money is always the main force which drives local people to make their children play tennis, and from what I read on tennis forums it seems to me that many Americans are willing to take this as an excuse as why there aren't many young talents in the US comparing to Eastern Europe. I think you also should discriminate between Russia and other Eastern Europe countries. Kournikova might be that influental in Russia. But here in former Czechoslovakia we always had good players and Kournikova is not nearly that big. Tennis has a big tradition here even though it isn't as much popular as other sports.

bunch_01
Oct 14th, 2007, 05:58 PM
Tennis is still a country club sport in the US. That automatically reduces the population that a champion can be drawn from. In that sense the US is a much smaller country than the statistics would imply that it is.

Other sports have massive leagues that draw community support. A player has their parents and maybe a few other parents for their small group. Somehow the USTA has failed to make tennis a go see it event at enough places around the county.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:04 PM
I just didn't like your post cause it sounded like a generalization. I personally don't think that money is always the main force which drives local people to make their children play tennis, and from what I read on tennis forums it seems to me that many Americans are willing to take this as an excuse as why there aren't many young talents in the US comparing to Eastern Europe. I think you also should discriminate between Russia and other Eastern Europe countries. Kournikova might be that influental in Russia. But here in former Czechoslovakia we always had good players and Kournikova is not nearly that big. Tennis has a big tradition here even though it isn't as much popular as other sports.

I'm not American so I'm not really concerned about finding excuses for the lack of talented young players in US.Sorry if my post sounded like a generalization but I do think that money plays a great part in all the these countries, at least on the number of players trying to be pro now.Of course there are always players like Hantuchova and Vaidisova but for the vast majority (at least coming from Russia) it's indeed one of the rare oppoturnity to make big money.What are the others ?
When I was talking about money it's mainly for the motivation part.I know that Czechoslovakia has always been a great nation of tennis with some of the most talented players ever.I wasn't talking about talent but motivation.Sorry if you felt insulted, it wasn't my intention at all.

matty
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:17 PM
Tennis is still a country club sport in the US. That automatically reduces the population that a champion can be drawn from. In that sense the US is a much smaller country than the statistics would imply that it is.

Other sports have massive leagues that draw community support. A player has their parents and maybe a few other parents for their small group. Somehow the USTA has failed to make tennis a go see it event at enough places around the county.

Agree, I mean I don't truly know how popular Tennis is in other parts of the world 'cause I'm from US--but here in the states, it is just not that popular anymore. Some exceptions might be, Southern California and Florida. Because of this, the "pool" doesn't seem diverse enough and competitive enough to produce girls that can compete at the top. I could be (and hope I'm) wrong.

Lunaris
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:31 PM
I'm not American so I'm not really concerned about finding excuses for the lack of talented young players in US.Sorry if my post sounded like a generalization but I do think that money plays a great part in all the these countries, at least on the number of players trying to be pro now.Of course there are always players like Hantuchova and Vaidisova but for the vast majority (at least coming from Russia) it's indeed one of the rare oppoturnity to make big money.What are the others ?
When I was talking about money it's mainly for the motivation part.I know that Czechoslovakia has always been a great nation of tennis with some of the most talented players ever.I wasn't talking about talent but motivation.Sorry if you felt insulted, it wasn't my intention at all.
Not insulted at all. ;) :)
I think what you say might be true in Russia because of Kournikova's or Safin's popularity or Serbia because of Ivanovic and Djokovic. But here in former Czechoslovakia and I presume in many other countries as well I think people would choose football or ice-hockey over tennis if they really were money driven. Mainly because there is a bigger chance to find one's feet in some club even if you are not that talented, whereas in tennis you have to be really good to make a good living from it. And if you wanted to start with tennis you would need to invest more into it than if you wanted to play football.
I think it helps a lot if there are some role models in your country. You won't convince your children to start with a sport because you need money, there has to be someone these children want to be. Like Kournikova in Russia or Ivanovic in Serbia, money might be a motivation for parents but children have to be motivated in a different way. I don't see any role model here, no way Vaidisova is that popular here.
I only felt obligated to point out some differencies between Russia and other eastern European countries.

bandabou
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:33 PM
american tennis really has been about two players since 2000 already...so, now that those two players aren't quite at their old level..you get this.

Slutiana
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:37 PM
As someone said before, right now, there arent many good american (USA) players playing. 21/2 to be precise. Serena/Venus/Davenport. As much as i love her, its really sad that the most talked about young american is brie whitehead. For all the wrong reasons. Not one young american player is in the top 100. Not one. You can't say americans are sub-par. I mean an amreican got to a tier 1 final today, a couple of weeks ago an american won a title, a couple of weeks before americans got to SF and QF of Uso and another beat a possible GS Champ at the US open and even before that, there were 2 american GS wins. However, the americans simply dont dominate like they did before due to the top american players getting older and older and so sustaining more and more injuries. Its sad but the truth. In 7 years this statement will be wholly true as the top americans are in their autumn years. But for now, the americans are still above average. For now

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Not insulted at all. ;) :)
I think what you say might be true in Russia because of Kournikova's or Safin's popularity or Serbia because of Ivanovic and Djokovic. But here in former Czechoslovakia and I presume in many other countries as well I think people would choose football or ice-hockey over tennis if they really were money driven. Mainly because there is a bigger chance to find one's feet in some club even if you are not that talented, whereas in tennis you have to be really good to make a good living from it. And if you wanted to start with tennis you would need to invest more into it than if you wanted to play football.
I think it helps a lot if there are some role models in your country. You won't convince your children to start with a sport because you need money, there has to be someone these children want to be. Like Kournikova in Russia or Ivanovic in Serbia, money might be a motivation for parents but children have to be motivated in a different way. I don't see any role model here, no way Vaidisova is that popular here.
I only felt obligated to point out some differencies between Russia and other eastern European countries.

You're right, I should've been more precise.:)

HippityHop
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:45 PM
They're getting "old".I saw a pic of Serena in Carig's sig and the woman was so fit it was scary.Look at her now.I'm sorry to say it like that, but even with her talent it's not possible for her to whipe the floor with the opposition like she used to do in the past.The game has improved, like on the men's side.It's very physical now and I think it's difficult for both Venus and Serena to be at the top of her game all year.Sure they can always manage her way to win in a slam here and there, but the game is very demanding and Serena for example has rarely easy matches.She simply as not the level (mainly physically) to do what she did in Miami all year.

Of course this is no big deal. Clearly nobody else in the game wants to win a slam here and there. :lol:

ptkten
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:53 PM
Well, I agree that things are bad but lets not go overboard. There's still more top 100 players from the U.S. than any other country besides Russia and France. Plus, the U.S. still has two of the three best players of this generation.

However, obviously there are major holes in the future. I think the problem is that in other countries players are more dedicated. In the U.S., people in their teens just want to relax and have a good time and don't put in the effort that players from Russia, for example, put in. Another issue seems to be that increasingly, American juniors play this moonball style that wins them matches in the juniors but stifles their development in the pro tour. Every year, American juniors are ranked in the top 10 but it gives everyone false hope because they've reached the peak of their development.

That being said, I think there are two bright spots for the future because of their game and results so far, Coco Vandeweghe and Gail Brodsky. They both have game styles that can translate onto the pro tour. Brodsky especially, I think has the talent to possibly become a very good player. Other than them, I don't see too many huge talents but there could be some top 100 players among our current crop of juniors.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Of course this is no big deal. Clearly nobody else in the game wants to win a slam here and there. :lol:

Of course what Serena achieved at Ao and Venus at Wimbledon was great :worship:
Problem is (and I think it was the topic of the thread) : besides that, the only big title won by American players is Miami (Serena once again).I'm not sure that American players managed to win a T2, and the number of titles won by American players this year must be quite low because appart for Venus and Serena the only one I can remember is Davenport in Bali (maybe Shaughnessy won one ?There must be others but I don't know who).It's indeed subpar.

Njay16
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:57 PM
The younger players are really struggling right now. Harkleroad was a prospect a couple of years and played extremely well throughout 2003. She really lacks the weapons however to break into the top of the game. I put Vania in that category as well. Jackson and Perry have potential but I think they both need to get physically stronger before they can take the next big step.

homogenius
Oct 14th, 2007, 07:15 PM
The younger players are really struggling right now. Harkleroad was a prospect a couple of years and played extremely well throughout 2003. She really lacks the weapons however to break into the top of the game. I put Vania in that category as well. Jackson and Perry have potential but I think they both need to get physically stronger before they can take the next big step.

What about Glatch (spelling ?).Wasn't she supposed to be good ?

Volcana
Oct 14th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Actually, there's something to the idea that Americans are subpar tennis players. Sports is big in the USA, but tennis is not. Tennis is, arguably, the 2nd or 3rd biggest sport in Europe. In the USA, tennis is a nche sport. The best athletes in the USA don't become tennis players, the Williams Sisters being the notable exception. (Navratilova didn't become a tennis player in the States.)

It's used to be, back in say, the 1970's) that the best female athletes in America DID become tennis players. There weren't many opportunites for women in sports. Now, women's golf is bigger, women's basketball is bigger, women's soccer is bigger, there's a pro beach volleyball tour. All those other outlets syphon off elite athletic talent.

And the parent of an athletically gifted daughter isn't necessarily thinking the kid is a future pro. Not if the parent is at all realistic. What the parent IS thinking is that sports could pay for their daughter to go to college. With tennis, coaches and academies have to be paid for. Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent before there's any return on investment. With soccer or volleyball or basketball, there's a lot less upfront expense, and no need for private coaching and 'academies' of dubious worth.

Add to that the fact that more opportunities to train in tennis are available to women in countries where tennis is a more important sport. What's it add up to? Fewer of the best American women become tennis players. More non-American women are getting good training, meaning the pool of talent outside the USA is a lot bigger than it was.

Making matters worse, the talent development system in the USA is ....

Venus and Serena Williams, and Jennifer Capriati were all trained outside the system. Monica Seles and Martina Navratilova took American citizenship as adults. As shocking as it is to think, the USTA system has produced one GS champ in the past 25 years. Lindsay Davenport.

Sure players come from all over the world to train at American tennis academies, but all that proves is that those aren't really 'American' academies. They are 'capitalist' academies. They train whoever can pay.

Add it all up, and yes, it's entirely possible that American women's tennis is simply in decline, for the same reason American men's tennis is. The best athletes are playing other sports.

jj74
Oct 14th, 2007, 07:41 PM
The problems with US players is not right now, with the williams is rare the year without a Grand Slam or an important tournament. The problem is the future, it seems that nobody can fill the gap if the sisters retire, top us junior players are far from the best in their category. It difficult to know why, because some of the top junior players are trained in american academies. Maybe it's because european sub 14 tournaments are far competitive than the american tour, maybe is just a matter of time. But the truth is that as i remember at least an american player was on top 10 (even when other countries dominates the game like in early 90's) but right now without the williams (or davenport if she decides to play more) is a tremendous void

karimcartoon
Oct 14th, 2007, 09:52 PM
well im a guy and im on my high school team and i think its a combo of weather and i think young girls dont look up to the players as they used to like the late 80s and 90s when they were like "i used to watch Steffi Graff at the french open final ..."
but for guys we have a few young guns. John Isner and this other guy i cant remember. Vania King is a good doubles player...

ptkten
Oct 14th, 2007, 09:57 PM
What about Glatch (spelling ?).Wasn't she supposed to be good ?

She got in a motorcycle (?) accident, was injured pretty badly, and has never really been the same, although she's still relatively young

karimcartoon
Oct 14th, 2007, 09:58 PM
also the fact that the diverse sports in the US. instead of tennis, how expensive it is and how much time it takes, i think many girls just play softball, soccer or volleyball. I think the USTA should do something like the French Tennis Federation.