It’s ‘un-ignorable.’ The tennis world is changing. IT’s Matthew Cronin got ace analysts Mary Carillo and Brad Gilbert to unplug and candidly assess Roddick, Blake, the Williams sisters and America’s hopes for a tennis resurgence.
INSIDE TENNIS: We’ve heard time and again that there’s a crisis in U.S. Player Development. Others argue there isn’t one, that ranking periods are cyclical, or that U.S. officials panic too much. Are there good kids in the pipeline? And given the sport’s international appeal, does it matter anymore given that U.S. fans don’t care that Federer is from Switzerland?
BRAD GILBERT: I’ve been out watching the juniors, and the first thing that comes to mind is that the sport is so global now that it’s not our birthright to be great anymore. You got Marcos Baghdatis from Cyprus, the French and Chinese are trying…
MARY CARILLO: And [Australian junior Bernard] Tomic. Have you seen the hands on that kid?
BG: Yeah. I watched [American] Ryan Harrison play, and 20 other junior matches, and we have some good juniors coming. With Patrick [McEnroe] coming on board [as Player Development chief], the USTA will focus everything they can to have someone, because it will truly hurt American tennis in two to three years if we don’t have someone in the top 10.
MC: It would help if Federer were from Milwaukee. It would help our ratings. Our best players don’t come out of systems. They were first-generation Americans. Sampras is first-generation Greek; Agassi first-generation Iranian; Chang first-generation Chinese. McEnroe didn’t come out of a system either.
BG: Times have changed. There’s a production line to becoming good. You can’t be whimsical at 16 or 17 and just choose to be good. You’ve got to go to Bollettieri’s and see all those Eastern Europeans. A lot are committed at 10, and the best place to be committed is at a facility — unless you happen to be from L.A. or are from somewhere that has a lot of options.
IT: Does U.S. culture support having kids play a sport five to six hours a day, yet still go to school and leading a so-called normal, healthy life?
MC: Every sport requires and demands that.
BG: At 13 and 14, in football, baseball, basketball — kids are choosing just one sport. To be great now with the sport going global, you have to be committed to just one.
MC: What happens now in China when someone like Jie Zheng [who reached the Wimbledon semis] comes along and all those girls see her and step away from badminton and volleyball? That was my hope — that Venus and Serena would inspire more young black girls to leave track and come into tennis. You need athletes, and the best way to get them is to have people they are looking up to. That Kournikova, of all people, inspired all these Russian women is incredible.
BG: Women’s tennis, as opposed to men’s, is the No. 1 sport in the world among women’s sports. If you’re the highest paid women’s tennis player you are the highest-paid women’s athlete. If you are the No. 1 male tennis player, you’re not the top-earning athlete.
IT: Even when Roddick won the U.S. Open, the networks didn’t hold him up as a star at the same level of a Kevin Garnett or a Paul Pierce when the Celtics won. You didn’t see him being touted as a sporting hero.
BG: Unfortunately, he won one major — which is fantastic in itself — but we’ve been spoiled by a great pipeline of players. And when we don’t win for a while, we realize what we had and appreciate it a little more. But we’ve had great champions and we expect to continue to have great champions.
MC: Sampras was an all-time great who could go unnoticed in airports. Part of what you’re talking about is that a lot of famous basketball players are big people. You notice them.
IT: Big people with big personalities.
BG: From the TV side, tennis probably has the least access of any sport ESPN covers. Literally, if Dick Enberg wants to spend 30 minutes with Peyton Manning two days before a big game, the NFL says you have to talk to him, and it makes for a better broadcast. No way that Enberg can ask for 30 minutes with Federer without the world turning upside down. And Federer is probably one of the best ever at doing a lot of media. NASCAR guys are driving 200 mph and they’re talking to guys like Dale Earnhardt in his friggin’ car. We need more visuality.
MC: Drivers are business people.
IT: Maybe the networks can mic players during changeovers and broadcasters can talk to them then.
BG: The players wouldn’t go for that.
MC: I don’t want to trick out the sport — and I’ve covered a lot of other sports, including figure skating. We get that kind of access before they compete, but we don’t want them mic’d up while they’re doing a double-toe combo.
IT: Brad, you coached Roddick. This year, watching Andy lose to Philipp Kohlschreiber in Australia and to Janko Tipsarevic at Wimbledon, he was busting his ass, fighting like hell, trying to add variety, but he may not have the skill set to consistently play with the top-three guys.
MC: He knows that. His candor when he loses — he knows he’s not getting it done. He’s worked very hard, but does he work on the right things? I honestly thought that when Connors was working with him he would develop a much different way to handle the court. Court management was a hallmark of Jimmy’s game, how to keep your court small and the other guy’s big. It’s got to be rough for Andy because it’s not like he’s not working.
BG: He’s putting in the effort, but the three guys at the top don’t leave a lot of room for picking up hardware. The top three are as good as any I’ve ever seen at any point.
IT: Really? More than Borg, McEnroe and Connors?
MC: They might be in the same conversation.
BG: They’re ridiculous athletes, movers who have outrageous skills. And they’re young. It’s like he’s up against a tough mid-term test.
IT: But he came into Wimbledon having scored wins over Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He puts tremendous pressure on himself. Maybe he didn’t think he could win Wimbledon, but he certainly thought semis or better.
MC: He needs more matches to feel better about himself. That’s why he had the U.S. Open he had. His first great Wimbledon, where he reached the final, he’d won Queens and had so many matches. He came in with a very good rhythm on his serve. Lendl was like that. He liked coming into big tournaments with a lot of matches under his belt.
BG: If Andy could get one thing for Christmas, it would be a win against one of those big three at a major — any major.
MC: He can beat Nadal at the U.S. Open.
BG: That would elevate his game.
IT: Blake consistently says that he could retire today and be happy with his career. He has more than he’s shown at the majors. He hasn’t reached one semi. His serve isn’t very good, his decision-making is questionable, but he’s good enough off the ground to get to at least one final four.
BG: He’s an outstanding player, but he’s not at the big-three level. It wouldn’t shock me if he gets to one U.S. Open semi. He lost 7-6 in the fifth to Andre and was unlucky. He’s just been a little short.
MC: He’s got one gear. Sometimes it’s a great gear. If you play the way he does — amping it, hitting hard every point, never downshifting — to try and win a major, three out of five sets over seven rounds, is risky.
BG: At 29, he’s had a great career. Not everyone is destined to win a major. If he’s happy, good for him.
IT: Will Sharapova become an all-time great? She’s a hell of a fighter, with great power and clean strokes, but she doesn’t have a lot of variety and she’s not an A-1 athlete.
MC: She’s not the athlete that Venus and Serena are. She’s won three majors already. That’s a testament to her work ethic and hunger. She’s not a natural.
BG: She has a great work ethic and I expect her to double her Slam total if she fixes her serving issues.
MC: Who do you say are greats? Are Venus and Serena all-time greats?
IT: Obviously, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court and Chris Evert are in the top five, and if you go top 10, you can throw in Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong…
BG: Maria is only 21 and has five to six good years left.
MC: Venus and Serena are two of the best of their generation, but they aren’t in double figures yet [Serena has eight Slam titles; Venus seven]. I honestly thought they would take over and we would have twin tigers.
BG: They can get to 20 combined, and that’s a hell of an accomplishment.
MC: A great accomplishment, but Steffi had 22 by herself, so that “all-time great” conversation is different.
BG: Because we’ve had periods where one or possibly two women dominated. It’s so much better when we have up to eight players who can win a tournament. It’s much more interesting.
IT: Maybe back in ‘02, ‘03, when Serena was winning everything and Venus was reaching all those Slam finals, too much was expected of them — that they could win 15 or 20 Slams each. You look at Venus and some days she’s world-beater and other days she’s technically breaking down. It’s not like she has the cleanest game in the world.
MC: Not at all, but what are you saying: that we should expect Pete and Roger to do that and not Venus and Serena? Why aren’t women expected to do that?
IT: Some are. I’m talking about where the bar should have been set for Venus and Serena specifically. Maybe it was set too high. Plus, the contention that they should be winning everything they enter downgrades the games of some of their elite competitors. Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic are very good.
MC: I thought they were going to have ownership of the tour.
BG: Venus and Serena are doing a great job. They’re complete and happy people, and that’s more important. If they had total obsession they might have burned out and might not be happy people. They’re active in other things and are still good at what they love.
MC: Aren’t you happy that Roger, Nadal and Tiger dedicate themselves that much?
BG: Not everyone can be that way.
MC: I’m glad they want it that much.
BG: I haven’t second-guessed them for one second. Everyone’s different.
MC: Are you glad that Steffi was Steffi?
BG: Yes, but not everyone can be Steffi.
MC: I’m not questioning their lives. All I’m saying is what I thought was going to happen.
BG: You don’t find a seven-karat rare gem a lot.
MC: Steffi said when Serena came up that she was going to be the greatest ever. Steffi said that, not me. I thought that could have happened. It didn’t. Serena has eight Slams now. I’m delighted for them if that’s what they want, but that’s not what I thought would happen.
BG: They’re pretty content in doing it their way.
MC: They are definitely doing it their way.
BG: I’m 100 percent cool with that.
IT: As much as I appreciated Steffi and her dominant periods, the sport got boring when she was killing everyone. It was good seeing Justine Henin come in and start to challenge the Williamses. Had she not retired, she could have ended up being the greatest of that generation. It made the game much more exciting.
BG: Justine didn’t have that many majors left in her.
MC: The worst thing that happened with Steffi was when Monica got stabbed, because I could have watched that rivalry for years. To say it got boring is a little unfair. Monica was dominating then, not Steffi.
BG: I don’t like to live in generations past. We’re in the present and I like the way the game is going now, where it’s so deep and there’s a lot more to talk about.
IT: One of my highly respected foreign colleagues said that, post-Justine, this is the worst women’s top 10 ever. I disagree. There’s depth, character, personality. You have different Slam winners every time out — Maria, Ivanovic, Venus…
BG: I like it that way.
IT: Or maybe it would be better if it were like the men, with the great Roger-Rafa rivalry?
MC: Our sport needs rivalries and, in terms of the U.S., at least one has to be an American.
BG: We’re having a great time. Before Roger, we had, what, 10 different Slam winners? Everything is cyclical, and all the things you want, if you wait, come around again. There will be a dominant woman again. There’s no perfect world. All our juniors are playing pretty darn good, but a lot more people are pushing around the world. It’ll be difficult to dominate.
IT: If it’s cyclical, then there’s nothing to worry about in the U.S. because there’s probably a 12-year-old somewhere who will dominate someday.
BG: I hope so.
IT: So how do you explain Serbia? There’s no real explanation other than the standard “They’re more hungry” thing. You have three elite players, all of whom came from middle-class backgrounds.
MC: And the poor Russian women are so tired of it. They really want to kill them.
BG: That’s a little misleading. Jankovic went to Bollettieri’s; Djokovic went to Nicki Pilic in Germany; and Ivanovic went to Switzerland. Had they stayed in Serbia would they be this good?
IT: No, they would be like Tipsarevic, who stayed in Serbia and is ranked No. 45.
BG: There you go. They got assistance.
MC: The larger point is that there was no system in place, and what really helps Europeans is that you can drive from one country to another and play tournaments. Clay is a big deal, too.
BG: This is the first time ever all Wimbledon’s quarterfinalists were European and 30 of the final 32 men were Europeans, so playing inside of Europe is obviously better.
IT: So we need to go back to the ‘70s, when the U.S. Open was played on clay and turn the U.S. Open series warm-up tournaments to dirt again?
MC: No. We need to go back to the grass-court summer leading into Forest Hills.
BG: I like it the way it is.
MC: He’s a happy man [motioning toward Gilbert]. He likes everything.
BG: I like the slower grass courts 50 times more. I hated the old ones. Two shots — horrendous. Serve and a missed return. It was terrible tennis. I like watching 15 shots and skills. I like watching points develop.
IT: Grass is still fast enough now to favor players who can serve and volley. Mary, you liked getting those dead bounce volleys?
MC: I liked the old grass courts. I liked when grass behaved like grass. Brad likes the synthetic stuff. I liked that Borg could go from very slow clay to very fast grass inside of a month, dominate and make the necessary adjustments.
BG: How well would Borg have played on this grass? It’s like a clay court.
MC: It’s more homogenous, which is why everyone plays from the baseline.
IT: So Nadal winning Wimbledon, maybe it’s not as big as what Borg did, going back to back, because the surface difference isn’t as radical.
BG: It’s massive. It hasn’t happened since ‘80 and he and Federer are the first two non-Americans to transcend the American market. They come into the Open and you don’t think about them not being American, but as two great players. And you want to buy a ticket to watch them play.
MC: I hate to tell you this, but our [CBS] ratings haven’t been as high since Connors walked on court in ‘91. Agassi made ratings go up, and Venus and Serena created the Saturday night primetime final. Then we got Belgians and Russians playing and our ratings went down.
BG: It’s been proven that the other Slams can exist without a home-country player.
MC: In Australia, you had a Serbian guy playing a French guy and they had so much overflow [at Laver Arena] of interest that they had to put it on the big screen at the Hisense Arena, which was full. Are you kidding me?
IT: But ticket sales and TV ratings are different. I don’t know if the Aussie ratings were that great Down Under. They weren’t that good on ESPN, either.
MC: Underscoring what Brad says, if you’re a tennis-loving nation like Australia, France and England, if you play, they will come.
IT: The States is still somewhat isolationist and xenophobic.
BG: If we have no U.S. men in the fourth round at the Open like at Wimbledon, then we will really know where we stand if there are empty seats.
MC: And if the U.S. Open is like Wimbledon, where you need an eye chart to read the last 16 outside the Williams sisters, who knows then. It’s un-ignorable.
BG: It’s big for our culture to have an American in.
IT: Europe is much more international in its tastes. They will watch the Euro Cup final in England between two non-British nations like it’s the friggin’ Super Bowl.
BG: We haven’t come around on that yet. But I have a lot of hope that in the next five years there will be a new crop with Arlen Kantarian and Patrick McEnroe leading. Someone will come. I don’t think doom and gloom. I have hope that we have a new one coming, male and female. I don’t have any guarantees, I just hope. I don’t want any changes. I love how the game is. I just want somebody to come through.
