PDA

View Full Version : Top American men: Where is the passion?


forehand_dude
06-20-2009, 05:03 AM
I saw a tennis channel segment on Sam Querrey yesterday. He said he enjoys traveling and the life of a pro. He also said the downside is there can be stress, and some guys put a lot of pressure on themselves to always win (implying he does not).

This is the same casual attitude we see in the other top American men. They make a few million dollars, and are then content to travel the world, date beautiful women, and drive expensive cars.

Where is the passion of McEnroe and Connors?

Blake loses in the finals of Queens, and he smiles from ear to ear, acting like such a good sport as he congratulates Murray. When Fish and Ginepri are interviewed, you wonder, is this a professional athlete, or my pothead friend from college? (Note: I'm not alleging drug use. I'm talking about attitude and demeanor.)

You know the one American who can't stand to lose? Roddick. How many times have you seen him get so distraught he starts berating the umpire like a petulant teenager --- or McEnroe. It's embarrassing, but who is the one current American man that's won a slam, and consistently stayed in the top ten?

Look at the other top players from other countries. Federer had 13 slams, then lost in the finals of the Australian Open, and cried like a little baby. Nadal won 4 straight French Opens, then finally lost, and just about had a mental breakdown. Djokovic is a brat, with injury time outs, ball bouncing gamesmanship, and his insult of Roddick on Center Court at the US Open. Murray gripes at umpires and throws fits.

What this behavior really says is these guys cannot stand to lose. They wake up, look at themselves in the mirror, and say, if I don't keep winning, then there is something wrong with me. I'm not good enough.

When will we see another American man with this attitude?

I'm sure someone will attack me as a keyboard jockey with not one tenth the dedication of these guys I'm calling out. And you're right. If I had made millions of dollars playing tennis, I would rather travel, date beautiful women, and drive expensive cars than wake up every day and obsess over how to dominate the other top players.

But then, I'm not playing at Wimbledon next week.

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 05:08 AM
Or maybe just Blake, Querrey, Fish and Ginepri are just second rate players who aren't that good?

zagor
06-20-2009, 05:13 AM
The problem is in their games,not their attitude.

jamesblakefan#1
06-20-2009, 05:21 AM
I kinda agree w/ zagor's sentiments. I think you have to admit Blake is an overachiever, for him to be able to make top 10 and stay there for as long as he did, was a great accomplishment in his career. Should he have won a slam? Maybe, but 1 or 2 at the most. The OP talks as if Blake, Fish, Ginepri, Querrey are all GS winning talent, when they are not.

Blake, as I said, maximized his talent and probably did more than most would have saw for him back in 2001-2002. Fish maybe should have had better slam results in his career, but still has had good results, making 2 MS finals. Ginepri made a USO semi, and Querrey it's too soon to tell, but isn't done by any stretch.

My point is, I don't think anyone had the expectation for any of these guys to be top 10, top 5 in the world and multiple slam guys. Chang, Courier, and Martin they are not. So to say that "desire and passion" is the thing keeping them from being top 10 is kinda missing the ball.

Mafia13
06-20-2009, 05:51 AM
The current crop of american players are in my opinion a solid bunch, but they all have some minor(or bigger) flaws in their game that prevent them to be a consistent threat. For blake it's the mental game and shot selection, ginepri doesn't really have a consistent weapon, for fish his movement and mental game(his forehand can also be shaky), for querrey his approach to the game and backhand and for roddick the problem lays in his approach shoots and lacking firepower from the backhand side.
If you ask me they have all maximized their potential (although I still think querrey has the potential to improve). American tennis fans were ''spoiled'' to a degree by a series of great players that featured sampras, agassi, courier, chang and others and it's understandable that they find the results of the current players disappointing when compared to all those tennis greats. Yet even today, USA has 9 players in the top 100, which can hardly be called a failure. To the OP, I understand your frustration, but if these players are happy with the success they’ve had already, shouldn't you as a fan be satisfied with that fact?

vtmike
06-20-2009, 06:06 AM
Blake, as I said, maximized his talent and probably did more than most would have saw for him back in 2001-2002.

I don't understand this concept of a player using his "talent" to win matches...There is not such thing as a natural talent to play tennis. The talent is a result of the work he has put in off court...Nobody is born with a gift to play tennis...Its something that is worked on for long hours and honed overtime...

Maybe Blake is not working on his game & fitness as hard or not working as smart to improve his game & fitness. That is an argument I can buy...

charliefedererer
06-20-2009, 06:17 AM
I don't understand this concept of a player using his "talent" to win matches...There is not such thing as a natural talent to play tennis. The talent is a result of the work he has put in off court...Nobody is born with a gift to play tennis...Its something that is worked on for long hours and honed overtime...

Maybe Blake is not working on his game & fitness as hard or not working as smart to improve his game & fitness. That is an argument I can buy...

But there is an upper limit on someone's size, speed, and fast twitch fibers.
There is a limit on hours spent training/playing before you have bad knees like Nadal or a bad shoulder like Sharapova.
I think Blake is, if anything an, overachiever.

batz
06-20-2009, 06:18 AM
I don't understand this concept of a player using his "talent" to win matches...There is not such thing as a natural talent to play tennis. The talent is a result of the work he has put in off court...Nobody is born with a gift to play tennis...Its something that is worked on for long hours and honed overtime...

Maybe Blake is not working on his game & fitness as hard or not working as smart to improve his game & fitness. That is an argument I can buy...


Your post implies that the level you will achieve in your given field is solely related to the work you put in. That is clearly not the case. There is something that separates the wheat from the chaff in almost every sport that goes way beyond the level of effort applied. That something is an abstract, nebulous thing.

Its name is talent.

Rhino
06-20-2009, 06:21 AM
I think the problem could be that they don't need it (success) as much as some other nations. They have relative comfort and ease compared to say, Russians, Serbians, Croatians, etc, whose upbringing may have been a little tougher and instilled motivation and a fighting attitude into their players.
It's the same problem in Britain. They don't want it enough, because life is quite comfortable as it is.

Mansewerz
06-20-2009, 06:48 AM
I think the problem could be that they don't need it (success) as much as some other nations. They have relative comfort and ease compared to say, Russians, Serbians, Croatians, etc, whose upbringing may have been a little tougher and instilled motivation and a fighting attitude into their players.
It's the same problem in Britain. They don't want it enough, because life is quite comfortable as it is.

But Switzerland is pretty rich, and look at Federer!

Casey10s
06-20-2009, 06:54 AM
The problem with the American men is that the best athletes are not going into tennis. This is not true of other countries. The American men have reached their potential. Until the better athletes come back to tennis, the US will struggle in tennis have players in the top 25. Tennis needs to pay better money to get American males to gravitate towards tennis.

skip1969
06-20-2009, 06:55 AM
champions don't come around every day, even in a country with as many people in it as the united states. in periods of competitive domination, americans tend to forget that. fortunately, there are barren spells like the current one to remind them.

devila
06-20-2009, 06:57 AM
You have to find another reason to admire Roddick for.
Yelling for no reason made him crash.
His shameful rants at umpires were to hide his bottled-up real thoughts. Off-court, he let everyone step on him too. Sad.

He accepts everything as they are, without guarding himself from crumbling. Some demonic thoughts like: "Everyone tells me to trust family, umpires and players."

What happens after they betray you, Roddick?

You just pretend you're interested in careful and smart tennis. You enjoy naively screaming with outrage, because you called Federer and Nadal the winner. You predicted that Djokovic was too good and too young for you....

He probably believes "....I should not have been a professional athlete. I don't have the ability to think deeply about making life decision and genetic-predisposition. No one I know teaches me."

Admit it, Roddick. You're dead wrong to want attention in order to promote your charity foundation.

jamesblakefan#1
06-20-2009, 07:00 AM
The problem with the American men is that the best athletes are not going into tennis. This is not true of other countries. The American men have reached their potential. Until the better athletes come back to tennis, the US will struggle in tennis have players in the top 25. Tennis needs to pay better money to get American males to gravitate towards tennis.

But were the best athletes really ever going into tennis in America? Pete Sampras a better athlete than Michael Jordan? McEnroe a better athlete than Walter Payton or Magic Johnson? I don't think the "best athlete" argument should be used for tennis, maybe for a sport like baseball, which is losing more and more players to basketball and football each years.

devila
06-20-2009, 07:06 AM
Are you saying Federer lives for tennis because his brain is too big for any player?

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2009, 07:21 AM
Hard work alone cannot produce dominant results in sport, hence the reason there was a talent difference between Sampras and a Chang or Aaron Krikstein, or in the present day, the difference between Federer and Fish.

Talent, even artistry has been seen in some players over the decades, and all of the training and hard work in the world cannot generate that--or the ability to apply talent to aquired skill for maximum results. In other words, sports is not an even playing field, balanced by training.

jetlee2k
06-20-2009, 07:32 AM
very nice comment OP. I just can't stand to watch Blake, Querry attitude during the match. They act like they don't care.. Have no fighting spirits. As soon as the opponent fought hard and making a come back, for sure they will tank the match.. Even though I don't like Roddick game but I must say the guy fight hard every point and gave his best everytime he plays.. The rest of the American players don't hungry enough to win any thing..

vtmike
06-20-2009, 08:29 AM
Damn my post spurred up quite a reaction...Ok here goes,

But there is an upper limit on someone's size, speed, and fast twitch fibers.
There is a limit on hours spent training/playing before you have bad knees like Nadal or a bad shoulder like Sharapova.
I think Blake is, if anything an, overachiever.

Hard work alone cannot produce dominant results in sport, hence the reason there was a talent difference between Sampras and a Chang or Aaron Krikstein, or in the present day, the difference between Federer and Fish.

Talent, even artistry has been seen in some players over the decades, and all of the training and hard work in the world cannot generate that--or the ability to apply talent to aquired skill for maximum results. In other words, sports is not an even playing field, balanced by training.

There is a limit to everything, but what you are talking about (i.e. height, weight, beyond your control genetic physical traits etc.) is not part of talent really...Those are just physical traits, and there are ways to get around that by training smart & employing a game that is better on your body right? If Nadal had a game like Pete Sampras, his knees would not be hurting as bad...

Maybe Sharapova's bad shoulder is a result of bad technique & improper fitness training (maybe she did not train hard enough, or maybe she did not train the right way, eat the right things,...it could be due to a lot of factors)...

I am not saying work alone will do it...What is really important is that working hard the RIGHT way and not just putting in more hours but putting in more smarter hours and concentrating on the right things.. (and this is due to a combination of the player & his trainer, coach)...So if your fitness trainer does give your the proper training, or the player/coach does not employ the right technique ===> This could lead to an injury or lack of a longevity...

So what is artistry? A players game looks artistic because that is what he has always worked on and wanted his game to look like (i.e. desire)...Not a result of natural talent.

Now if a player gets an unexpected injury not because of his game, or fitness regime then I agree is just bad luck...but just saying that a player is not talented enough is just an excuse...and this is strictly MY opinion.

egn
06-20-2009, 09:09 AM
Roddick cares a lot about winning he just is not good enough. Honestly Roddick usually is out there trying to win and tons of times you saw him really trying to beat Fed he just was not capable of it.

FD3S
06-20-2009, 09:31 AM
Roddick cares a lot about winning he just is not good enough. Honestly Roddick usually is out there trying to win and tons of times you saw him really trying to beat Fed he just was not capable of it.

What must really burn Roddick is that as lopsided as the H2H is, there were a few matches that really could have gone either way. No wonder he keeps on giving it his all, regardless of the bad style match-up.

As for the American man/talent issue: I'll agree with the fact that talent-wise, they aren't among the top pantheon of this generation, Roddick notwithstanding. (Top 10 for seven years running? Dude can ball.) With that said, lack of talent is no excuse to have lackluster attitudes like the OP posted. I like Blake and all, but there's a reason why is first five-set win was considered an event; no one ever expected him to fight hard enough to win one.

FiveO
06-20-2009, 09:46 AM
I think this generation has a talent gap to start with. In particular I don't think Roddick lacks for desire, I believe he got as much as he could out of his talent. That being said, through time there have been alot of guys who appear to have all the talent but for whatever the less tangible reason(s) i.e.: being satisfied, not wanting the additional pressure of being 'expected to win' all the time, not wanting to put in the work, whatever, have underachieved. Wilander (as much as he did accomplish, got to the mountain top looked around and didn't like the view); Rios being Rios; Safin saying he didn't want the pressure of #1; Nalbandian observably not being willing to put in the work as compared to Murray who did, etc..

There are guys who lacked the desire, but IMO the Americans of the last two generations didn't have the talent even if they did. One exception may be Taylor Dent, maybe. Were the injuries due to being unready most of the time or were the injuries the result of not being willing to put the work in. IMO Dent may have had the talent to much more than he did and truly excel on certain courses, grass and indoors, but I don't no if you could put the blame for his lack of success on his mind or his body.

5

sureshs
06-20-2009, 09:59 AM
I saw a tennis channel segment on Sam Querrey yesterday. He said he enjoys traveling and the life of a pro. He also said the downside is there can be stress, and some guys put a lot of pressure on themselves to always win (implying he does not).

This is the same casual attitude we see in the other top American men. They make a few million dollars, and are then content to travel the world, date beautiful women, and drive expensive cars.


I am also like that

Serendipitous
06-20-2009, 10:00 AM
John Isner has enough passion for everyone. He just needs to donate some of it.

forehand_dude
06-20-2009, 11:33 AM
The current crop of american players are in my opinion a solid bunch, but they all have some minor(or bigger) flaws in their game that prevent them to be a consistent threat. For blake it's the mental game and shot selection, ginepri doesn't really have a consistent weapon, for fish his movement and mental game(his forehand can also be shaky), for querrey his approach to the game and backhand and for roddick the problem lays in his approach shoots and lacking firepower from the backhand side.

I don't fully buy the lack of talent argument. For example, how is Blake's poor shot selection a talent problem? Isn't this just a matter of mental focus and determination to hit the right shot for the situation?

Also, what talent does Murray have that Blake lacks? Blake is faster than Murray, and he hits the ball at least as hard. If Blake would just wait and use his power at the right moments, it seems he should play even with Murray.

As a fan who read Blake's book, I mean this with as much sensitivity and compassion as possible -- I think for a time, the death of his father focused Blake. This focus brought him to levels of success he had not previously thought possible. But since then, that focus has subsided.

But it's not too late. At 29, Blake is still healthy and has lucked into a great draw at Wimbledon. Why couldn't he make a run to the semis?

sureshs
06-20-2009, 01:28 PM
No one has the right to demand passion from someone else unless they are themselves world-class in something. Most posters here need to look in the mirror first.

Mafia13
06-20-2009, 01:29 PM
I don't fully buy the lack of talent argument. For example, how is Blake's poor shot selection a talent problem? Isn't this just a matter of mental focus and determination to hit the right shot for the situation?

Also, what talent does Murray have that Blake lacks? Blake is faster than Murray, and he hits the ball at least as hard. If Blake would just wait and use his power at the right moments, it seems he should play even with Murray.

As a fan who read Blake's book, I mean this with as much sensitivity and compassion as possible -- I think for a time, the death of his father focused Blake. This focus brought him to levels of success he had not previously thought possible. But since then, that focus has subsided.

But it's not too late. At 29, Blake is still healthy and has lucked into a great draw at Wimbledon. Why couldn't he make a run to the semis?

I think you misunderstood my post. My personal opinion is that reaching even the top 100 of the world is a great achievement and I really think that each and every one of these players is loaded with talent. I fully give credit to all of these players, but you seem to underestimate the importance of the mental game in tennis. Yes, blake is a bit faster than murray ,but murray makes up for that because he reads the game so much better than blake on all surfaces. Also, the vast majority of the current crop can hit almost all the shots in the book (blake and murray of course included) , but it's important to hit the right shots at the right time. Remember what fed did when he was 2 sets down and break point down against haas at the French? He hit a stunning forehand winner that landed right on the line. You can call that luck, but the ability to do that consistently when it really matters is what makes a champion.
I would like nothing more than blake to have a nice run here, but his draw isn't easy as it seems, in form haas, cilic are also there and your really can't disregard djokovic, although his form has been shaky lately and many people have already written him off. Still, best of luck to everyone and I hope for some good tennis in the weeks coming

forehand_dude
06-20-2009, 01:41 PM
murray makes up for that because he reads the game so much better than blake on all surfaces

I suppose that makes sense, that the ability to read the game, and the mental component itself is a type of talent.

And the other poster is right that fans can't demand extraordinary passion. The entertainment the pros provide is enough. It would still be nice to see some of the American guys show a little more emotion (negative and positive) so we can see they really want it.

OJ ROD
06-20-2009, 01:42 PM
"Top American men: Where is the passion? "

Same place where americans put their morals and ethics.

RCizzle65
06-20-2009, 05:40 PM
Or maybe just Blake, Querrey, Fish and Ginepri are just second rate players who aren't that good?

The person that coached both Roddick and Fish said Fish was the one with more talent, but look at Roddick he's the one with the slam, he's an extremely hard worker and look what it has gotten him, in the top 10 for the past 7 years.

kOaMaster
06-21-2009, 01:11 AM
When Federer started to play on the tour, he had a lot of issue like the ones you mentioned, threw rackets, swore and so on. But I think to be successful (which Federer showed) is, to be the exact opposite of that.
Be calm, find your peace on the court, deal with losing...

How many current (or in the last 15 years) top players you now how act like the fools mce & conners did?

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2009, 01:29 AM
but look at Roddick he's the one with the slam, he's an extremely hard worker and look what it has gotten him, in the top 10 for the past 7 years.

...but it is just one slam. Without question, careers and position in history are defined by slam wins far more than ranking. Being in the top 10 for 7 years just means he's a journeyman--and can also suggest he's there because the competition is weak enough for Roddick to stay afloat.

joeri888
06-21-2009, 01:40 AM
...but it is just one slam. Without question, careers and position in history are defined by slam wins far more than ranking. Being in the top 10 for 7 years just means he's a journeyman--and can also suggest he's there because the competition is weak enough for Roddick to stay afloat.

Roddick a journeyman? wtf! Roddick is a top quality player who has seen greats come and go but knew how to stay at the top of the game himself by working hard and using his weapons to his full advantage.

devila
06-21-2009, 01:41 AM
Fish has more talent than Roddick? lol
Federer and Blake have more smarts, personality and good looks than Roddick, then.

devila
06-21-2009, 01:50 AM
What must really burn Roddick is that as lopsided as the H2H is, there were a few matches that really could have gone either way. No wonder he keeps on giving it his all, regardless of the bad style match-up.He chases models very hard. He certainly doesn't chase for work and greatness.

He admitted "I selfishlessly want Federer to win Slams. He's the best ever."

"I rather spend time with friends than learn in a tennis academy."

The hypocrite obviously hates any ounce of respect and great reputation. He apologized: "I never expected to be good. A top 70 ranking was fine. I never planned to be a pro."
He didn't have the athletic genes and was a mama's boy. He should retire from tennis with this attitude.

jamesblakefan#1
06-21-2009, 02:00 AM
He chases models very hard. He certainly doesn't chase for work and greatness.

He admitted "I selfishlessly want Federer to win Slams. He's the best ever."

"I rather spend time with friends than learn in a tennis academy."

The hypocrite obviously hates any ounce of respect and great reputation. He apologized: "I never expected to be good. A top 70 ranking was fine. I never planned to be a pro."
He didn't have the athletic genes and was a mama's boy. He should retire from tennis with this attitude.

I just remembered that the ignore list is made just for commentors like you. Thanks.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2009, 02:10 AM
I am not saying work alone will do it...What is really important is that working hard the RIGHT way and not just putting in more hours but putting in more smarter hours and concentrating on the right things.. (and this is due to a combination of the player & his trainer, coach)...So if your fitness trainer does give your the proper training, or the player/coach does not employ the right technique ===> This could lead to an injury or lack of a longevity...

So what is artistry? A players game looks artistic because that is what he has always worked on and wanted his game to look like (i.e. desire)...Not a result of natural talent.

For one example, John McEnroe's unforgettable S&V abilities have been described over the years as being shaped by his own, unusual artistry never seen in others of his type--even his idol, Laver. There is a difference between working on a method of play which can be taught and refined, and the execution which is so unique, the player him or herself defines it due to their own artistic interpretation of the method. That separates a merely trained player from the people who with notable talent--who also make history, such as Dent to Edberg, respectively.

Now if a player gets an unexpected injury not because of his game, or fitness regime then I agree is just bad luck...but just saying that a player is not talented enough is just an excuse...and this is strictly MY opinion.

...then what is the excuse for today's American male players? The entire generation is comprised of lackluster men of no defined talent and certainly no direction, other than "hoping to do well" ; they simply exist, and grow older every day, each with no answers leading to domination of their field, each very likely to be nothing more than footnotes to an era when all is said and done years from now.

jamesblakefan#1
06-21-2009, 02:15 AM
What do you expect, every player to be Federer and Nadal and go out and win every Grand Slam? Blake and Roddick certainly haven't been failures in any estimation. Just because they don't have 10+ slams doesn't mean their careers have been failures. Both have been succesful top 10 level players for the majority of their careers. So every player that doesn't win a slam is a failure and should have never played, is that correct?

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2009, 02:22 AM
Roddick a journeyman? wtf! Roddick is a top quality player who has seen greats come and go but knew how to stay at the top of the game himself by working hard and using his weapons to his full advantage.

Yes. A Jounrneyman. Journeyman means, "any experienced, competent but routine worker or performer" and after all these (post 1-slam) years, of just maintaining a ranking with no slam results, that is exactly what Roddick is--with the high chance of his career ending as a just another fading face in a line of one-slam "wonders." Again, being a top 10 player for years means what? He's competent, but untalented and incapable of elevating his game to do what Federer and Nadal have.

...and remeber, the clock is running out on Roddick.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2009, 02:36 AM
What do you expect, every player to be Federer and Nadal and go out and win every Grand Slam?

Do you think after Roddick's 1 slam that he did not want to win as many as possible? You must remember the nature of this sport; what is THE goal of players? Just winning occasional tournaments, or winning slams-and as many as possible?

Would a boxer just be content to win several fights, or does he desire to be the undisputed title holder for his weight class? Further, does he want to maintain that dominance for as long as possible?

Ask Federer...or Sampras...if winning said slams was the driving force and focus above all other titles or goals in their sport. Then compare that to the subjects of this thread and ask yourself why conversations like this happen at all, or why in recent years, company mouthpiece Patrick McEnroe unconvincingly and sheepishly tried to defect co-commentators' occasional questions about the lack of American men being serious slam contenders or dominant like previous generations of American male players.

jamesblakefan#1
06-21-2009, 02:42 AM
your standards of success are just too high. I bet if your son doesn't graduate top of his class in high school, then graduate Harvard Magna Cum Laude, you'll view him as a failure and disown him.

So tell me then, what is your definition of a successful career? Win 2 slams, flame out, and go away never to be heard from again? Would you rather Roddick have Gaudio's career? What do you want the guy to do? He's had the misfortune of one of, if not, the greatest of all time in his era. And he's lost to him in 6 slams. Maybe he should have won a couple of those matches, but even then, I have a feeling you'd still see him as a disappointment b/c he didn't have as many slams as Federer. Or Sampras. Or Agassi. Your expectations as to what's a successful career and whats a failed career are too high, IMO.

zagor
06-21-2009, 03:51 AM
LOL at Roddick being a journeyman,you people are confusing him with Vince Spadea.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2009, 03:51 AM
your standards of success are just too high. I bet if your son doesn't graduate top of his class in high school, then graduate Harvard Magna Cum Laude, you'll view him as a failure and disown him.

Now, now. No flaming, jamesblakefan#1--that's just being silly.

So tell me then, what is your definition of a successful career? Win 2 slams, flame out, and go away never to be heard from again? Would you rather Roddick have Gaudio's career? What do you want the guy to do? He's had the misfortune of one of, if not, the greatest of all time in his era.

You are missing the OP's charge and developing points relevant to the OP: Why are the American men lacking passion--and as others added--talent and results?

I ask again why for Federer...or Sampras...or other great champions, winning said slams was the driving force and focus above all other titles or goals in their sport. Then compare that to the subjects of this thread and ask yourself why conversations like this happen at all...

...why in recent years, company mouthpiece Patrick McEnroe unconvincingly and sheepishly tried to deflect co-commentators' occasional questions about the lack of American men being serious slam contenders or dominant like previous generations of American male players?

Why have the commentators posed that question at all if everything was golden with American players?

Your counter-argument about numbers of slams is answered in this way: do you think Roddick wants his career to end with only one slam? If the answer is "no," then we have to question WHY he has suffered--and i'm not really buying the:

He's had the misfortune of one of, if not, the greatest of all time in his era

..statement, as Sampras was fast being considered that while playing, but it never stopped Agassi from winning more than a single slam during that period.

So again, what is the problem with American male players (combining all aforementioned charges)?

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 08:52 AM
Now, now. No flaming, jamesblakefan#1--that's just being silly.



You are missing the OP's charge and developing points relevant to the OP: Why are the American men lacking passion--and as others added--talent and results?

I ask again why for Federer...or Sampras...or other great champions, winning said slams was the driving force and focus above all other titles or goals in their sport. Then compare that to the subjects of this thread and ask yourself why conversations like this happen at all...

...why in recent years, company mouthpiece Patrick McEnroe unconvincingly and sheepishly tried to deflect co-commentators' occasional questions about the lack of American men being serious slam contenders or dominant like previous generations of American male players?

Why have the commentators posed that question at all if everything was golden with American players?

Your counter-argument about numbers of slams is answered in this way: do you think Roddick wants his career to end with only one slam? If the answer is "no," then we have to question WHY he has suffered--and i'm not really buying the:



..statement, as Sampras was fast being considered that while playing, but it never stopped Agassi from winning more than a single slam during that period.

So again, what is the problem with American male players (combining all aforementioned charges)?




Want to know the problem? Since 2005, it has been the Nadal and Federer show, still running. Do you know what it took for them to get knocked out? It took Federer getting mono in 2008, an onfire Safin in 2005, and Tsonga playing some of the best tennis of his life in 2008.

jamesblakefan#1
06-21-2009, 11:27 AM
You are missing the OP's charge and developing points relevant to the OP: Why are the American men lacking passion--and as others added--talent and results?

I think it's short sighted to think that passion = slams. To say Fed only wins b/c he's the most passionate, and not b/c of his supreme talent for the game is wrong. You don't think that the guys fighting to stay in the top 100 and make the main draws of slams have the same passion for the game as the Federers and Samprases of the world? It's not just passion that brings success. I could see saying "Oh, I'd like to see more passion from the Americans" But equating lack of passion to a lack of results and slams is not right. Passion does not equal slams. It helps, but is not the sole factor or even a major factor.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2009, 05:47 PM
I think it's short sighted to think that passion = slams. To say Fed only wins b/c he's the most passionate, and not b/c of his supreme talent for the game is wrong. You don't think that the guys fighting to stay in the top 100 and make the main draws of slams have the same passion for the game as the Federers and Samprases of the world? It's not just passion that brings success. I could see saying "Oh, I'd like to see more passion from the Americans" But equating lack of passion to a lack of results and slams is not right. Passion does not equal slams. It helps, but is not the sole factor or even a major factor.

If you remember, I commented often on the talent factor in this thread when talking about past players, because I also realize a special talent (not just hard work alone--as mentioned earlier) is required to rise above the rest.

There is something to be said about history's most talented male players and their passion compared to those not on their level. One could argue that once a player knows what it means to have special talent enhanced ability, that knowledge only increases the passion--the thrill of pitting that talent against all comers, knowing that he has the "goods" to accomplish much, particularly at the slams--inarguably, the driving goal of tennis careers.

Others appear not to share that talent/passion, and it shows in the American male players, who only continue to make commentators fans, et al, repeatedly ask this question, because there is a problem--and no, existing in Federer's era cannot be the culprit, as the Sampras example (previous post) proves.

Leublu tennis
06-22-2009, 01:08 AM
I don't understand this concept of a player using his "talent" to win matches...There is not such thing as a natural talent to play tennis. The talent is a result of the work he has put in off court...Nobody is born with a gift to play tennis...Its something that is worked on for long hours and honed overtime...

Well, I don't agree with you. I think all great athletes are born that way. Yes, you can go to the court for hours every day, hire a great coach but, if you haven't got it, you haven't got it and there is nothing you can do about it. I take one thing back. All talented athletes have to start training very early. Look how many begin tennis at 4, 5, or 6 years of age. But thats so that they can develop the skills that they will need later on in life.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-22-2009, 09:28 AM
Well, Blake crashes again, and once again, Patrick McEnroe had a ready storehouse of excuses for his fellow American, when the real reason is one no one will ever approach on air.