Agassi praises clay, thinks american tennis is declining because of hardcourts

H

Heracles

Banned
Agassi gave an interview to Eurosport.fr


Here is my translation of that part of his interview

"Q: With you, Pete Sampras, but Jim Courier too, american tennis dominated the world rankings in the 90's. Why the USA lost this density at the highest level?

Agassi: Firstly, USA have been victims of the world competition. Tennis is a sport who has developped impressively on the the planet. The young players used to grow inspired by charismatic players, heroes, me and Jim have by exemple been influenced by John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors success and now nobody took our relay. More profoundly I think that the lack of top players that we have currently in our country is due to the american culture of training on hardcourts, on fast courts. Tennis has now changed, the rallies are longer, more tactical.. If I had to change something in the system of formation of our players, I would make them grow on clay, to make them learn how to apply a strategy, to conduct tactically a point. It would be a starting point to allow the USA to find the same success that they enjoyed in their glorious past."

In the other questions he said that he does not mind current players beatings the records and that Nadal and Federer are most likely the two greatest players of all time, that we are witnessing an historic moment, that he enjoys watching Nadal playing.

link to the article
http://www.eurosport.fr/tennis/agassi-eloge-de-la-terre_sto2507234/story.shtml
 
I'm in the UK and although I dont know what most of the courts in the US are like it sounds like the same as here. And I have to say for a long time I have had the same view as Agassi is showing here.

Astroturf is quite popular here and I just hate the idea of it! My friends club had their courts resurfaced a few years ago, changing from hard court to Astroturf. I just hate playing there now. One of the reasons alot of clubs change to Astroturf is because the older members, who have more of a say in club matters, find it better on the knees. I dont know if it is easier to maintain too, maybe.

As far as training youngsters on this kind of surface goes, it's just a ridiculous idea! How many tournaments on the pro tour are played on Astroturf? ZERO! You learn nothing about defending or even rallying on these courts, it just rewards aggressive play, one two punch kind of tennis. And because these fast courts have actually been assisting the attacking player in their aggresive style, when that player moves to slower courts they arent actually as effective at attacking as they think! And like I said before, as far as having 15-20 shot rallies goes on that surface just forget it.

Ofcourse my view if mostly on Astroturf, whereas Agassi is talking about hardcourts. I think for training youngsters having slow hardcourts is fine. Clay is good to learn to rally and to build points ofcourse and that is the main part of learning to be a pro.
 
Last edited:
Clay is always the best surface to bring players up on, IMO. On clay, players learn how to construct points and get into the tactical battle and grind. If a player ends up being better on faster surfaces like hardcourt and grass, then being brought up on clay will have actually helped them.
 
Last edited:
christos, very interesting and I agree with you , Mustard and Agassi. Quicker surfaces may be interesting to play on but they reduce tennis to the very simple and prevent the people learning to play on that surfaces to be good and complete. You can't develop all the quality of a tennis player on them and it is not surprising to see players with limited undertsanding of the game when they have been raised only on these type of surface.

Clay however allows players to use the full arsenal of weapons in tennis. Even if you are good server and a powerful attacking player, clay will benefit you, and you will be able to use these weapons even more efficiently when you play on faster surfaces while the one having not played young on clay will feel quite hopless.
 
I think Agassi may very well be right. A greater clay focus may yield much better pro results. It's very difficult to argue against the recent success that Spain has had while training pro players. Furthermore, obviously, the U.S. needs to try some different things in its approach. Why not start with adding a clay emphasis while training and say play on clay 50% of the time? It would be interesting, plus guess what? Better cardio/fitness and less wear and tear on the body. You can't train off the court to replicate high intensity matches on red clay.
 
Americans play more or less on the same types of courts they played on 20, 40 or 60 years ago. I don't see how surface would explain progress or lack of it.
 
Agassi needs to get behind the booth at the grand slams. Love this guys outgoing personality and wealth of knowledge. IMO he would be a great color commentator. Interesting and xciting. Fun! Him and JMac 2gether with one of the play by play announcer.
 
Isn't clay also easier on the body? Perhaps training younger players on clay from the beginning will also be beneficial in keeping injuries to a minimum. It sucks to see younger players basically end their careers due to injuries.
 
El Diablo said:
Americans play more or less on the same types of courts they played on 20, 40 or 60 years ago. I don't see how surface would explain progress or lack of it.
Click to expand...

But that may very well be the problem. The rest of the world has started playing and the new powerhouses (Europe, South America) use a lot of clay in player's develoment, and it has proved to be successful. It also helped game of players that trained on clay for a time even if they did not become clay specialists (see Safin, Murray).

The USA has a powerful tennis school system already, so obviously that's not the main issue. No matter if other sports are more popular there; USA still has a bigger breeding ground of tennis players than small European countries like Serbia, for example.

I think Agassi has a point. Imagine if Roddick or Blake spent some years training on clay in their teens. Don't you think that it could've made them even better players?
 
El Diablo said:
Americans play more or less on the same types of courts they played on 20, 40 or 60 years ago. I don't see how surface would explain progress or lack of it.
Click to expand...

Because the game has changed in past 60 years. Seriously, saying "we're doing things just like we did 60 years ago" is kind of revealing. The game has changed, and US training methods haven't kept up.
 
Tour conditions have favored claycourt players in recent times. If everything was of the lightning fast type of court of the 80s and 90s, everyone would be saying South America, Europe, and other countries need to adapt the U.S. style of training on hardcourts.



The game is constantly evolving; yes the U.S. should incorporate more clay into their system, but it's not like everything they have done so far is wrong. They simply haven't had very many talented players to work with in recent times.
 
Great quote, I completely agree. Big servers, ball bashers: American tennis has to go beyond this. I trust that it will eventually. I'm sure we'll see great American champions again.
 
The only problem with that idea is this: most "clay" courts in the US are not red clay, but rather har-tru green/gray clay.

My understanding is that har-tru plays differently from red clay..

I DO agree, that it would be helpful to develop players who can play better on all surfaces!
 
Raphael said:
The only problem with that idea is this: most "clay" courts in the US are not red clay, but rather har-tru green/gray clay.

My understanding is that har-tru plays differently from red clay..
Click to expand...

So, I'm sort of curious. How much does that matter, in terms of player development?

Yes, of course it plays differently than red clay. That means that there'll be an adjustment period between playing on green clay and red clay. But that's not a big deal - the point of developing players on clay isn't to make them clay-court specialists, it's to develop skills that will help them on the varied surfaces of today's game. If the skills can translate with a small adjustment period, that's no worry.

Would playing on har-tru still help players develop strategy and working the point, which is applicable on all surfaces? Reward good defense as well as good offense? (Instead of rewarding single-shot tennis, big serve and big forehand only, which works on fast surfaces but becomes a liability on clay, allowing players to cover up a lack of good defense or counterpunching. )

Would it still help with teaching them to slide, which is applicable on red clay too?

Or is it different enough than red clay that it's better to play on hardcourts than har-tru?
 
Max G. said:
So, I'm sort of curious. How much does that matter, in terms of player development?

Yes, of course it plays differently than red clay. That means that there'll be an adjustment period between playing on green clay and red clay. But that's not a big deal - the point of developing players on clay isn't to make them clay-court specialists, it's to develop skills that will help them on the varied surfaces of today's game. If the skills can translate with a small adjustment period, that's no worry.

Would playing on har-tru still help players develop strategy and working the point, which is applicable on all surfaces? Reward good defense as well as good offense? (Instead of rewarding single-shot tennis, big serve and big forehand only, which works on fast surfaces but becomes a liability on clay, allowing players to cover up a lack of good defense or counterpunching. )

Would it still help with teaching them to slide, which is applicable on red clay too?

Or is it different enough than red clay that it's better to play on hardcourts than har-tru?
Click to expand...

While I haven't played that much on red clay, I grew up playing on green clay, and I think more green clay exposure would help with player development. BEcause it is in between harcourts and red clay, it rewards both good offense and defense, and contributes to a well-rounded approach to the game. Sliding is also very much a factor. Unfortunately they are harder to maintain than hardcourt and therefore don't see them supplanting the norm.
 
veroniquem said:
Great quote, I completely agree. Big servers, ball bashers: American tennis has to go beyond this. I trust that it will eventually. I'm sure we'll see great American champions again.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Agassi was a ball basher or are you saying he was just a big server? :confused:
 
Agassi is just stating the obvious. France and Spain have figured this out (developing players on clay) years ago.
 
What Agassi said has been known for a while and that is the main reason given by the Canadian government to justify a 13 millions investment for indoor clay courts at the Uniprix Stadium. Players will be able to play on clay all year long instead of the usual 3-4 months when the weather permits.

It's only a matter of time before we have a Canadian GOAT. :? :arrow:
 
Everyone jumping the Nadal bandwagon. First Pete, then Martina, now Andre, as well as younger players like Djokovic and Murray already declaring him the best or whatever. I wonder how long it'll take before Tiger Woods calls Nadal the greatest athlete the world has ever seen. LOL.
 
I love Agassi's perspective on this. I had a lesson from a USPTA pro at a club and he said the same thing about bringing players up on clay. You learn to construct points better; not only that you build great footwork.

I've played on har-tru, but haven't played on red clay so I can't really speak of the differences. I can tell you that har-tru was slower and you had to concentrate on your footwork or else you'd be sliding around.
 
P_Agony said:
Everyone jumping the Nadal bandwagon. First Pete, then Martina, now Andre, as well as younger players like Djokovic and Murray already declaring him the best or whatever. I wonder how long it'll take before Tiger Woods calls Nadal the greatest athlete the world has ever seen. LOL.
Click to expand...

It's a viable argument. The guy is a gladiator. Can you imagine the pressure of trying to play this guy over 5 sets?
 
Agassi is right

Along with the US decline, it also is the main reason for the UK not having a Wimbledon Champion since the 1930's. Andy Murray is the exception. It is no accident that in Andy Murray's case - a key to his success is that a significant part of his junior upbringing was on Spanish Clay.

Clay develops the strength of your ground strokes on both sides. You can't survive without being strong on both wings. You can then go to faster courts as you mature. It is very hard going the other way (developed on fast courts and progressing to slower courts).
 
Last edited:
Also New Zealand

The lack of clay court also affects my own country, New Zealand. The most common courts you see here at tennis clubs (including the one where I belong to) is artificial grass. It is popular with weekend players (because it is easy on their knees) but is useless for developing world beating players. Ironically you slide on it as the Artificial Grass is often topped off with a thin layer of sand.
 
The problem with clay is that the upkeep is labour intensive and an ongoing expense. Ideally clay should be on public courts, but that won't happen. When I started playing, (on clay at my city courts the main feature of the court was the roller...which was used by club members to maintain the clay. And , that was real terre battue...crushed bricks.
 
It's not exactly rocket science. Clay forces young players to THINK on court and HIT more shots, so they will have to try and outsmart the opponent and they will hit a lot of shots, thus improving consistency.

As Mustard very well said, once those players grow up and play more and more on HC, perhaps they will feel more at home on hardcourt with their game but their clay background will serve them very well, most of all because it will teach them patience and how to use the geometry of the court in your advantage.

No one is saying that HC is some junior killer but clay forces young players to adapt and improve aspects of their game. HC is actually very friendly for juniors, outside of the pounding on the body. If you can hit hard on HC and keep it in, you will get a short reply once in a while, you step in and boom, point over. And many players stick to that part, hit hard, try to keep it in. Serve hard, try to keep it in. Once they come up against a player with variety or if one of these two aspects doesn't work, they are in major trouble.
 
I don't think hardcourts has anything to do with the decline in american tennis.
Agassi did not grow up on clay, sampras didn't either.
 
Ultra2HolyGrail said:
I don't think hardcourts has anything to do with the decline in american tennis.
Agassi did not grow up on clay, sampras didn't either.
Click to expand...

Baseliners seem to be dominating this era, so probably is best if Americans grow up on clay in this era so their groundstrokes are more consistent. No real point in trying to become a poorman's Sampras and then get slaughtered by baseliners. I mean if you do copy the Sampras game the odds are you won't be as good as Sampras, and that is dangerous in an era of great baseliners. And it's virtually impossible to copy Agassi, because his reflexes are alien.
 
P_Agony said:
Everyone jumping the Nadal bandwagon. First Pete, then Martina, now Andre, as well as younger players like Djokovic and Murray already declaring him the best or whatever. I wonder how long it'll take before Tiger Woods calls Nadal the greatest athlete the world has ever seen. LOL.
Click to expand...

Hardly, it's a top 20 bandwagon:

1 Rafael Nadal (ESP)
3 Roger Federer (SUI)
2 Novak Djokovic (SRB)
4 Andy Murray (GBR)
5 Robin Söderling (SWE)
6 Tomáš Berdych (CZE)
7 Fernando Verdasco (ESP)
8 David Ferrer (ESP)
9 Mikhail Youzhny (RUS)
10 Andy Roddick (USA)
11 Nikolay Davydenko (RUS)
12 Jurgen Melzer (AUT)
13 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA)
14 Marin Čilić (CRO)
15 Gaël Monfils (FRA)
16 Nicolas Almagro (ESP)
17 Ivan Ljubičić (CRO)
18 Mardy Fish (USA)
19 Marcos Baghdatis (CYP)
20 John Isner (USA)

How many have been trained on clay?
 
P_Agony said:
Everyone jumping the Nadal bandwagon. First Pete, then Martina, now Andre, as well as younger players like Djokovic and Murray already declaring him the best or whatever. I wonder how long it'll take before Tiger Woods calls Nadal the greatest athlete the world has ever seen. LOL.
Click to expand...

someone sounds bitter:)
 
1 Rafael Nadal (ESP) - yes
3 Roger Federer (SUI) - yes
2 Novak Djokovic (SRB) - yes
4 Andy Murray (GBR) - guess
5 Robin Söderling (SWE) - yes
6 Tomáš Berdych (CZE) - yes
7 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) - yes
8 David Ferrer (ESP) - yes
9 Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) - yes
10 Andy Roddick (USA) - doubt
11 Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) - yes
12 Jurgen Melzer (AUT) - yes
13 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) - yes
14 Marin Čilić (CRO) - yes
15 Gaël Monfils (FRA) - yes
16 Nicolas Almagro (ESP) - yes
17 Ivan Ljubičić (CRO) - yes
18 Mardy Fish (USA) - doubt
19 Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) - yes
20 John Isner (USA) - doubt

so, only 3 players are not grew-up on clay in top 20 !!!
 
Raphael said:
The only problem with that idea is this: most "clay" courts in the US are not red clay, but rather har-tru green/gray clay.

My understanding is that har-tru plays differently from red clay..

I DO agree, that it would be helpful to develop players who can play better on all surfaces!
Click to expand...

No doubt, green clay and classic South American/European red clay are different, with green clay usually (but not always) being noticeabley faster.

But, green clay is still, usually, slower than hard courts. It still causes the ball to bounce up considerably more rather than skidding through. And, it still necessitates sliding. I've played on green clay many times and it is different than playing on even a slow hardcourt. It's definitely easier on the body.

BTW, on TV, we see tournaments such as the French Open or Italian Open where clearly there are top-notch ground crews and there is the money to constantly add a thick top layer of clay to the courts.

But, what is the average clay court like in Europe/South America? I'd have to imagine that every court is not maintained with such precision as in the pro tournaments.
 
Mustard said:
Clay is always the best surface to bring players up on, IMO. On clay, players learn how to construct points and get into the tactical battle and grind. If a player ends up being better on faster surfaces like hardcourt and grass, then being brought up on clay will have actually helped them.
Click to expand...

Agreed! When I was in juniors, the kids who played mostly clay courts were the ones who won most of the matches and tournaments.
 
I think in terms of "degree of difficulty", red clay may be at the top of the list. Some refer to great clay court play as "mindless" and lacking in skill, but it is quite the opposite. Red clay require players to utilize great footwork and it necessitates great physical strength/speed as well. Mental toughness is severely tested at the same time. Speed is an absolute must if you want to win on clay. So, there are many layers to master when it comes to playing well on clay and it all happens when players are dead tired, often playing in the heat of Paris.
 
I played for a couple of years on very slow har-tru indoor courts. Besides the fact that it's fun to play on these types of courts, I learned patience and a variety of spins and shots. I'm a 4.0 and most 4.0's I play can hit the ball hard, but you just get the ball back and wait for them to make a mistake trying to hit the hardest shot they can to end the point (and no, I don't push. Ok, well sometimes :)

But look at a guy like Isner, who has a huge serve and should win more than he does. He can't build points. Neither can Andy, though he's had an excellent career.

But I don't see a Nadal or even Federer type player on the horizon for the Americans.
 
Kobble said:
Agassi has a point. His generation (Courier and Chang) kicked ass on clay.
Click to expand...

Stumbled across this last night. Interesting time capsule - match, commercials, commentators, etc.


They mention in the broadcast that if time permits the match to follow between Courier and Arias would be shown, but alas, the vid ends with Agassi up 4-2 in the third. (Agassi would win 2-6, 7-5, 6-4) Don't know if that Courier match made it to air, and can't find it online. (Arias won 6-2, 3-6, 6-2) Would've been a fun one to see.

That guy Lawson Duncan may not have had a big pro career, but there in 1988 he had a wicked forehand! Of course, so did Agassi.

And a haircut! ;)
 
Sport said:
Time proved he's right.
Click to expand...
The USTA still aren't learning the lesson that clay is the best surface for young tennis players to grow up on, even if clay ends up being their worst surface later on. Growing up on clay means that there are no shortcuts, and you are discouraged from relying on big serve and big forehand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pirateofthecarribean
Why American tennis is declining
Replies
43
Views
3K
Starlite
Starlite
Adv. Edberg
Rise of American Tennis?
Replies
49
Views
3K
HouTex
H
P
Is Roddick or who who a Pusher... This is the problem of American Tennis Today
Replies
22
Views
1K
soyizgood
soyizgood
1
American tennis
Replies
42
Views
5K
citybert
C
1
American tennis
Replies
3
Views
1K
insideguy
I
Back
Top