Is Federer the destroyer of American men's tennis?

[Entername]

Since Federer won his first major, no American player has won a major, and he played a very large role in this. From 1974-2003, there were only 4 years where there were no slam winners from USA, but in the past 18 years, there have been zero with no finalists since 2009.

He beat the legends of old:

2000 Australian - first ever main draw slam match, beats former GS champ Michael Chang
2001 Wimbledon - dethroned Sampras at Wimbledon while Pete was 4x defending champ (Fed's first big break)
2003 ATP Finals, 2004 US Open, 2005 Australian Open, and 2005 US Open - beat Agassi spoiling the last window of AA's career

He owned Americans who were born in his age group.

21-3 vs Roddick
10-1 vs Blake
8-2 vs Isner
4-0 vs Querrey
8-1 vs Fish

Federer's emergence basically destroyed the spirit of US men's tennis in the 2000s and in the 2010s, it marked the first decade every where no American men's player ever won a slam or made a slam final!

 

[onefineday]

I don't think anyone but Roddick on that list was winning slams, with or without Federer.

 

[Mustard]

Since Federer won his first major, no American player has won a major

Not quite true. Federer's first major was 2003 Wimbledon, and then Roddick won the 2003 US Open.

Federer's emergence basically destroyed the spirit of US men's tennis in the 2000s and in the 2010s, it marked the first decade every where no American men's player ever won a slam or made a slam final!

The American media hates that none of the big 3/4/5 is American

 

[Aabye5]

Since Federer won his first major, no American player has won a major, and he played a very large role in this. From 1974-2003, there were only 4 years where there were no slam winners from USA, but in the past 18 years, there have been zero with no finalists since 2009.

He beat the legends of old:

2000 Australian - first ever main draw slam match, beats former GS champ Michael Chang
2001 Wimbledon - dethroned Sampras at Wimbledon while Pete was 4x defending champ (Fed's first big break)
2003 ATP Finals, 2004 US Open, 2005 Australian Open, and 2005 US Open - beat Agassi spoiling the last window of AA's career

He owned Americans who were born in his age group.

21-3 vs Roddick
10-1 vs Blake
8-2 vs Isner
4-0 vs Querrey
8-1 vs Fish

Federer's emergence basically destroyed the spirit of US men's tennis in the 2000s and in the 2010s, it marked the first decade every where no American men's player ever won a slam or made a slam final!

Nope, all of those guys except Blake and Fish are big servers, almost to the point of being lousy at everything else. The big 3 eat big servings (and servers) for breakfast.

 

[Sport]

Sure. Federer destroyed the career of Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Sampras and Agassi.

Roger the destroyer.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yes and no. It was dying a certain death anyway but he ended it early

 

[Mustard]

I think the US tennis authorities made a big mistake when they thought Sampras' style was the way forward instead of Agassi's style. I think they saw Sampras was more successful than Agassi, so Sampras style was the way forward. But to be good in the current era, you need the Agassi style for your players much more than the Sampras style. Big serving, big power, shorter points, living on the edge with clutch moments like Sampras is unlikely to cut it now, and Sampras was an expert at those clutch moments anyway. He often said he lived or died by his second serve. Agassi's more patient point construction and enjoying the meat of the rallies, that was the way forward for this era.

 

[travlerajm]

Since Federer won his first major, no American player has won a major, and he played a very large role in this. From 1974-2003, there were only 4 years where there were no slam winners from USA, but in the past 18 years, there have been zero with no finalists since 2009.

He beat the legends of old:

2000 Australian - first ever main draw slam match, beats former GS champ Michael Chang
2001 Wimbledon - dethroned Sampras at Wimbledon while Pete was 4x defending champ (Fed's first big break)
2003 ATP Finals, 2004 US Open, 2005 Australian Open, and 2005 US Open - beat Agassi spoiling the last window of AA's career

He owned Americans who were born in his age group.

21-3 vs Roddick
10-1 vs Blake
8-2 vs Isner
4-0 vs Querrey
8-1 vs Fish

Federer's emergence basically destroyed the spirit of US men's tennis in the 2000s and in the 2010s, it marked the first decade every where no American men's player ever won a slam or made a slam final!

Yes. Because every American tennis dad ruined his son’s future by insisting that his coach teach him to play like Fed.

 

[Aabye5]

I think the US tennis authorities made a big mistake when they thought Sampras' style was the way forward instead of Agassi's style. I think they saw Sampras was more successful than Agassi, so Sampras style was the way forward. But to be good in the current era, you need the Agassi style for your players much more than the Sampras style. Big serving, big power, shorter points, living on the edge with clutch moments like Sampras is unlikely to cut it now, and Sampras was an expert at those clutch moments anyway. He often said he lived or died by his second serve. Agassi's more patient point construction and enjoying the meat of the rallies, that was the way forward for this era.

You make a great point, open it up to the floor.

However, I think the answer is -- it depends. Federer is "more" like Sampras, Nadal is "more" like Agassi, Djokovic is somewhere in-between. They also have boatloads of talent.

Don't sacrifice movement for some marginal speed on the serve. Sampras wasn't built like Roddick, who was boxier and not as fast.

 

[_phantom]

I think modern day tennis (poly, homogenization etc), more often than not, is advantageous to players who grew up playing on clay.

They should introduce some clay tourneys there. Change the surface in Miami, maybe? It goes well with the scheduling of the current clay season.

 

[Mustard]

I think modern day tennis (poly, homogenization etc), more often than not, is advantageous to players who grew up playing on clay.

They should introduce some clay tourneys there. Change the surface in Miami, maybe? It goes well with the scheduling of the current clay season.

Clay is the best surface to be brought up on, even if it ends up being your worst surface as an adult player. It forces you to construct rallies in the hard way, dilutes the power of your shots. If a player then ends up being better on hardcourt and grass, their more powerful shots will feel even better on those surfaces for them having been brought up on clay.