Solved - why Europeans dominate tennis

[blablavla]

It's definitely about the money and the risk-reward ratio. No one is burning thousands for tennis lessons for their son to barely break even as a 100+ player. Team sports pay much more in the US for a much lower "ranked" player.

I'm sure with the population of the US it's possible for unnoticed talent to be spotted sponsored and nurtured but as others have said teaching methods and the lack of clay courts might have rendered them technically backwards in today's game.

same applies to Europe.
Football, top 100 player, is just as much as roughly the main squad of top 10 teams.
But even outside the top 10 teams, folks get Mio / year in the biggest leagues.
England, Germany, Spain, Italy, France + some of the reach teams outside the top5, so you have 5 (top leagues) * 20 (teams) * 25 (players per roaster) = 2500 players that earn at least decent money, if not being super wealthy.
And I think I am not much wrong if I think that actually, to compete (money-wise) with a tennis pro on the brink of top 100, a football player doesn't need to be in the 2500 players mentioned above, it is enough to be in the main squad in one of the teams of on of to 40 countries. Which in turn is at least 10'000 players, if not more.

Basketball.
It is as well a big sport in Europe.

Ice Hockey.
It is as well a big sport in Europe.

So, I am not sure that best talent in US goes to team sports while in Europe best talent goes to tennis.
Those who are looking for money, could as well go for team sports in Europe.
To my memory, both Federer and Nadal made a choice between tennis and football at some point of their junior preparation.
And I recall similar stories from more top pros in tennis.
There must be something beyond money.

 

[stringertom]

same applies to Europe.
Football, top 100 player, is just as much as roughly the main squad of top 10 teams.
But even outside the top 10 teams, folks get Mio / year in the biggest leagues.
England, Germany, Spain, Italy, France + some of the reach teams outside the top5, so you have 5 (top leagues) * 20 (teams) * 25 (players per roaster) = 2500 players that earn at least decent money, if not being super wealthy.
And I think I am not much wrong if I think that actually, to compete (money-wise) with a tennis pro on the brink of top 100, a football player doesn't need to be in the 2500 players mentioned above, it is enough to be in the main squad in one of the teams of on of to 40 countries. Which in turn is at least 10'000 players, if not more.

Basketball.
It is as well a big sport in Europe.

Ice Hockey.
It is as well a big sport in Europe.

So, I am not sure that best talent in US goes to team sports while in Europe best talent goes to tennis.
Those who are looking for money, could as well go for team sports in Europe.
To my memory, both Federer and Nadal made a choice between tennis and football at some point of their junior preparation.
And I recall similar stories from more top pros in tennis.
There must be something beyond money.

1. Free medical and team trainers
2. Free travel & accommodations with a per diem for meals when on the road
3. Pension plan

All team sports leagues in NA offer these lucrative fringe benefits. With at least four owners in NA now operating EPL franchises, they are aware of benefits packages world class athletes receive along with their lucrative salaries and bonuses.

 

[Nacho]

The real question is why do we see so many american female tennis players having an impact on the game but the male ones are struggling more?

1) more parity in women tennis, so a better chance to breakthrough even for a short time
2) more scholarship opportunities for women in college tennis, so more women are inclined to get into the sport; increasing the pool
3) there are several American players at the top, so more interesting role models for young girls over a longer period of time
4) Women's College tennis has improved 10 fold over the last decade, increasing the competition and skill level
5) Many more playing opportunities with futures tournaments in the US

 

[blablavla]

1. Free medical and team trainers
2. Free travel & accommodations with a per diem for meals when on the road
3. Pension plan

All team sports leagues in NA offer these lucrative fringe benefits. With at least four owners in NA now operating EPL franchises, they are aware of benefits packages world class athletes receive along with their lucrative salaries and bonuses.

what makes you think that the coaches and traveling is not free of charge in Europe?
it might be the case for recreational level, but for any more or less competitive, the teams provide it as well.
A friend of mine, from a quite poor EU country, told me that during his junior days, he would even get paid by the team for playing football. He didn't become a pro. Just a solid junior level.
Shall I mention that all the international travels, etc. were covered by the team?

 

[stringertom]

First time ever I´ve been called a snob, that in itself is hilarious...

So are you saying baseball is a pleb sport and anyone who mocks it is upper-class?

Just trying to understand your reasoning here.

“Fat slobs standing around” snobbery, too busy to watch a short video disproving your narrow minded assessment that European tennis players are better athletes due to superior dedication.

That’s being a snob.

Here’s a 60-second intro to a documentary series by an Emmy-winning director on the pleb national pastime played by fat lazy slobs. It takes supreme dedication by Ken Burns to find any action worth noting and including it in his film:

 

[stringertom]

what makes you think that the coaches and traveling is not free of charge in Europe?
it might be the case for recreational level, but for any more or less competitive, the teams provide it as well.
A friend of mine, from a quite poor EU country, told me that during his junior days, he would even get paid by the team for playing football. He didn't become a pro. Just a solid junior level.
Shall I mention that all the international travels, etc. were covered by the team?

Didn’t say that. I just listed fringe benefits that sweeten the pot for NA team sport athletes vs the independent contracting tennis player. I’m sure athletes all over the world have these benefits written in their collective bargaining agreements.

 

[Nacho]

No need to debate this anymore.

Why does Europe dominate the Laver Cup, and men's tennis at large? | Tennis.com

Even if The World manages to win their first Laver Cup this weekend, the Europe appears set to keep conquering the world of men’s tennis for the foreseeable future.

www.tennis.com

—Talent pool: The higher level of interest in tennis in Europe, compared to the U.S., may mean that a higher percentage of promising young athletes choose the sport.

—Coaching: When Patrick McEnroe announced his departure as head of USTA player development a few years ago, he cited “coaching education” as the most important aspect of the U.S. game that needed to be improved. Knowledgeable observers say there’s higher standard of expertise for coaches in Europe, and what’s happening in Canada right now might bear that out. Since hiring the former head of France’s junior development program, Louis Borfiga, Canada has had a surge of success, which peaked this month with Bianca Andreescu’s win at the US Open.

—Surface: The baseline game that was once the exclusive province of clay is now played on every type of court. That seems to give Europeans, who are more likely to play on clay as kids, a leg up in learning the patience and point construction that’s needed to succeed everywhere today. American men, meanwhile, mostly write off the two-month clay season and the ranking points that come with it.

—Mindset: European players, who speak multiple languages and cross national borders regularly, seem to adapt more easily to the disorientingly international nature of tennis. Medvedev, of Russia, made his breakthrough in the foreign lands of Washington, D.C. and Mason, Ohio, and he played the New York crowd like a fiddle during the Open. By contrast, the highest-ranked player in the U.S, John Isner, has won 14 of his 15 career titles on home soil.

An article written essentially by the USTA, shifting blame on everything but the USTA

1) yes more interest in Europe, because there are more top Europeans in the sport
2) Coaching comments are just silly. No reason to be a coach in the US because you are limited on what you can do and have no freedom to be a coach without jumping through USTA hoops. Much different then 30 years ago
3) Surface stuff is silly, except that many pro surfaces now are designed to encourage rallies over serve and volley games....but it's nothing an American player doesn't deal with
4) Mindest stuff is also silly. Europe is the size of the US, and players in the US travel everywhere even outside the US., doing well in Grand Slams...

If you want to improve American tennis:
-Create incentives for tennis to be community driven, not centralized in Orlando Florida. Small town tennis was the norm years ago, non-existent now
-Let local associations drive development, stop trying to control it all
-Change the age groups to 10 and under, 14 and under, 18 and under and 22 and under; keep Jr's in the game and transition them to adult levels. This will make up for the lack of opportunities in College tennis and give kids who are playing well the chance to compete against older kids
-Create more Scholarship opportunities in Mens College tennis. If it was equal to women you would give parents more incentive to push their kids in the sport
-Help bring back mens teams where they have been eliminated
-Improve High School tennis
-Get rid of consolations and prizes other then winner and runner up. Let kids learn to lose, learn to compete, and learn there is no reward for just showing up
-Make Jr tournaments localized, and inexpensive. This can be done through HS

 

[pmerk34]

Serve bombs, hope it doesn't come back, if it does, run around your backhand (which is 2-handed for everyone) and hit big forehands. It's like every American tennis player is cut in the image of Andy Roddick.

The U.S. Open slowed their courts down TWICE since Roddick won it in 2003. What other country would purposely hurt it's own players like that? The U.S. open surface is like mud now.

 

[blablavla]

The U.S. Open slowed their courts down TWICE since Roddick won it in 2003. What other country would purposely hurt it's own players like that? The U.S. open surface is like mud now.

According to this forum Wimbledon plays like green clay now.
I don't think British players are happy about it.

 

[stingstang]

It's definitely about the money and the risk-reward ratio. No one is burning thousands for tennis lessons for their son to barely break even as a 100+ player. Team sports pay much more in the US for a much lower "ranked" player.

Maybe the middle class parents who would traditionally pay for tennis have less disposable cash these days and/or are aware of how futile it is.

There's always an element of luck too. The best coaching system can't create a Roger Federer.

 

[Tmano]

I'm Italian and I can give you a better prospective here.
For sure the US have the biggest pool of potential players. Kids who are interested and play decent tennis or have already some good natural skills here in the US have many ways to develop thought high school and the college and it's pretty much all free for them. Not a personal coach if they have it.
Tennis is not that popular because it's a incredibly though sport at the professional level and not every athlete if it has to chose between two possible sports careers choose tennis. For instance, in Italy many of soccer players at young age were also pretty good tennis players, but they chose to pursuit the much easier lucrative soccer career. Even if you are not the best soccer player you can make a living a decent living.
When I was a kid no other kids played tennis, there were a couple of tennis club with very few kids. Now days yes there are more and more especially the number started raising in last 10/15 years but the number is not even close to the US. A very simple explanation is because the population number, but mostly because it's expensive and not every family can afford it. The sport system in Italy and I'm almost positive in Europe is different. Schools dot not support sports of any kinds from elementary through college. So if a kid has some sort of talent in a specific sport and he/she wants to pursue it the parents pay for everything, and because of it while growing the player is aware of the sacrifice made by the family and so puts 1000% of offer to succeed. Failing would make them failing on the family as well.
Playing on clay courts helps so much in developing better the technique and here we all agree, but I also believe there are better tennis coaches that uses different ways to make a talented players in a real professional tennis players.
Another thing is that a lot of people don't think about it is were this sport have been played for centuries. I believe there is some sort of a DNA type of deal in Europeans athletes that make them better certain sports like soccer, tennis, rugby, while US is huge on football basketball baseball. So I feel like that can plays a role too

 

[HazBeen18]

So points are longer.
So conditioning matters more.

There's an element of that, but it isn't conditioning alone. As a 4.0 (former 4.5, but I'm getting old now...), I was forced to move to clay some years back to help with a bad back (severe sciatica). I grew up playing classic, American hard-court tennis. I had a big serve, good hands, and could hit hard into each corner from either end. Points typically ended within 3 or 4 strokes (max.), as my goal was to finish points at the net.

When I moved onto clay, I found out that: 1) my big, flat serve sat up like a clay pigeon for good returners and my ace count dropped dramatically, 2) Stroke count on average went from 3 to 5 up to 5 to 8, 3) many clay players had developed "keep it in play" shots that I didn't have, like slice, squash shot, etc., 4) a kick serve became much more important on second serve, as you needed to keep returners off balance or they would tee off on second serve returns.

To combat all of those, I needed to change how I played. I developed a decent backhand slice, I developed a kick serve, I began to play the percentages more on rallies (hit to center of court more often to make rally neutral), and I rarely came into the net.

I'm a better player now and on the rare occasion I play on hard, I can see that all of my new skills transfer over to hard quite well.

Clay is simply a more difficult surface to get good at, as it requires more tools in the toolbox. US players aren't taught how to win properly on clay... period.

 

[pmerk34]

According to this forum Wimbledon plays like green clay now.
I don't think British players are happy about it.

That's silly. The US Open has admitted to slowing the US Open down twice since 2003. Hence that awful Djoker-nadal final where neither could hit winners or hit aces.

 

[Enga]

One of the things that I think holds the US back is too much competition. No one really stands out unless they literally do so by towering a foot over everyone else. Sometimes to find out if someone is good enough you just have to throw them at the wall and see if they stick. The US doesn't do that. The US expects you to beat everyone in college, beat everyone in amateurs, then beat everyone in pros, and if you can't do it go get a job.

I absolutely think large "talent" pools dilutes the potential. I don't think any sport benefits from having a million players trying to go pro.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

same applies to Europe.
Football, top 100 player, is just as much as roughly the main squad of top 10 teams.
But even outside the top 10 teams, folks get Mio / year in the biggest leagues.
England, Germany, Spain, Italy, France + some of the reach teams outside the top5, so you have 5 (top leagues) * 20 (teams) * 25 (players per roaster) = 2500 players that earn at least decent money, if not being super wealthy.
And I think I am not much wrong if I think that actually, to compete (money-wise) with a tennis pro on the brink of top 100, a football player doesn't need to be in the 2500 players mentioned above, it is enough to be in the main squad in one of the teams of on of to 40 countries. Which in turn is at least 10'000 players, if not more.

Basketball.
It is as well a big sport in Europe.

Ice Hockey.
It is as well a big sport in Europe.

So, I am not sure that best talent in US goes to team sports while in Europe best talent goes to tennis.
Those who are looking for money, could as well go for team sports in Europe.
To my memory, both Federer and Nadal made a choice between tennis and football at some point of their junior preparation.
And I recall similar stories from more top pros in tennis.
There must be something beyond money.

Precisely. Some people mistakenly assume Europe is just tennis and football. Quite false.

American tennis schools are way behind Spanish ones, and the lack of clay is definitely a reason. This stuff about team sports being more profitable is nonsense as an explanation, because it´s been that way for decades, not a new thing.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

It was only 20 years ago that the US was dominating tennis. Imagine a laver cup in the 90's. World would dominate every year, or it might even be USA v World if set up then.

 

[Paul Coffey]

Tennis has been a global sport since its infancy. That the “traditional” power nations of the majority of the history of the game have faded to be replaced by Euronations is more easily explainable by $/€/£ than anything else. To be top 50 in the world in any sport is be a great accomplishment, no? If you reach top 50 in our sport , you are currently a recently turned 20-year-old named Miomir Kecmanovic who has barely earned $1million in prize money in combined singles/dubs.

In contrast, the 750th best (not top 50 by 700 places) MLB player earned $.55million before benefits and travel expenses. Every ATP player absorbs those expenses!

If you want to be Eurocentric like one particular poster disparaging the athletic talents of non-Euro athletes (Hello there Over-rated Minor! How ya doing?),

Here is the CV of the 50th rated EPL footballer, a guy by the name of Moussa Sissoko. He earned £6 per year over 5 years. Miomir, as much as I respect him, won’t earn £30million in his career.

The 50th highest paid player worldwide in basketball is a Latvian “pro” named Timma. Drafted 2R by the Dallas Mavericks in 2013, he has yet to play one minute of regular season NBA play.

Ask yourself an honest question, imaginary as it may turn out to be:

If you were a parent of a two/three sport prodigy and only one was our sport, would you push the young lad/lass away from a beggar’s banquet???

One big difference between tennis and other mainstream sports is in tennis if player gets injured they are done. Kaput. Finished. There is no contract, no league. No access to doctors or lawyers or anything outside their own resources.

Another difference is you need to win in tennis to earn your keep. In the other mainstream sports winning may come with bonus incentives but the bulk of your income is in the form of contractual salary.


Jesus, halfway decent lawyers and accountants out of second rate universities earn more over their lives than most professional tennis players. Many people in this forum probably do better than the 100th best player in the world.

 

[chatt_town]

No need to debate this anymore.

Why does Europe dominate the Laver Cup, and men's tennis at large? | Tennis.com

Even if The World manages to win their first Laver Cup this weekend, the Europe appears set to keep conquering the world of men’s tennis for the foreseeable future.

www.tennis.com

—Talent pool: The higher level of interest in tennis in Europe, compared to the U.S., may mean that a higher percentage of promising young athletes choose the sport.

—Coaching: When Patrick McEnroe announced his departure as head of USTA player development a few years ago, he cited “coaching education” as the most important aspect of the U.S. game that needed to be improved. Knowledgeable observers say there’s higher standard of expertise for coaches in Europe, and what’s happening in Canada right now might bear that out. Since hiring the former head of France’s junior development program, Louis Borfiga, Canada has had a surge of success, which peaked this month with Bianca Andreescu’s win at the US Open.

—Surface: The baseline game that was once the exclusive province of clay is now played on every type of court. That seems to give Europeans, who are more likely to play on clay as kids, a leg up in learning the patience and point construction that’s needed to succeed everywhere today. American men, meanwhile, mostly write off the two-month clay season and the ranking points that come with it.

—Mindset: European players, who speak multiple languages and cross national borders regularly, seem to adapt more easily to the disorientingly international nature of tennis. Medvedev, of Russia, made his breakthrough in the foreign lands of Washington, D.C. and Mason, Ohio, and he played the New York crowd like a fiddle during the Open. By contrast, the highest-ranked player in the U.S, John Isner, has won 14 of his 15 career titles on home soil.

Yep, and the better athletes choose other sports here in the U.S. Tennis is a good sport though for lesser athletic folks to play. I agree with all of this in this post by the OP especially about the coaching....everything here is about a serve and forehand. some of them aren't even making an attempt to break. There is a real reason Isner's match went for 3 days. He won the match but no one talks about how he let a guy hold 68 times after having held his own serve...that is ridiculous. That all but sums up how most americans view tennis. Even all the way down the rec level. If you got a huge serve...people think you are good here. lol

 

[Zetty]

I am still not sure what success Europeans have over the US here.

Of the top 15 GS title holders, 4.5 are US, which is the largest concentration.

Also reminds me of Sureshes Canadian Tennis power thread. I found there that of the current top 100 players:

11 French
10 USA
10 Spanish
07 Italian
06 Argentinian
05 Aussie
05 Serbian
04 Russian
04 German
04 Canadian


So really no ONE country is monopolizing on GS titles or top 100 level players, but really the US has enjoyed a good share of players in both.

NO COUNTRY is going to continuously produce GOATs. There is so much more to what makes top champions than their main programs, though that contributes to it.

Yea but the land mass and population of the US is much larger than just about any of those European countries.

 

[flanker2000fr]

This last point is absurd. America is literally the most mixed-race/cultures nation in the world. Americans feeling lost and confused abroad makes zero sense, not least of all because how do we explain the success of US tennis decades earlier? Agassi never seemed confused, nor Mac, nor Connors, nor Chang, nor Courier and many others.

The notion that a Russian gets less disorioentated abroad than an American is just hilarious in its fallaciousness. Besides, Russians are well known for speaking only Russian. Go to Moscow and check out how many people speak English there. Very few. Sure, tennis pros may be different but they´re rarely linguistic experts.

The main reason Americans suck is that European schools are so much better, especially the Spanish school.

Agassi never seemed confused? You obviously haven't read his book.

Russians are mentally more resilient than the average American, as life in Russia is considerably more difficult than life in the US. So they know they will have to go abroad (Spain, France) to succeed, and that adaptation is a must. Also, I am sure I will find more people in Moscow speaking English than people in New York speaking Russian. And you couldn't be more wrong about their ability to learn languages. Slavs, in general, pick up foreign languages very easily.

 

[TenS_Ace]

You dum-dums...look at the pedigree of Team Europe vs Team World How in the heck did Roanic and Shapo get on the team?? Same as Isner ?? Team World could have picked way BETTER players BUT that team would be still a bit skinny with regards to TALENT.
The tennis gene pool for Team World is lacking

 

[socalmd123]

would Federer be Federer and Nadal be Nadal if they were born in USA?

 

[tonylg]

would Federer be Federer and Nadal be Nadal if they were born in USA?

Without growing up on clay, neither would have the grinding skills they do now, so would probably both consistently lose to Europeans.

 

[blablavla]

And you couldn't be more wrong about their ability to learn languages. Slavs, in general, pick up foreign languages very easily.

perhaps you wanted to say that on average not native English speaking pick-up languages easier than native English speakers?
I think it is not related to the brain capacity.
rather to the believe that everyone must speak English and everything must be in English.
French people had this believe as well some centuries ago.

 

[blablavla]

That's silly. The US Open has admitted to slowing the US Open down twice since 2003. Hence that awful Djoker-nadal final where neither could hit winners or hit aces.

what is silly? that Wimbledon became slower when compared to 2001?

let me bring some arguments that are flooding this forum around Wimbledon:
- serve & volley died as soon as grass composition was changed. to win nowadays one needs to excel at baseline rallies as opposed to S&V some 19 years ago
- rallies become longer (as well confirmed by stats and players)
- ace count
- % of service games won
- last but not least, visually, many members of the forum confirm that Wimbledon becomes slower, the bounce is higher, and it is virtually just a green version of clay

P.S.
@pmerk34 as a bonus for you, here is a thread about what players say, and they know what they are talking about, isn't it? at least that's the argument of many folks on this forum

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/wimbledon-court-speed-players-speak.647342/

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Agassi never seemed confused? You obviously haven't read his book.

Russians are mentally more resilient than the average American, as life in Russia is considerably more difficult than life in the US. So they know they will have to go abroad (Spain, France) to succeed, and that adaptation is a must. Also, I am sure I will find more people in Moscow speaking English than people in New York speaking Russian. And you couldn't be more wrong about their ability to learn languages. Slavs, in general, pick up foreign languages very easily.

1. Was Agassi´s confusion related to traveking abroad? No. Next point.

2."So Russians have to go to Spain, France"... where the tennis schools are superior. Thanks for bringing up my point to prove your own.

3. English is a world language in a completely different class above Russian. Surely you realize how flawed your argument is? English is the no 1 international langauge, Russian is maybe 5th. Most Europeans speak English as a foreign language or have studied it at school, very few speak Russian or had it at school. That surely tells you something. You can´t compare.

4. I never said Russians don´t have the ability to learn languages. You clearly are not reading my posts properly. I never even suggested it. Russians are simply not interested in learning foreign languages since many of them hardly ever travel and the country they live in is more like a whole continent which speaks Russian so they have no real need. Unlike the Dutch, a small country that is surrounded by world languages such as English, French and German, so the Dutch are often bilingual. Because they have to know languages.

5. I do agree only that Russians are more resilient. Americans have gone soft. Their cultures is one of demasculinization and whininess. Russians are tougher and more likely to break through in a competetive and tough sport such as tennis which involves so much traveling, stress over finances, pressures to win.

 

[sureshs]

I think the reason Cricket became popular is because of the different ways it can be played even if you are dirt poor. You can just use a flat wooden plank as a bat and you don't need a set of lines of certain size to play. Now with the easy access to money in India, I think the next few generations will start playing more tennis.

Plus complete lack of regulation and blatant disregard of traffic rules means that cricket can be played on city streets and sidewalks, obstructing people and cars, and multiple cricket matches can be going on in a single playground or park with implicit overlapping boundary areas.

All this is for cricket played with tennis balls. When you talk about real balls, gloves and pads become necessary and proper spaces are needed, and then it is not all that convenient or accessible.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Yea but the land mass and population of the US is much larger than just about any of those European countries.

True, but tennis is not an "American" sport and I would suspect that the number of higher level players who could contend for top pro positions is about the same. There are certainly as many high level acadmies in European countries as in the US, so a heckuva lot more consentration on tennis.

 

[darkhorse]

I think it really just boils down to the fact that the best male athletes in the US are not choosing to play tennis, but prefer other team sports. The other points are valid, but I think they are products of the first one, i.e. coaching would probably be better if more potential superstars were coming up through the ranks. The only point I don't quite buy is the surface argument, you don't need clay to learn point construction and patience, it certainly helps but it isn't required.

 

[flanker2000fr]

perhaps you wanted to say that on average not native English speaking pick-up languages easier than native English speakers?
I think it is not related to the brain capacity.
rather to the believe that everyone must speak English and everything must be in English.
French people had this believe as well some centuries ago.

That's not what I am saying.

Slavs, because of the variety of tones and sounds involved in their languages, find it easier to pick a language where the tones / sounds are not as rich, e.g. English.

Then, you are right about native English speaker being too lazy to pick another language, as they expect the rest of the world to speak English.

 

[blablavla]

I think it really just boils down to the fact that the best male athletes in the US are not choosing to play tennis, but prefer other team sports. The other points are valid, but I think they are products of the first one, i.e. coaching would probably be better if more potential superstars were coming up through the ranks. The only point I don't quite buy is the surface argument, you don't need clay to learn point construction and patience, it certainly helps but it isn't required.

And again, in Europe, in general football is very strong in every country so anyone who thinks reasonable, would expect a much better financial reward for the kid in this sport as opposed to tennis.
In general basketball is very popular and one could expect better financial reward.
Ice Hockey is very popular and one could expect better financial reward.

In particular in Spain, Football and Basketball are super strong, so anyone who thinks reasonable, would expect a much better financial reward for the kid in these sports as opposed to tennis.

In particular in Germany is strong in a bunch of sport, including those were financial rewards on average would easily be bigger than in tennis, and including those where rewards would be smaller.
Beyond the sports, rather than being a top 200, still making losses, one could pursue a career, in a bunch of fields and ensure a much better (from financial point of view) future, with less travelling, injuries, risk, etc.

So your theory could as well be applied to Europe, saying that the best talent is choosing other better paying sports, (team sports) for the same reasons.
And then the pool of talent available for tennis in US and EU is about the same, isn't it?

 

[insideguy]

I think one thing everyone on here does is keep throwing " Europe" into everything as a whole. And then the USA. Ok but its not just the USA having issues producing good mens players. Great Britain has produced one in the last 50 years. Sweden use to produce them not anymore. Everyone high on Russia now. Ok great. But they haven't actually been some power house for decades. Australia isn't really producing anyone great either. So why do people keep ripping on the USA? I don't really get it. It aint like Germany is cranking out champions.

 

[insideguy]

I tried and had a laughing fit. What a dumb game... Fat slobs standing around, waiting for something to happen. Such excitement, such stamina.

Just idiotic. But ok. Whatever. Arguing with ignorance is worthless..

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Just idiotic. But ok. Whatever. Arguing with ignorance is worthless..

You are correct, arguing with yerself, never a point to it.

 

[boredone3456]

Tennis is not seen as prestigious in the USA. The Wimbledon or US Open Trophy doesn't have the glamour that a world series or superbowl ring does to many young athletes. I even had someone say to me why should they play tennis if they can fight to be a pro football player and make millions a year in a contract plus endorsements? They viewed tennis as just as much work but potentially much less rewarding...and then they said apart from Serena who in the US is even a famous tennis player? And this person didn't know who Roger, Novak or Rafa even were. This is a mindset that many in the states have about Tennis, they don't even want to watch it on tv unless an American is playing, but why play it when they can play something else and in their mind get a better reward if they break through. Its a really warped mindset. They want to see their name on the back of a jersey.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Tennis is not seen as prestigious in the USA. The Wimbledon or US Open Trophy doesn't have the glamour that a world series or superbowl ring does to many young athletes. I even had someone say to me why should they play tennis if they can fight to be a pro football player and make millions a year in a contract plus endorsements? They viewed tennis as just as much work but potentially much less rewarding...and then they said apart from Serena who in the US is even a famous tennis player? And this person didn't know who Roger, Novak or Rafa even were. This is a mindset that many in the states have about Tennis, they don't even want to watch it on tv unless an American is playing, but why play it when they can play something else and in their mind get a better reward if they break through. Its a really warped mindset. They want to see their name on the back of a jersey.

That has been also the case BEFORE America's downfall in tennis. Hence it does not explain the fall of US tennis in the slightest.

 

[boredone3456]

That has been also the case BEFORE America's downfall in tennis. Hence it does not explain the fall of US tennis in the slightest.

Yes it does. There is a much smaller pool of potential athletes in the states for Tennis than other sports, and with every passing generation as top athletes in other sports make more and more tennis looks even worse by comparison. Everyone wants to be Lebron or Tom Brady, No one even knows who Federer is. Television gives less and less time to tennis then it used to, driving the prestige of tennis down even more. Everyone wants to be

That has been also the case BEFORE America's downfall in tennis. Hence it does not explain the fall of US tennis in the slightest.

True, but with each generation of potential athletes has become more enamored with trying to be the next Lebron or Brady. Young athletes today play more for the desire to be famous than the love of the game. How can you sell tennis to that mindset when top tennis players are unknown compared to those guys. Guys like Pete, Andre, Andy...loved tennis and the fans. Many athletes today see dollar signs associated with signing a contract with the New York yankees... and those $$$$$ are a lot bigger than they were 20 years ago

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Yes it does. There is a much smaller pool of potential athletes in the states for Tennis than other sports, and with every passing generation as top athletes in other sports make more and more tennis looks even worse by comparison. Everyone wants to be Lebron or Tom Brady, No one even knows who Federer is. Television gives less and less time to tennis then it used to, driving the prestige of tennis down even more. Everyone wants to be


True, but with each generation of potential athletes has become more enamored with trying to be the next Lebron or Brady. Young athletes today play more for the desire to be famous than the love of the game. How can you sell tennis to that mindset when top tennis players are unknown compared to those guys. Guys like Pete, Andre, Andy...loved tennis and the fans. Many athletes today see dollar signs associated with signing a contract with the New York yankees... and those $$$$$ are a lot bigger than they were 20 years ago

Fact is that 90s had an even MORE successful US generation than the 70s and 80s.

Fact is also that tennis has never been more profitable. Prize money has skyrocketted, and the notion that millennials want fame more than money is dubious.

 

[crazyups]

Seems like US hasn't produced enough clay courts and the training required to train players to construct points better since the slowing down of hard courts and grass on the tour. All the US really needs is one multi slam winner on the men's side to make tennis popular. Like Agassi, Courier and Sampras. During Mac and Connors there wasn't enough money in the sport to make it sought after.
Of course a talent like Sampras comes along once every 100 years and so does a crazy father like Mike Agassi.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Seems like US hasn't produced enough clay courts and the training required to train players to construct points better since the slowing down of hard courts and grass on the tour. All the US really needs is one multi slam winner on the men's side to make tennis popular. Like Agassi, Courier and Sampras. During Mac and Connors there wasn't enough money in the sport to make it sought after.

I only disagree with the last one.

There was plenty of money in tennis in the 80s, it's just that it's FAR LESS than now so people tend to say it's not much.

 

[Raiden]

American male athletes have a bunch of more lucrative and popular sports to play. Not so for American women

I hear that a lot from pundits but it's a nonsensical lazy trope.

Tennis was the less lucrative option for yankee boys in the 70s and 80s and 90s too—

Yet those eras did produce world beating tennis pros on that side of the pond

So the OP's lists of problems and the "factory player" format is indeed the cause or part of the causes at hand. The USTA should not have a one size fits all thing. If that model only works on women then let the women keep it, but apply another method tailor made for the boys.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I hear that a lot from pundits but it's a nonsensical lazy trope.

Tennis was the less lucrative option for yankee boys in the 70s and 80s and 90s too—

Yet those eras did produce world beating tennis pros on that side of the pond

So the OP's lists of problems and the "factory player" format is indeed the cause or part of the causes at hand. The USTA should not have a one size fits all thing. If that model only works on women then let the women keep it, but apply another method tailor made for the boys.

The other big leagues made more, but nowhere near as much as they make now. critically, lower level players in American pro leagues can make a good living. If you're not a top player in tennis, you won't be able to say the same

 

[insideguy]

And baseball origin lies in cricket as we all know. Americans drink bear instead of tea and eat popcorn instead of cake. Nothing really different. Too much interuptions during the game to make it really interesting.

Actually the nearest historians can pinpoint baseballs origins come from a British children's game called rounders.

 

[insideguy]

The same thing can be said about Olympic track. American use to dominate the sprint events at the Olympics but now they are just contenders. Why? It is because of football. The game of football use to be about power but now it is about power and speed. The really fast guys are playing football instead of choosing a track career. Tennis has a short lived career in the lives of Americans during the 80's and 90's, now there is no desire for it. Just like track Americans have lost the desire for less masculine sports.

Funny that you mentioned that as American men just crushed it at the world championships in track. Not that anyone cares in this country