Can't hear ya over the sound of my freedom!
In all seriousness, it truly is a sad state of American tennis right now. I think I remember some Roddick interview about a year back where he said something along the lines of "... and the new American talent" except he paused a little bit right before saying that as if he was hesitating. I may need to go back and find that to make sure.
It's interesting because of how the country was quite a force on the tennis scene in the 70's to 90's. You had world-class ATGs like Connors, Mac, Sampras, Agassi. And then the players just a tier down like Ashe, Smith, Courier, Chang, etc. Since then, they've kind of become a stereotype of themselves. The typical one-dimensional big serve, the big, powerful forehand, and poor(er) backhand. Sampras was basically the perfect embodiment of that type of play, in a broad sense. Then we went down to Roddick who, while still respectable, was far closer to the American player stereotype. And then you have guys like Isner, Fritz, Querrey, Sock, and now Opelka and... you know what I mean. I can't really explain this development, honestly.
"Andy when is the next American man gonna win a Slam"
Andy:
As for why it is?
- Tennis became very competitive in a LOT more countries, especially compared to the really early days of the open era when it was basically US vs Australia everywhere.
- US womens tennis is still doing as fine as ever
- At the highest echelons, Slam level, things are pretty stochastic, especially when talking about having multiple Slam champions, so no American mulitple Slam winner can be forgiven in the Big 4 era
Now for the real problems I would say
- Tennis became a lot more professional, and the US does not keep up. It seems to me like the goal of tennis academies in the US is to turn out college level players or something.
- I think tennis and good coaching is more prohibitively expensive in the US than in other countries. The kids who'se parents can afford a great junior coaching aren't the ones who need tennis to pick themselves up by their bootstraps so it'll always be an ill advised career decision, maybe more so in the US than in other places.
- Tennis in the US probably suffers more from competition of other sports than elsewhere. I'd say in Europe and many other places the only sport that truly siphons off everything else would be
soccer football. In the US, it's probably more like football, hand egg with funny helmets, baseball, basketball and ice hockey
- I think the varsity/college sports systems probably play a big role as well. To my knowledge, these things aren't really a thing in Europe. In my opinion, those systems drive the mentality and goal setting, as well as the coaching etc, and maybe talented kids waste way too much time playing kids from Chump High rather than playing internationally?
- Lastly, I think slow HC like the majority of the US is just a worse court type to learn the game than clay, where the majority of Euro talent grows up on.
I don't think you can really blame the US for not having Slam winners to a huge degree like many do. GB only has Murray and is doomed to fall into irrelevance. France hasn't won once since the 80s. Australia has produced nothing since Hewitt. But not having a top 20 player for the US is just too dire. What they should do IMO is look at what a place like Cañada is doing right. What's the tennis background of guys like Shapovalovalovalov, FAA, Raonic, etc. As far as I'm aware, they mostly had a DIY type coaching with financial support from the national TA? That's probably a way better option than the Nick Bolletieri type schools where everyone is stunted in the same way. I think it's actually a big difference between men and womens tennis is that those type of tennis schools can produce winning talent in the womens game but not in the mens game.