Ka-boom: Can the American men go deep on European clay?

Taylor Fritz
Mal Taam/MALTphoto

Taylor Fritz: “Maybe not all the other, older generation of Americans wouldn’t want to play so much on clay, but it’s important.”

The American men have not won the ATP 1000 in Madrid was in 2002, when the Grand Slam eight time champion Andre Agassi won it on clay. He had been No. 1, and he also won all four, winning the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open. But with the current men, no one has won it, and it has been almost 20 years. The last one was Andy Roddick, who grabbed it at the 2003 U.S. Open.

In a sense, it is somewhat decent, as over the years, many people thought out in the county began to really like tennis. Not just in Switzerland, and Spain, but also, with Serbia, as Novak Djokovic has won 21 Grand Slams. He can play spectacularly, as did the now retired Roger Federer, as well as Rafa Nadal, who is still playing.

Unfortunately, both Djokovic and Nadal are hurt so they cannot play in Madrid this week. But the No. 10, Taylor Fritz, is playing and he has had a pretty good year, but not phenomenal. He has yet to reach into the semifinals in the Slams, but at least he had won an ATP 1000 at the 2022 Indian Wells. He was rising, and at times, he looks amazing, yet on the dirt, he has yet to go deep at Barcelona, Madrid, Rome and Roland Garros. He wants to go further, and he wants to, but he is not quite there, yet.
 
“Well, look, if you want to be one of the best players in the world, you really do have to perform on all surfaces. I think what other choice do you have? You have to embrace it,” Fritz said. “You have to try to enjoy playing on it, try to get better, try to have the best results possible. I’m still obviously improving a lot, but it’s always been important for me to try to play a serious clay court schedule. Maybe not all the other, older generation of Americans wouldn’t want to play so much on clay, but it’s important if you want to be top-5, top-10 player to be able to perform on every surface.”

Not only did Agassi finally became so much better in the clay courts, but Jim Courier and Pete Sampras both won at Rome. In the early 1990s, Courier won Roland Garros twice, with some long, hard points. You can also throw in Michael Chang, another American, who when he was so young, he flew up into the sky and nailed it, winning with some incedible matches, and he won Paris in1989. That was mind blowing. Those four combined for 27 Grand Slams. Ka-boom.

Right now, with the current men, it is possible that someday, someone will win a major. But we are not sure. As Fritz said, that the Russian Andrey Rublev has become so steady. Last week, he won the ATP 1000 Monte Carlo. “He’s very consistent. He’s made lots of quarters, semis, and I think this is his third final. It’s kind of just whoever plays the best on that week” Fritz said. “He has been unlucky. But yeah, obviously he’s 100% at the level of a player who you would expect to have one and he’ll have one soon.”

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic: the 20-20 thing

Rafael Nadal

In the great but very cold at Roland Garros. Rafa Nadal smashed Novak Djokovic 6-0, 6-2, 7-5 to win it again.

He is now 20 Grand Slams, on all surfaces, with an astronomical 13 on clay. He is tied with Roger Federer with the “20-20 thing,” and we do not really know whether they will win another major again, next year, or ever, or if they will continue to dominate.

With the 39-year-old Federer aging, Nadal, 34, and Djokovic, 33, are much more likely to pad their Slam count. They look fantastic, and they have improved a lot. But, when you are in the 30s, you can get seriously hurt, and then it will be very difficult to feel healthy and easily to go deep at the Slams. The great thing in Paris was seeing how Nadal’s and Djokovic’s forehands, backhands, serves, returns and play at the net have improved a lot when since when they started 15 years ago. They are, as people say, mind-boggling.

Yes, there are some very good young players but, except for Dominic Thiem at this year’s US Open, they haven’t won a Grand Slam. Very few men have won a major early on and then have gone on to win numerous big titles. The list of top 10 in the Open era includes Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Andre Agassi, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander – all have at least seven Slams. Really, you have to win it at least those seven to make the top 10.

Over the next few years Andy Murray (three Slams) and Stan Wawrinka (three Slams) can win another Slam, but they are at least 30 years old, and fading. Plus, they haven’t played much in the past two years. To catch it up again, they have to find a new level – especially for Murray with a revived hip. At the US Open and RG, both Murray and Wawrinka lost pretty early. Neither have a very good chance to do it again.

Right now, Nadal and Djokovic are eager. Thiem has a strong chance to win a number of majors, but right now to eventually become the top-10er, he could have to win another six Slams. The would be somewhat surprising.

Nadal understands what it going on with the other players, and he is not only smart, but he really listening. When he retires, as he says, then he can talk about everyone. He just won Roland Garros for the 13th time, and clearly, he has the credentials to say anything.

OUR FIRST STORY: Tennisreporters.net, in Paris at Roland Garros

Pete Sampras, French Open, Roland Garros 2001


We started TennisReporters.net in May 2001, 20 years ago. We have posted well over 1,500 articles.

As coronavirus began to strike the tennis world, Indian Wells cancelled the tournament on March 9. Right after that, the tournaments pulled out quickly, including Miami, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome and Roland Garros. Now, the WTA and the ATP have shut down until June 7. Or even further. No one really knows.

However, if you love tennis, you can reminisce with TennisReporters.net. We are resurfacing many of our best stories, written by Matthew Cronin.

FROM PARIS (2001): Having the glorious distinction of being the reigning Wimbledon champions means little in Paris other than being fortunate enough to have a gaggle of British journalist ask you whether you are planning on taking wildcards into Queens or Nottingham. Pete Sampras and Venus Williams discovered that quickly this year at Roland Garros; Venus, after she was bullied by Barbara Schett in the first round, and Sampras, when he was unable to uncork a bottle of white wine named Galo Blanco in the second round.

Sampras had perfect conditions this year to rid himself of the plague of Sisyphus in Paris  — hot, dry temperatures and only a little breeze. He had a great draw and actually followed his coach’s game plan to the tee – come in at all costs, run around your backhand and take a lot of chances on the return. 

But Sampras is nothing on clay when he’s not serving well and his forehand is sporadic. He is without a weapon. First, he barely got by No. 250-ranked Cedric Kauffmann. Then his serving performance against Blanco was one of the worst he has ever put on and he made a decent but not great player’s backhand look like Bjorn Borg’s during his prime. Sure, Blanco passed with precision, but it wasn’t as if Pete was making him guess much on his service games or was hitting deep approach shots.  The winner of a record 13 Grand Slam titles again failed to put together back-to-back wins at Roland Garros for the fourth successive year.  “It’s very frustrating, I knew what I had to do in that match and I just have to give him credit,” Sampras  said. “He came out with some clean passing shots. He had me on my heels and dictated all the baseline points. He just played better than I did – plain and simple.” 

Agassi zeroed in on Pete’s problems. “It’s straight fundamentals. It’s never been easy for a game like Pete’s to do well here. He’s great at turning an entire point around with one shot. On clay, you know, you can’t. You have to fight off three or four (shots) then slowly turn the point around, then slowly finish it. A guy like Alex) Corretja will slide to the forehand and buy himself a lot of time for the shot selection. Pete on the other hand will run to the ball, slam it, then slide. All that is doing is giving him much less time.  There’s nothing that you could teach Pete that’s going to make it any easier.” 

Blanco joins the list mediocre players who have taken down the dirt-challenged Pete in Paris: Gilbert Schaller, Ramon Delgado, Thierry Champion. Sampras will be 30 next year when he arrives at Roland Garros and even if he says he has many years to left to try to take the French title, you just don’t see aging serve-and-volleyers do well on the dirt anymore. Sampras may be the worst all-time great to ever comepete at Roland Garros. All of Open-era legends did better here – Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Courier. Sampras would be better off taking his mind off the clay and zoning in quickly on the grass. He is titleless in ’01, having an awful year and is in danger of finishing the year out of the top-10 for the first time since ’89. He needs to take the fast train to London, find a pub, down a few pints and remember just what kind of player he is supposed to be.

Venus is another question all together. Williams was humbled 6-4, 6-4 by the Austrian powerhouse Schett, rendering her dream of grabbing the No. 1 ranking from Martina Hingis in the near future mute. “I just had a very, very rough day,” said Williams. I wasn’t playing normal.”

A confused Williams appeared to have her thoughts elsewhere, as the muscular Schett ate up her weak second serves and exploited her shaky forehand with blowtorch returns and a wicked forehand. Considered by many to be the tour’s hardest hitter, Williams frequently found herself on the defensive, unable to control the center of the court nor read where Schett was going with her shots. The Austrian also served effectively, stretching Williams out with a biting slice serve and occasionally running flat serves down the middle that left Williams flat footed. “It was my groundstrokes,” said Williams, who committed 43 unforced errors. “I couldn’t keep a ball in. I was making quite a few errors for no apparent reason.”

Williams did manage to fight off three match points in the contest’s final game, but unlike numerous times in the past, Schett didn’t seize up and Williams couldn’t pull herself through. 

Venus has played sparingly this year, but did win the Ericsson Open, devastated the field in Hamburg on clay and then was upset on dirt by Justine Henin in Berlin. She has never performed well here and why she thought that playing two clay court warm-up events was enough preparation for her stated to desire to win Roland Garros this year is confusing. She needed more preparation to find her footing on the clay and to be able to groove her groundies. The 20-year-old believes she has been playing enough. “I never dreamed it would turn out like this,” Williams said. “Normally I turn it around but today it wasn’t there.”

The Compton Crusher is not going to win a Grand Slam by using the retreat as her most common tactic, which was her main strategy against Schett. She’s now essentially in the same position she was last year, approaching Wimbledon with two bad losses in her last two Grand Slams. Can she repeat her 2000 performance and grab glory at both the All-England Club? Not if she brings the same attitude that she did to the court against Schett.

Can the GOATs graze again?

Serena Williams has 23 Grand Slams, while Roger Federer has 20.

Last weekend, Serena lost in the Wimbledon final to Simon Halep, very quickly, 6-2, 6-2.

Federer went down, but it was very close, super close. He lost 13-12 in the fifth set against Novak Djokovic. He had two match points at 8-7 in the fifth, and he couldn’t do it.

Serena wants to tie Margaret Court at 24 Grand Slams, and over the past two-and-a-half years, she has had an opportunity, but she couldn’t convert. And if she does so, then for sure, she will be the best player ever.

The Swiss is one of the best player ever, for now, but in the next few years, Rafa Nadal (who has 18 Slams) and Djokovic (who has 16 majors) could pass or tie him. They both are still playing, and the 37-year-old Federer might retire at the end of 2020. Maybe not, but he is aging,slowly, but still aging.

Serena is also 37-year-old, and next year, she might wave goodbye. Her older sister, Venus Williams, is still playing, and maybe she will continue to play until she is 40 years old. Clearly, they love tennis, which is why they can run forever, but that doesn’t mean that their bodies are wearing down. It happens for everyone. The heart might want to play but hurt legs end careers.

Years and years ago, like it is now, the best competitors wanted to play on the tour almost forever. For some, it didn’t really matter anymore if they were winning a title; they only wanted to hit the ball, anywhere, anytime. That was their mantra.

But two of the fantastic players, Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf, decided to retire fairly early. American Sampras hadn’t won an event for two years, and then, at the 2002 US Open, the huge server won it all. Twelve months later, he called it quits. He owned 14 Grand Slams, and at that time, that was enough.

Graf did much the same thing. In 1999, she won it at Roland Garros, and three months later at San Diego, she retired because her knees were totally wrecked. She was “only” 30 years old. She had won 22 Grand Slams, but she didn’t want to continue anymore. It was time to have a baby, and to have a new life. And she did, and now she has two children, and is married to Andre Agassi, another great player.

But that was a different era.

There have been a number of Grand Slam winners who continued to play after their prime: such as Sergi Bruguera, Thomas Muster, Petr Korda, Helena Sukova, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Nathalie Tauziat, among others. They believed that they could do it again, somehow, someway, but they weren’t even close. Eventually, they had to stop.

With Federer and Serena, they both have a chance to win it a Slam next year. Oh, sure, both of them have won the US Open, but to win it again, which will start in five weeks, I cannot see it. Last year, Federer lost to John Millman in the fourth round. Serena lost in the final against the rising Naomi Osaka. Federer was upset, and Serena was extremely upset, with a now infamous meltdown.

The last time that Federer won it was in 2008, 11 years ago. Serena won it 2014, which it wasn’t so long ago.

But, both of them aren’t quite as fast as they used to be, which is why over the past two years, they still look very good, but not great-great anymore. There was a day they were winning almost everything. However, to think they will shine forever is foolhardy.

In 2020, both Federer and Serena have a real chance to win just one more time. Perhaps at the Australian Open, and Wimbledon again. But after that, at the end of the season, both of them will walk away and retire. It will be time.

American men have to step up now

The young American men are coming up fairly fast, but it is hard to know when the boys will win some major tournaments.

Players like Jared Donaldson, Frances Tiafoe, Ernesto Escobedo and Taylor Fritz show great promise but they have a ways to go before advancing from the top 90 to 130 range into the impact player group

Forget about the Grand Slams right now — it is very early. Nobody knows if they are good enough to beat spectacular players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka.  

Let’s look the veteran Americans, who are pretty good, but not good enough.

Way back when, the Americans dominated: Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier and Michael Chang. After they all retired, Andy Roddick was darn good, too. But that was the last one. In 2003, Roddick won the US Open. Since then, no Americans won it again.

Now, it is 2017, almost 15 years gone dry.

Currently, the American guys – John Isner, Sam Querrey, Steve Johnson and Donald Young – have not reached the semifinals at the Grand Slam. Ever. Even though he’s only 24, Jack Sock may be the U.S. man at No. 17, but he has also not shown the promise of rising Alexander Zverev and Nick Kyrgios.

In fact, they haven’t won an ATP 1000.

Time to change?

On Sunday at Miami, the very young American Donaldson will face against the huge-hitter Canadian Milos Raonic. Sock, who reached the semis at Indian Wells. He is coming up, better and better, and will play Jiri Vesely

On Monday, John Isner will face the boy-wonder Zverev. Will the German show why he’s ranked the spots higher than the American?

Querrey has a legitimate shot against Roberto Bautista Abut.
The American vets do like Miami, so perhaps they can go very deep and possibly win it all?
Maybe, but they have to prove it.

NOTES
Bethanie Mattek-Sands is playing well again and she has a fine shot against Mirjana Lucic-Baroni, but given that Lucic-Baroni played incredibly well by stunning Aga Radwanska, it will be a very intense contest.

Also on Sunday, Venus Williams and the 19-year-old Taylor Townsend will play against different foes and may face off in the fourth round. Venus is the favorite in that potential clash.

Tough one for Shelby Rogers, who has to play against No. 1 Angie Kerber.

Untouchable: Djokovic wins 5th Slam in Aussie Open

djokovic 2013 Aussie opwon winFROM THE AUSTRALIAN OPEN – Novak Djokovic is now the best Australian Open men’s player ever, as he wins his 5th Grand Slam there.

Sure, the Serbian has been frustrated at other Slams; he’s been darn good and very consistent. On Sunday, Djokovic looked sore and injured but he kept getting up after falling down, he sprinted to and fro until Murray collapsed.

Djokovic is remarkably steady. He is almost impossible to out hit him. The Brit floundered again, as he began to get tired, lost his rhythm and his momentum. Djokovic took firm control in the last two sets, winning 7-6 6-7 6-3 6-0.

Murray has lost four finals in the Aussie Open, which is good because he actually made it there, but he has yet to come very close.  He is very smart, has a terrific backhand, can mix it and can boom his first serve. But, when he goes up against the rest of the Big 4, and he can go backwards at times. His forehand can go up and down, his second serve can be horrific and, while he is very impressive when he charges the net, he doesn’t come in often enough.

On the other hand, when Djokovic is feeling right, he can be terrific. He can belt forehands and backhands, run side to side so low and fast that it is almost impossible to nail a winner against him. Yes, Djokovic can he had when he isn’t feeling right, but for the most part, the No. 1 is almost always there.

In Australia, he has been the best since the beginning of the Open Era in 1969. A few fantastic players have won four Aussie Open Slams such as Roger Federer, Andre Agassi, Ken Rosewall and others, but only Djokovic has nailed five Slams. That is pretty darn good. The 27-year-old Serbian may not be able to catch the all-time 17 major Federer, but you have to give him the rest of them. Rafael Nadal has 14 Slams (and predictable more to come), as does Pete Sampras. Roy Emerson has 12, Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver have 11 and Bill Tilden has 10.

And guess who has tied 8 majors?  Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Fred Perry and now Djokovic.

How much further can he go? He has owned Murray since last year and the start of this year. Federer looks OK, but he still must be stunned that Andreas Seppi shocked him.  Nadal is still not recovered yet. So until the younger players move ahead and quickly, Djokovic will be the favorite, everywhere until he is knocked off.

The 1,000 Club: Federer wins major mark, takes down Raonic

WIMBLEDON, UK, FRIDAY, JULY 6, 2012 MENS SEMI FINAL. FEDERER DEFEATS DJOKOVIC

With his last Wimbledon crown more than two years ago, Roger continues to conquer.

Brisbane International – There was Roger Federer in another final, and he won again. This time it’s a huge win. He has won all sorts of incredible victories like, for example, grabbing a record 17 Grand Slams. You cannot touch that.

But on Sunday night in Brisbane, he walked on the court knowing that he had a great chance. Yes, he was favored to beat Milos Raonic in the final. The tennis world has been buzzing about his 999 wins and fans talking about his rich history. One more win and 1,000 victories.

The Swiss has scored wins against 12 No. 1 competitors: Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Marcelo Rios, Carlos, Moya, Gustavo Kuerten, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. That’s a heady accomplishment.

He showed up first in 2000 in Australia, when he was still a baby, only 18 years old. He had a very good time, but he wasn’t ready to take over yet. He ran around and he was smiling all over the place. He lost to Thomas Enqvist in Adelaide, to Ferrero in Auckland and to Arnaud Clement in the third round of the Australian Open. Eight months later, he was back down in Australia, when he played the Sydney Olympics, where he met his now wife, Mirka Vavrincova, when she was still playing on the tour. Quiet a night.

Mirka eventually retired. They now have four kids. But, Federer went on and on. He was not perfect, but he’s been excellent, capturing his first Slam in 2003 at Wimbledon. Then, he took off. He won majors at Australia, Wimbledon and the US Open all over place, and he even grabbed a Roland Garros once. Sure, Rafael Nadal has dominated in Paris (nine Slams at Roland Garros, thank you very much) but Federer did manage to grab one extremely important one on the dirt. He has won dozens of hard court trophies, and he understood exactly how to play on grass as well.

He has not won another Grand Slams since 2012, but he is right there with the other so-called Big 4 – Nadal, Djokovic and Andy Murray. Even though the 33-year-old is older than they are and hanging No. 2, he still matters a great deal. Because he keeps trying.

Federer bested Raonic in a very close match 6‑4, 6‑7, 6‑4. The Canadian wanted it badly but Federer knew exactly how to step in.

“I think the way he’s come back and just all aspects that Roger does, from the sets of twins he has, everything he does is unbelievable,” Raonic said.

Federer says that he is not sure how long he will last. You would think that he will play this year, and certainly next year when the Olympics will arrive again. By that time, he could definitely pass Ivan Lendl, the eight-time Slams champ. Lendl retired with 1,071 career wins.

“You work hard and prepare hard to play consistently,” Lendl told the ATP. “I remember when I played over 100 matches per year in the 1980s and never thought about it. Obviously, getting to 1,000 wins is more difficult than it seems. It’s really rare. But I looked at it as a by-product of winning so many matches and being consistent for that long.”

Jimmy Connors played until he was 40. That was a very long time. He ended at 1,253 wins. Who know if Federer will be around for another five to seven years and keep swinging away as more and more young player arrive. Even if he doesn’t, he achieved another victory – just trying as hard as he could, year after year.

“Never even thought about it, because like I said it’s not been a goal of mine to reach any of those guys,” Federer said. “Next thing you know you’re in the top 3. I know how well they’ve played over the years, how much they’ve played, and how successful they’ve played.

“So it’s not a goal of mine in any way. Clearly at this point I doubt that it’s going to happen, but you never know. I have no idea, like I said, how long I’m going to keep on playing. The goal is to remain in the game as long as possible. For that I need to stay injury‑free. I need to be hungry, motivated, and all that. For the moment I am, so that’s more of a concern than reaching that number.”

The lost way in San Jose

SAP Open hallway

Agassi’s retirement left SJ without major calling card.

 

Tennis continues go ‘go global’ as it were, which means that there was enough interest in the ATP 500 sanction from Memphis to allow its owners to sell it to IMG and its partner and move it Rio, while at the same time deciding to kill a 124-year-old tournament in the San Francisco Bay Area, the SAP Open in San Jose.

Clearly, there is enough interest worldwide to be able to take what has a somewhat valuable sanction (meaning an ATP 500 where a decent amount of good players compete) and sell it off, which could be seen as a good thing for the sport.

But as it stands today, it is not because there is no hard evidence that Rio de Janiero, Brazil, will actually have enough willing fans to go out and pay a decent sum to see, say Thomaz Bellucci, a good but not great player who does not pack them in like Guga Kuerten did and probably never will.

No, the reason why IMG and its Brazilian partner EBX, will operate a combined ATP and WTA event in Rio beginning in 2014, is because they are hopeful with the upcoming buzz about the World Cup that sponsors will flock to sporting events like theirs. And maybe that is a good play for them, and maybe the tournament will survive for more than a 100 years, but given the historical up and down nature of the Brazilian economy (mostly down), I doubt it.

So after this week, on February 16, 2013, when San Jose shuts its doors, what it will mean is that the Silicon Valley, which is often called the engine of the US economy (and therefore the world), and the Bay Area, which has a thriving tennis scene, will no longer have a men’s event to call there own. And that is sad and ridiculous because the fact of the matter is that when good player fields were bought in, people attended the tournament, which is why it survived so long in various locals such as Monterey, San Rafael, Berkeley, Albany, San Francisco and then very appropriately named Shark Tank, whose hockey obsessed owners ended up opening their jaws and tearing it limb from limb without much a care for the effect on tennis.

I’ve covered the tournament for 21 years and while clearly I am somewhat biased toward Northern California (I have also lived in the Bay Area for a little more than 21 years), but I don’t think I pulled many punches when it came to covering the event, meaning that when it had excellent player fields like during Sampras-Agassi-Courier- Chang era, I said so, and when it was depending on players outside of the Big 4 and mostly out of the top 20 for the past five years, I felt it was flailing at windmills in regards to attendance.

Consider this: why would a hardcore tennis fan want to shell out say $150 (with parking and food) to see two players whom he knows have no chance to win a major face off, or why would a fly-by-night sports fan decide to do the same with two players he has never heard of? He would not.

So if San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises are claiming economic reasons (they have yet to state declining attendance, but at best it’s been flat during the past five years) for the sale, then maybe they should blame themselves for not pursuing enough big names with appearance fees, or for spending too much on secondary players who might be talented but are not that well known.  Or maybe they should just come out and say they were tired of having to send their hockey team on a two week roadie, which people in the know realize is the truth. Here’s an example of that: in Bay Area sports lexicon, the Sharks leaving town for two weeks became known as the dreaded ‘tennis trip.’ Fans of the team, some players on the team, and some owners of the team annually complained about the Sharks coming back tired and at times with a losing record. What got lost in all of this so-called common wisdom was that the tennis tournament only ran for one week  and Disney on Ice annually ran during the other. The “Mickey Mouse” trip might have been more appropriate.

When the Sharks group bought the tournament from longtime promoter and former top-10 player Barry MacKay  in 1995, the Sampras-vs. Agassi rivalry was in full bloom and the event did pack ‘em in. MacKay could no longer manage the tournament’s finances himself, which is why he made the sale, not because he wanted out of the business. The Sharks group had deep pockets and were leasing and running an arena, while Mackay did not and was not.

So with Agassi and Sampras coming back year after year and a number of other Slam threats or Slam winners taking titles such as Mark Philippoussis, Greg Rusedski, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and Andy Murray, the tournament manage to corral big sponsors and had good attendance.

But…then the wildly popular Agassi retired, Roddick began to be eclipsed by the Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, Murray became too pricey and no US male stepped in in huge way at a major, so tournament director Bill Rapp – a true tennis aficionado and former teaching pro who worked his butt off and was super creative–  had few places to turn.  If the Sharks were not going to give him a cool million to go and grab Federer, he had to settle for paying much smaller amounts to less well known Fernando Verdasco and Gael Monfils, among others.

Fortunately, young Canadian sensation Milos Raonic won the event the last two years so it did attract some media attention, but fans were not that familiar with him, so the weekdays were a struggle and walk up sales on weekends were minimal.

Here’s another major factor that has rarely been mentioned: Sharks CEO Greg Jamison, who actually liked tennis and helped bring the event to the city, left the organization in 2010 to pursue other interests. There were no more serious tennis fans left in the ownership group and the tournament was all but dead in the water. Then they let go of Rapp, who at a good understanding of the market and done as well as he could with so-so fields. This week, the new and very temporary tournament director had the audacity to tell the Bay Area News Group (the SJ Mercury News and other papers)  — which by the way outside of Darren Sabreda doesn’t have a single person on staff who has a clue about tennis — that this 2013 field is one of the best in years.  Given that there are no top 10 players in the field, that’s a stretch. The 2003 field is highlighted by Raonic, John Isner, Sam Querrey and Tommy Haas. No disrespect to any of those good players, but from a fan perspective I’d take 2007 with Roddick, Murray, Marat Safin and James Blake as having more marquee value.

Here is the worst thing about any tournament leaving any locale, whether its in San Jose or Marbella, which folded after last year: all those kids who might have come to the tournament and got a fresh look at how great the sport is and began lifelong fans will no longer have chance to do so. Yes, the excellent Bank of the West Classic, a WTA event remain at Stanford,  still exists, but  with the similar exit of the ATP stop in Los Angeles, the only men’s event in California, which is the cradle of elite player development, is Indian Wells, a fantastic tournament but one that is a nine-hour drive from the Bay Area.

Many fans around the globe do not have a tournament they can drive to and those who do are very lucky. I can’t tell you how many people have told me over the years at Stanford or San Jose how much they looked forward to the tournament and wished that they could go to a Grand Slam annually, but couldn’t afford it or make it happen. San Jose was their US Open.

But this should also be said: no group in the United States stepped up to try and buy San Jose and only one group expressed a bit of interest in LA, which is headed to Bogota.  ATP 250 level events are not as attractive stateside as they used to be.

San Jose was also a gathering place for almost everyone who mattered, or wanted to matter in Nor Cal tennis and I will certainly miss the camaraderie in the pressroom. I got a lot of good work done there and because smaller tournaments tend to allow for close access to the players, I met and established solid working relationships with a number of excellent players because I was one of the few so called tennis journalists around.

Two more things need to be said: at one level, the existence of the Big 4  is driving global interest in the sport to new heights, but at another, the dominance of the big tournaments is also hurting the smaller ones (ATP 250s) because most of those events cannot afford them, or Djokovic/Federer/Nadal/Murray simply have schedules that are too packed to play them. Private investors are also being driven out of the sport as there aren’t that many billionaires like Larry Ellison (who owns Indian Wells)  who want to back tournaments so  many events are now being scooped up by governments looking to boost their tourist business, or in the case of Rio to showcase their city before the Olympics. Just try and convince a city like San Jose to shell out $2 million or so for a tennis tournament when most Californians are against public financing of sporting events.

Because the Grand Slams have become so important, there is also a current of thought that they are the only tournaments that really matter. But that simply is not true. They may matter more, but each tournament has a history of its own, feeling of its own, memories of its own.

When John McEnroe beat Jimmy Connors for the 1982 title at the Cow Palace, it meant a hell of a lot to him and I’m sure he recalls it.  When Ivan Lendl got over McEnroe the next year, you can bet it mattered. When Michael Chang won his first title there in ‘88, or Brad Gilbert won in front of his home fans in ‘89, those are the moments that stick with player. Any time that the “Fab 4” of Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang played for blood in the Bay Area, those matches etched into wall space of their rivalries. In 2001, Greg Rusedski upset Sampras and Agassi back to back, perhaps his finest hour ever. The next year, Hewitt took out Agassi in a classic three-setter, just five months before he won his first Wimbledon title. In 2004, Roddick took down his old housemate Mardy Fish in match that had the intensity of one of their backyard pickup basketball games. Murray won his first career title there in 2006. Raonic his in 2010. Think they don’t remember those? You are kidding yourself.

How many fans that sat on the edge of their seats  can still remember the sound of the ball being struck, or a particular facial expression on a star player, or a rally for the ages?

Lots.

Sometime around 6 PM on Sunday after the final, the clean up crew is going to come into the Shark Tank and start the tear-down. A tournament that began in 1889 in splendid Monterrey and was won by William Taylor will roll its nets up for good. The rows of  pictures of ex-champions that adorn the hallways will likely to be thrown into storage somewhere, maybe never to be seen again.

There will be no ongoing story thread then, just a short epilogue and then the close of the covers of the second longest tournament and tennis saga in US tennis history.

I’m sure as hell going to miss it, and I bet a lot of others will too.

 

 

 

Bryan Bros.:

Bryan bob SJ 13 TR

Bob: ‘Emotions were running high’ MAL TAAM PHOTO

 

FROM THE SAP OPEN IN SAN JOSE

A Golden Era, or one just spray painted over?