The Worst Era of U.S. Men’s Tennis May Be Over

Andy Roddick is the greatest American male tennis player of this century.

That’s not a good thing.

His Hall of Fame career is certainly nothing to scoff at — after all, he won a U.S. Open and was a former world No. 1. But that’s sort of the problem… he won a single U.S. Open and no other Slams over 13 years. A perennial contender, Roddick made five Slam finals in total, losing four of them to Roger Federer.

When Roddick won his sole Grand Slam victory in 2003, the 21-year-old wasn’t merely poised to enjoy a long run as the world’s top player, he was slotting into his rightful place as the inheritor of the American men’s multi-decade dynasty.

It doesn’t really matter how you cut it, whether starting with Jimmy Connor’s first Slams in 1974 or John McEnroe’s arrival at the U.S. Open in 1979, it’s just a matter of degrees of success. For decades, the American men were simply untouchable. Their biggest competition was eachother.

The best example of this insanely high standard for winning is illustrated by the 5-year Majors drought between 1984-89, which was alleviated by Michael Chang and the arrival of a new, even more ridiculously dominant crop of young Americans in the ‘90s.

Those five years were met with heavy breathing and disappointment. The current Slam drought has been met with… indifference.

Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi alone won 22 Slams combined between 1990-2003.

It’s only logical to assume a bright young star like Roddick would carry the torch the same way his heroes had done since Watergate.

He wasn’t alone either. He came up with Mardy Fish, another promising talent. Eventually players like John Isner, Jack Sock, and Sam Querrey would join the fray — though Isner’s victory in the longest match ever played is the highlight of their collective careers.

To be fair, the arrival of “The Big Three” AKA Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic, left little meat on the bone for anyone else. Their stranglehold on the sport is well-documented. And it’s certainly a major factor in the drought of American men’s tennis. But there are a few other factors that are worth examining.

Putting it bluntly, tennis is not on the radar of America’s top young athletes. It’s less popular than the NHL, which has more Canadians than Americans by a wide margin.

Across many countries across the world, tennis is one of the top sports — a magnet for elite athletes. In the U.S., tennis receives whoever remains after taking their pick of basketball, football, soccer, and hockey.

This also helps explain why American women have been so dominant, including players without the last name Williams. Tennis is a more popular option for female athletes.

Then there’s more niche problems facing the American game, like the USTA’s focus on creating players with big serves and offense — resulting in a lack of balance needed to win at the highest level.

Singular focus on hard court training could also be a contributing factor to the one-dimensional nature of the American game.

For the first time in ages, it seems like we may have a glimmer of hope, led by Taylor Fritz (heading into the Citi Open at No. 13 - he’s the highest-ranked American Man).

Back at Wimbledon last month, Fritz was a part of the American surge, 1 of the 8 American men to reach the 3rd round. That was a quarter of the entire remaining field.

At the time, the 8 men in the top 100 was the highest mark for any country in the world. Despite another Slam passing without an American winning the last point, it’s hard to not feel bullish on the future.

Especially with Netflix producing a ‘Drive to Survive’ style series for the sport, in which Fritz has already agreed to participate.