A Changing of the Guard at the US Open

Mark it down in your history calendar in our wonderful sport of tennis. Saturday, September 6th, 2014. The day the reign of the Big 4 ended.

The Big 4 alludes to men's tennis and to Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, and lastly, Roger Federer with his 17 Grand Slam single titles. These four players have won 36 of the 38 most recent Grand Slam titles. On Monday, that stat will be 36 of the last 39. None of the above is in the US Open final.

And yesterday, two of the Big 4 were just plain beaten. Djokovic was simply outplayed on a day where he may have not been at his best wilting in the heat of 90 degrees plus on Arthur Ashe stadium court. Kei Nishikori, the first Japanese player to ever reach a Grand Slam final, with an added day of rest wore Djokovic down over four sets.

Federer couldn't deal with Marin Cilic's serve. In fact, the last game provided the epitaph to the grave: Three aces and a backhand winner down the line. Done.We are left wondering how long Roger will stave off the desire to retire.

So we are left with a final in which CBS Sports loses its coverage of the US Open after 40 plus years and in which, I am sure, ratings will falter without one of the Big 4 playing. But, this is the Open Era, and anything can happen. ESPN takes over coverage of both Wimbledon and the US Open in a tumultuous time in Men's Tennis in which are there are no clear rivalries to market to the public or elder statesmen to revere. It could hinder the growth and popularity of the sport.

That being said, it will be great to see new faces in the final and to see how Nishikori deals with Marin Cilic's serve will be interesting. Nishikori has won his last three matches against top 6 rated players in the world. He is the real deal. Coached by one of the greatest returners of all time, Michael Chang, Nishikori will undoubtedly find a way through the Cilic serve.

Cilic, at 25, is coached by the big server Goran Ivanisevic, himself a Wimbledon champion who also won on a Monday in front of a raucous crowd against a confident Patrick Rafter in the final. Cilic, suspended from the tour last year for a positive test to a banned substance, has returned mentally stronger and playing some of his best tennis.

Back to regularly scheduled programming with Serena Williams today in the women's final. And, Monday night should be a wonderful match between two upstarts who have been waiting a few years on the bench.

30 Years On And We Still Miss Him: John McEnroe & The Complete Player

I was having dinner with my sister last week and she was asking for events that had happened exactly 30 years ago in the tennis and golf sphere as we are both employed in the country club industry. So, where else to start but type into Google: Wimbledon winners, 1983

John McEnroe defeated New Zealander Chris Lewis. Remember Chris? I didn't. He beat one of my favorite players South African Kevin Curren in the semi final. Lewis was only the second New Zealander to ever make a final and was unseeded. McEnroe ended Ivan Lendl's tournament in straight sets in the other semi-final. Tougher match for sure.

It was a good year at Wimbledon. But what I noted was who won the doubles: John McEnroe and Peter Fleming defeated the American brothers Gullikson. Guess what? Big Mac did the same thing in 1984 taking home the singles title after beating Jimmy Connors in the final. McEnroe and Fleming again won the doubles against Australians Pat Cash and Paul McNamee. That's four Wimbledon titles in 2 years. I didn't look at mixed. The story was there. On the men's side McEnroe and Fleming were just complete players. At the same time, Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver were doing similar things on the women's side. They just don't make tennis players this complete anymore. When was the last time, I asked, that the men's singles player also won the men's doubles title at Wimbledon? You guessed it. John McEnroe.

Perhaps it's me looking back at the history of the game I love with rose-tinted glasses - I actually wear contacts now for those high school friends who read my ramblings. Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the players of today - Serena and Venus play the singles and doubles at most of the major events. But they just don't play that many events.

Fleming and McEnroe won four doubles titles at Wimbledon and three at the US Open. All the while Fleming maintained a top-ten singles ranking and McEnroe stayed either at the top of the rankings or in the top three. We wonder why McEnroe is such a great commentator - he was not only a fantastic player, but perhaps one of the most complete players we have ever seen.

If you look back at his time on the tour, McEnroe may be remembered for his behavior, but in reality we should remember him for his fabulous, yet unconventional serve, his simple and effective groundstrokes and his amazing hands while volleying at the net.

To look closely at his forehand, it's so simple and relies on his great eye-hand coordination rather than power. He forfeits any type of a loop backswing, taking the racquet directly back to the low position before he comes up to meet the ball rather flatly, using the pace of his opponent in most cases to hit back with speed. Have a look here:
Perhaps you could out finesse the Big Mac and not allow him to use his power? Only one player was able to do this: Guillermo Vilas who won more matches then he lost against the Big Mac.Vilas was another great who is largely overlooked. He won seven, yes seven, consecutive titles, following Wimbledon right through and past the US Open. Most players today don't play seven tournaments in a similar 8 to 9-week period. Oh, Vilas played doubles too. This was the era of the complete player - on any surface and in singles and doubles and at the baseline and at the net.

This match, against Stefan Edberg, perhaps proves the finesse and yet, the power too with picking winners cross court and down the line by both players. Look at how both exploited the weakness of their opponent and used their own strengths to create and build a point.


The legacy of McEnroe is enormous as we think of his serve and volley game combined with fabulously simple ground strokes. McEnroe remains perhaps the leading example of the complete player and perhaps that is why we either love him or despise him as a commentator. He is perhaps the greatest tennis commentator of our time for the BBC in Britain and back here in the USA with insightful tips and great understanding of the minutiae of a match or point.

When asked to perform an impersonation, Novak Djokovic often mimics Johnny Mac and his unorthodox serve. Djokovic's imitation alone proves just what an icon McEnroe was in his time because in 1983, thirty years ago, Djokovic wasn't even around yet.

Reason 2: The USA is "Sportcentric"

Yesterday, I watched the Bryan brothers play a fabulous match to keep America's hopes alive in the Davis Cup against Spain. Playing against a formidable team and having to deal with a vocal and patriotic Spanish crowd, the Bryan Brothers were part of an international match that continues today.

However, just 3,000 or so miles to the East, protests much stronger than cheering againt two sporting greats in the Bryan brothers, were occuring. Harsh protests, fights and battles against America and American foreign policy are being waged. Deaths and fighting at U.S. embassies overseas are again headlines.

Is America Too Self-Centered In Sport & Politics?

I am struck by the fact that we, as a nation, tend to be very self-centered in many respects. Having lived abroad for 17 years, I have seen how the United States is viewed in a not-so-friendly way around the world. Perhaps because the U.S is such a large, powerful and diverse nation, the country and its people sometimes do not look past its borders in trying to understand other cultures or countries. Perhaps the USA will always be the object of envy around the world due to the country's short history, yet historic rise to power and wealth.

Having travelled in fact to Cairo just a few years ago, it was evident that America was on the precipice of not being liked or, even, accepted as an ally in that country. Why is this? Without judging or pointing a finger of blame, can we, as a nation, look at ourselves in terms of sport and see if it reflects in any way our foreign policy?

The most often heard criticism in my time abroad was concerning our championship in baseball: The World Series. "How can you call it The World Series?" a forgeigner would ask me. Of course we poke fun at ourselves in calling it The World Series, when in fact we are really the only nation, other than Canada, that participates in the event. Perhaps calling it The World Series is a bit assuming. And before someone goes and says that baseball is played elsewhere, let's look at The Rugby World Cup. 20 nations attempted to qualify for the tournament and 12 played in the 2011 World Cup in New Zealand. Our World Series includes professional teams, not individuals playing for their country, in just two countries: Canada and The USA. If you look at the sport of soccer as America calls it (it's football in every other country in the world), the World Cup is an enormous sporting event with qualifying taking nations to other nations around the world. If we ever do host a global competition for baseball, what shall we call it? We've used "The World Series" on our own domestic product.

The Real or Royal Tennis Court at Falkland Palace, Scotland.

Perhaps, Americans learned from the British: Wimbledon has become "The Championships", which to me implies that The Australian, French and US Opens are meaningless. The ultimate golf tournament in Britain is just "The Open." Again, does that relegate The Masters to a secondary position? One could argue the Brits were there first. They tend to do this with firsts. I played rugby at Blackheath Rugby Club which was just: The Club. It was the first rugby club and hence called itself simply, The Club.

The British invented the game of golf on a cold, windy heath in Scotland during the reign of James V1 of Scotland, who brought the game to England when he ascended the Southern throne and was crowned James I of England. That was 1603. America was not yet born. Just 200 or so years earlier, Henry V hit a tennis ball for the first time in Falkland Palace. Christopher Columbus hadn't even been born. Yes, the British got there first. I guess they can call their championships what they want since they were the first.

Americans look at the Olympics as our national moment. The Today Show presents daily from the venue. That's how I know the importance of The Olympics. The Olympics are global but are also just once every four years. Americans simply do not play a sport that often for their country. The World Cups in both rugby and soccer (excuse me I meant to say football) are truly global. There are other international events in just those two sports: The Tri-Nations Rugby which pits New Zealand, Australia and South Africa against each other on an annual basis. There is the European Championships in football, again asking numerous European national teams to travel and qualify and then, hopefully, bring back the silver and raise the pride of a nation.

Countries have "friendlies" in many sports including football, rugby, cricket, and more. These countries often call an international match a "Test" match when it is nation versus nation, to differentiate it from a domestic match. We have no such differentiation here in the USA as we really don't require the terms - international matches just do not happen that often.

This experience of playing for or aspiring to play for one's nation is inherent in the upbringing of juniors in nations around the world. It's not in the USA. American juniors look to the NFL or they look to baseball and "The World Series". Neither of these sports are played internationally to any great degree. Baseball is popular in South America and Asia. One could argue basketball is a global sport and they would be right - but there is no Basketball World Cup. Only The Olympics serve in that regard for an international competition on a global scale for the sport.

Being not regulars in this environment, it hurts us as a nation when we play internationally. Our athletes are not used to carrying the weight of the nation on their backs. Just ask Andy Murray how this feels when he plays at Wimbledon. The sport, match and event go past personal ambitions - you are playing for the Stars & Stripes, the glory of America. You might even think you are part of the American Dream and have to prove it to the world. Immense pressure on an athlete that isn't an integral part of our rearing as sportspeople and this hurts performance.

Let's look at The Davis Cup. An annual, international tennis event, which for Americans, allows sportsmen to put their invidual and personal sporting achievements on the back burner and play for their country, their nation, their flag. We learn what it is like to play in a truly hostile environment. We learn, through sport, cultures of other countries. And in the past 20 years as a nation America has suffered in this international event. It's the same for the women too. The U.S. is 0 for 12 in the last 12 Federation Cups. We're suffering on the world stage in sport just as we are flailing in our foreign policy.

Sportscenter or Sportsworld?

As a country in which ESPN's "Sportcenter" tops the ratings, perhaps it is time to look less at ourselves and more at the world in regard to sport. In most nations, one of the highest accolades a sportsperson can receive is to be "capped", meaning that he or she has represented his or her country on a national team. Perhaps if America looks to "cap" more of its athletes in the decades to come, we will understand our foreign counterparts better. Understanding other nations through sport and culture cannot do anything but help our ailing foreign policy.

The US Open - Entering A New Frontier & Era

The Stadium at Forest Hills

My first memory of the US Open is when it was held at Forest Hills and the prize money was something in the region of $25,000 for the champion. It was a quaint tournament, having moved to New York from its original home in Newport, Rhode Island, where it had started as The National Championship on grass courts.

I remember the move to Flushing Meadows and the USTA National Tennis Center. As a traditionalist, I was sad to see the move to hard courts, but the crowds and attention the tournament was receiving was forcing the move as it was outgrowing the club setting at Forest Hills.

Jimmy Connors had ushered in a new age with his two-handed backhand, his T-2000 metal racquet, and his brash, loud attitude on the court. Too often we remember McEnroe and his temper and tantrums, but Connors was there first. In fact, Connors is the only player to win the US Open on grass, clay and hard courts. I was lucky enough to be at the Open for Connor's win over Aaron Krickstein in 1991. Connor's 39th birthday couldn't have been more special. It put an exclamation point on his era and then allowed the new boys like Agassi and Sampras to move forward into the limelight for good.

But I think we are at a defining moment in tennis for both men and women. With Serena's dominance on the women's side over the past decade moving into its final years and Roger Federer not as dominant as he has been, we are seeing a host of new players and new attitudes and strategies enhancing the US Open. Interest in the sport is gaining and with matches lasting well into the early hours of the morning, the Open has become a prime-time TV event.

But what is different about the US Open having attended last year and going again this year, is the size of the event. Having been the first tournament with lit courts and being the only Grand Slam to have been played every year since its inception, it is again at the forefront of creating a special event. From the sheer size of its stadia and grounds to the live entertainment off the courts and the massive merchandising machine both on the grounds and through television and internet commercials, the US Open is perhaps now the biggest stage in tennis - bigger than Wimbledon Center Court. Even as a traditionalist, I have to say Wimbledon is far behind the Open in terms of grandness.

I am not sure it's good for the game or not. Time will tell. Perhaps we will look back in years to come and think of the US Open in 2012 in Flushing Meadows as quaint. Perhaps the tournament will move to Los Angeles and truly become a celebrity bash and a paparazzi field day. Perhaps it will grow to even bigger extremes. I am sure the players will be fabulous and the tennis superlative. They are the timeless chess pieces within a commercial marketplace.

That said, I wonder what the courts look like at Forest Hills this week. I still miss the sobriety and solitude of a bygone era.