You have summed it up better than I did. I often think of how, years ago, John McEnroe campaigned to become the Commission of Tennis so he could fix with those bigger issues of non-Grand Slam events which, as you say, have little connection to the Slams and never give players and off-season. During this Open, I just got so tired of reading the daily stories about the Great Revival of American Men's Tennis that supposedly was tied to having one of our boys in the final. Nobody every mentions that a significant segment of the spectators at the Open are not Americans, and therefore not keening for a Yank to win.
As you know I am well acquainted with the subject of tennis popularity after working for the men's tour and covering tennis. I was at the ATP Tour during its glory years for Americans with Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Martin, etc. during the 1990s. And before them McEnroe and Connors actually popularized the sport with a mass audience. But the tennis season is 11 months long and tournaments are all around the world. The ranking system is complicated and not based on the calendar year. So tennis, at least the Grand Slam events, has become like the circus coming to town or a touring version of Broadway shows like Hamilton and Jersey Boys. They are special events and draw a great audience but soon forgotten when the circus leaves town. In the U.S., that's mostly how tennis is perceived, even going back to the 1990s. Most of the people at the U.S. Open are there for the event and, for example, how many care who wins the two events coming up in China at the end of the month? It's a rhetorical question. Because the Open is like a social event the best part for men's and women's tennis is that it doesn't require a handful of prominent Americans leading the way. If Americans are playing the final weekend, great, it's like a cherry on top.
You have summed it up better than I did. I often think of how, years ago, John McEnroe campaigned to become the Commission of Tennis so he could fix with those bigger issues of non-Grand Slam events which, as you say, have little connection to the Slams and never give players and off-season. During this Open, I just got so tired of reading the daily stories about the Great Revival of American Men's Tennis that supposedly was tied to having one of our boys in the final. Nobody every mentions that a significant segment of the spectators at the Open are not Americans, and therefore not keening for a Yank to win.
As you know I am well acquainted with the subject of tennis popularity after working for the men's tour and covering tennis. I was at the ATP Tour during its glory years for Americans with Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Martin, etc. during the 1990s. And before them McEnroe and Connors actually popularized the sport with a mass audience. But the tennis season is 11 months long and tournaments are all around the world. The ranking system is complicated and not based on the calendar year. So tennis, at least the Grand Slam events, has become like the circus coming to town or a touring version of Broadway shows like Hamilton and Jersey Boys. They are special events and draw a great audience but soon forgotten when the circus leaves town. In the U.S., that's mostly how tennis is perceived, even going back to the 1990s. Most of the people at the U.S. Open are there for the event and, for example, how many care who wins the two events coming up in China at the end of the month? It's a rhetorical question. Because the Open is like a social event the best part for men's and women's tennis is that it doesn't require a handful of prominent Americans leading the way. If Americans are playing the final weekend, great, it's like a cherry on top.