Will Querrey be the Spark which Ignites US Tennis?

Scoop – is it confidence/belief, or jealousy? I mean, I think we have to go a little deeper here into the player psyche.

Start with McEnroe and Connors. Connors beats McEnroe first time they face off, huge contest at Wimbledon. Sends a message, probably one that McEnroe never forgot. Rest is history. Was that an “I can do this too!” moment, or was it really, “I’m not going to settle for this!” moment. I think it’s the latter.

1989. Emerging big names in U.S. tennis come on the scene. Agassi, Krickstein etc. But Chang strikes first with a French Open epic slam win. Why? I think Chang didn’t want to be shown up. And then Sampras wins in 1990. Why? Doesn’t want to be shown up.

Fast forward. Lloyd Carroll calls Mardy Fish a “journeyman”. Even though Mardy was playing good ball for the most part, what was it about calling Fish what he was that got to him? Seems that that, more than any diet, fired Fish up.

Then in 2014. Klahn is #67, only Isner and Klahn are in the top 70, and journalists are saying, players, you guys stink. All of the sudden by the end of 2014 there are five U.S. players in the top 60. And not one is named Klahn.

Between 2014 and 2016, U.S. players get tons of career moments. Isner comes back from getting smacked around in an embarrassing Davis Cup loss in the United Kingdom to get to another Masters final, serving huge. Sock gets a title in 2015 and finals in a few other small tournaments. Johnson gets his first title in 2016. Querrey gets his first title in a while THEN QUARTERFINALS at a slam.

I think it’s one-upsmanship all the way around. Kozlov gets to a challenger final and all of the sudden other juniors are like, WHAT? Suddenly a guy like Fritz comes along. Harrison, considered a mentor of sorts to generation who knows if they’ll be next, proposes to his tennis-playing girlfriend. Then Fritz one-ups his elder, proposing to fellow U.S. junior in Paris no less.

I think the inter-team competition is the most important. Look at what Isner says when he talks about U.S. tennis.

Isner said this. When asked about the overall state of U.S. mens tennis, he basically says, all well and good, “BUT I’M HERE FOR ME.” Well, guess what. That’s the only way U.S. mens players do well. They need pressure from other U.S. players – so Isner wasn’t saying, “and I could care less about the U.S. team” – he was saying this: “I’m the best U.S. player and I show this by doing well at this tournament. The heck with the rest of the guys, it’s up to them to take me out.”

To me, that’s the heart of this U.S. beast. One player needs to be jealous of another and plot to do well. If the players look around and say, well, that guy he’s only #60, and he only got first round, I got second round at this slam, best performance and ETC ETC – well that lets them believe that second round is fine.

Querrey just showed THERE ARE NO POINTS FOR SECOND PLACE. Now they have something to prove.

Should be a fun summer for U.S. mens tennis.

Scoop, yes I think players keep this stuff close to the vest. But I think they have it for sure.

I do think there is a complacency in U.S. tennis that only changes when the bar for performance gets upped by one of them and can’t be explained any other way than “that guy out-hustled me and I know it.”

I think a lot of players have looked at Isner, a lot of U.S. players, and said, “well, he’s what, 6’9”, he has a super-sonic serve, and the other top ten guys, well, those guys are just super-human”. But when Querrey – who also has a huge serve but a lower profile – does well like this, suddenly they can’t rest on those comfortable statements any more.

It’s one thing when Djokovic wins another title. But when the guy you practice with now leaps ahead of you, I think two things can happen.

1. Denial. The players look around and say, well that was a fluke. Got lucky. Anything can happen. I’m still doing fine, I’m sure I’ll have my chance too. Any day now.

or

2. Wow, this isn’t good enough. I’ll accept reality. I’m going to add a session every day. Start running. Do the gluten free thing. Hire a spanish coach to train differently. Play some extra sets per day. Work on that kick serve and perfect it for the hard court season.

I think based on the past, most guys opt for #1 – which is, “I’m doing fine”. They will do that and watch their rankings slip.

But, given how many “pretty good” U.S. mens players there are today, I think a bunch of them will go with option #2. I think a few juniors will go hunting for Fritz and say “well, if Zverev and Fritz are doing well, I should be too and I will make my mark, get some strength training, run more, do more court drills” – whatever, hire a guy who’s “been there” etc. Or Steve Johnson will say, “fourth round of a slam is nice, I did well, but I’m still hungry.” Or Sock, or DY, or someone else who thinks, well, Querrey did it.

Scoop, fine, substitute “competitive pressure” for “jealousy”, I think they are cousins in the dictionary. Point is, few things get to the U.S. mens players. If they were coached say by Bill Parcells, or Coach K. from Duke, remarks like “journeyman” would stick and these guys would up their games.

You guys know I’ve been happy about the U.S. mens players getting themselves out of the doldrums of early 2014 – that was the lowest point in U.S. mens tennis. The fact is they are no longer a joke. But that “state” is not good enough – it should be a lauchpad for players to go for the top tiers – top 20, maybe top 15, top 10.

I think Courier believes this too, I think he knows from being a champion himself that these guys need something to light a fire under themselves. I think Pat McEnroe saw it coming, I think he sometimes got the best out of his guys. But I haven’t seen folks launch themselves out of their rut like Spadea.

Maybe Steve Johnson’s comeback has been under-rated, he was having a dog of a year. Querrey’s is certainly a special point. Isner’s shot back to relevance a few times. DY too in his own way, cracking top 50 before going back in time again.

But I think the Querrey quarterfinal slam is important because U.S. players below him or slightly above like Sock, Johnson, now know that he has something in his war chest that they don’t have, and they know it. And their coaches can tell them, “well, Querrey has a slam quarter, where’s yours?”

Or their teams can rag on them to motivate them. NOTHING lights a fire for these guys more than seeing their fellow u.s. players out-hustling them, out-playing them.

Yeah Raonic might get Murray tomorrow, bag a slam. For as awesome Djokpcic has been, during his reign more non big four guys have gotten slams than in the previous decade. Maybe it is unfair to count Wawrinka, and say well that leaves Cilic and Del Potro. Depends on how we look at it. Could argue well, only a big three with 44 slams between them, then Murray, Wawrinka, Delpo and Cilic combine for five slams total.

That’s why Murray mist win, legacy. Put some distance between him and wawribka.

Catherine my bad. 22 slams. Serena is the most accomplished player on tour today, maybe ever. Including the men’s game, inmho.

Yes I think Querrey will be an inspiration. Another thing that inspires is a climb up the ranking. Querrey is still in the 20’s. If one of Querrey, Johnson or Sock gets into the top 20, it will motivate the others to do the same.

And yes, i agree Andrew that Isner is an inspiration but players might just be saying “oh he is 6′ 9′. So its expected”!

Gaurang, exactly, that’s what i think – I think Isner’s peers could look at him and say, well, he’s 6’9”, therefore I can’t expect (to do x, y, z, achieve at his level, etc). But I think Querrey, who’s I think they feel they can relate to better (even if he’s won ATP titles on all surfaces), it changes it all up. Now they have no excuses – they either match his legacy, one-up him, doing something special like with a Masters title, or go home, sorry to say it, empty handed in terms of their time on tour.

Dan, I think Raonic is flying high with the Federer win. He has none other than your hero Johnny Mac, maybe the most talented player ever to play the sport, in his ear. He’s had a career year. He has the feeling he has to avenge his Australian semifinal loss. Why wouldn’t he believe he has a shot?

However, if Raonic isn’t thinking off the court on how to wear down Federer, his coaches aren’t doing their job. I wonder if they said that, guys like Moya and McEnroe, saying Raonic, listen – Federer’s great but he’s not the same player. You can beat him by wearing him out.

Gaurang, I’m not thrilled with a possible Raonic win. But I think that he’s under-rated for the final. He’s like Stich when Stich played Becker. Stich wasn’t the most beautiful mover out there either – smoother than Raonic because his game had fewer moving parts. Stich was nearly textbook in terms of his huge serve, forehand and backhand, nice looking volleys, etc. But he entered that Becker match, I think, as under-dog, and then Becker completely folded.

I think this is a similar kind of deal. He enters knowing he can beat Murray. That’s a lot different than entering knowing he can’t take out Djokovic.

Murray’s won it, and he has Lendl prepping him. So that’s pretty solid. He’s played a brilliant tournament. And no one’s in his way…except for his desire to win another Wimbledon title. And if he thinks too far ahead – let’s admit his record in slam finals isn’t the greatest (it’s fantastic, but not great), this is no shoe-in for him.