Two years ago, the prospects for American tennis seemed bleak. Andy Roddick was, of course, a fixture in the top ten. But Americans had been spoiled by the heyday of American tennis in the 1980s and the 1990s. At one point, we had two Americans in the top 3 with Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe. As both these men aged, there was concern that there were no top American prospects would be worthy enough to take the mantle of best in the world. Those were how lofty our standards were back then.
Jimmy Arias was in the top 10 briefly around 1983. He even made it to the semifinals of the US Open beating Yannick Noah, but losing to Ivan Lendl. He attributed his inability to stay at the top to one of the most unusual phenomenons to hit any sport: graphite oversized racquets. In a two year period from 1982 to 1984, nearly every player abandoned wood racquets in favor of midsized and oversized graphite racquets, and from then on, the game was never the same.
But then came the renaissance of American tennis. Jimmy Arias was, in fact, the start of this revolution. An ex-paratrooper named Nick Bollettieri came up with an idea so outrageous, especially for a guy who was more tennis enthusiast than ex-tennis professional, an idea so audacious, that it’s laughable that he pulled it off. He created a tennis academy. He felt, if he got the best juniors together, and they trained against one another, they’d develop much quicker and reach greater heights, than if they had never gotten together.
And the effect his academy had went past the walls of Bollettieri’s academy. Players such as Michael Chang and Pete Sampras, who had minimal involvement with Bollettieri’s were made better because players like Agassi and Courier and David Wheaton and Aaron Krickstein, and a whole host of others who stayed and played for Nick. Nick’s kids, early on, were known for the big forehand, starting with Jimmy Arias, but going through Aaron Krickstein and ultimately, Andre Agassi.
Lendl was the guy that redefined power tennis, where topspin was used to control big power. Bollettieri’s kids emulated and refined the big forehand, but they didn’t imitate what really made Lendl a top player: his serve. Players would later learn that it helps to move well, hit a great backhand, and, you know, volley. In those days, baseliners didn’t practice their net game enough, and serve and volleyers looked woeful at the baseline. That changed in the 1990s when players like Sampras and Henman and Martin blended a net-charging game with solid baseline play. And, of course, by the time 2000 rolls around, the game had moved to primarily a baseline game.
So American tennis was saved, it seems, from obscurity when the greatest generation of Americans played, which included Pete Sampras, Michael Chang, Jim Courier, Todd Martin, and a whole host of other Americans. They would dominate tennis from 1990 to about 2000, with Andre Agassi, arguably the first guy that broke out big in the new generation of American players also being one of the last guys left, his longevity lasting almost two decades, including his last hurrah, a run to the US Open finals in 2005.
Little would we know that once Agassi left, it would be, in a way, the beginning of the end. When Sampras retired (actually two years earlier), he created a vacuum at the top of men’s tennis, and a merry-go-round of players would take turns at the top of the game. Gustavo Kuerten, Carlos Moya, Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.
Roddick was supposed to be the guy that took the baton from Sampras and Agassi and rose to the top. When he became number 1 and won the 2003 US Open, there was even greater hope. Roddick was good-looking which never hurt a player’s pocketbook or his likability. Little would Roddick know that he’d be in the middle of a level of sustained genius that the game has never seen. Roger Federer could hit amazing shots with such alarming regularity that a player like Roddick must have felt like Salieri to Federer’s Mozart. And as Federer got older, a different kind of player, one filled with speed, heavy shots, and an intensity off the ground never seen, one Rafael Nadal, came to prominence, and shortly thereafter, players like Murray, Djokovic, and del Potro brought a different look to tennis. On the one hand, quick players who could play with touch, and on the other, a new level in power tennis.
While players like Blake would flit with the top 10, there was honestly no one that seemed capable of taking over number 1. Roddick himself would adjust his goals and take comfort that, in the midst of some of the greatest talents the men’s game had ever seen, he could remain in the top 10. And as this drought remained longer, tennis pundits were just happy to have players in the top 20.
Indeed, a trio of players came from unexpected backgrounds. Sam Querrey was not a top junior, and only late in his teens, did he come to prominence reaching the 2005 USTA Boy’s 18 Championship finals, losing to Donald Young. It was Young that everyone expected to be a top 10 player. He had been number 1 junior in the world. He had won the Australian Open and US Open as a junior. And, some experts hoped that he might become the highest ranked African American male ever. But it didn’t happen (although Young is, still, quite young).
Like Querrey, the most prominent part about John Isner was his height. It takes a while for tall guys to develop, so Isner opted to play for University of Georgia with few expectations of turning pro. He came out of nowhere in 2007 with a wildcard, and took out Tommy Haas and Gael Monfils to reach the finals and lose a close one to Andy Roddick. Isner kind of disappeared for about 2 years until he started playing well in the summer of 2009 and eventually took out Andy Roddick in the third round of the US Open.
The third player was someone that bloomed late. Although Mardy Fish reached a Masters 1000 finals back in 2003 in Cincy then again in Indian Wells in 2008, perhaps his best run of wins ever in a tournament. Yet, he’s playing his best tennis now, having lost 30 pounds, a fact harped on over and over by interviewers.
And yet, although all have aspirations for top 10 tennis, there’s a question whether any of the 3 can truly do it.
The question is: can Ryan Harrison make that jump too? He doesn’t quite fit the physical profile of the modern tennis player. The last few years have seen the rise of really good tall players: John Isner, Sam Querrey, Juan Martin del Potro, Marin Cilic. The best mover among the “tall” players is Andy Murray at 6’3″. At 6′, Harrison is, at least, a reasonable height, somewhat close to Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal. It does help that Harrison has a good serve.
Harrison is the son of a former tour pro, Pat Harrison. After reading and listening to his post-match interview in his loss to Sergiy Stakhovsky, I get the sense that Harrison is much like the son of another athlete: Peyton Manning. Manning was blessed to be taller than his dad, former NFL QB, Archie Manning. At 6’5″, Manning has the height of a prototypical QB, but more than that, he really put in the work to study the game perhaps as no other QB has done before.
Behind a dorky personality on TV, Manning has been known as a bookworm. He grilled coaches at the University of Tennessee where he’s still considered a hero, despite Tee Martin, his successor being the guy that lead UT to a national championship. He recruited wide receivers at Indianapolis to work out with him in off-hours, so he could develop a rapport that would allow him to make big plays even as the routes broke down.
And Manning grew up in Louisiana. Archie Manning was a hero at LSU and although Peyton headed to University of Tennessee, younger brother Eli went to LSU. Ryan Harrison was born in Louisiana, but now lives in Florida.
Harrison seems different from most players. Jim Courier probably wishes he had been a pro baseball player. Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray probably imagine life as a soccer player. Isner must have wondered if he could have been a good NBA player. Tennis seems to take a second seat to other sports, especially team sports, that are more popular. But Harrison seems like a guy who loves tennis first and foremost. If he’s not playing the sport, he’s watching it, and can enjoy it like a fan.
Although I’ve heard of Ryan for a while, I’ve never really seen him play. Much of that is due to his rank of 220. At that rank, he has to qualify for the big tournaments. Harrison is unusual in that respect. He seems to prefer playing qualies in ATP events rather than playing a lot of Challengers. He hasn’t had a ton of success in the Challengers, but maybe he realizes that winning a round in an ATP 250 event gives you a lot of points compared to Challengers.
Ryan’s second round match was against Sergiy Stakhovsky, who just won the Pilot Pen over Denis Istomin, who had the misfortune of playing Rafa in the second round (although he had chances to take the second set off of Rafa). This match was a throwback to the early 90s. Of all players, Stakhovsky probably plays a game that’s much closer to Harrison than anyone he could play.
Stakhovsky attacks the net a fair bit, but he is a finesse player. He drop shots, he slices. But it’s rare for a guy like Stakhovsky to play a guy like Harrison who charges the net.
Harrison has said his idol is Pete Sampras. Although Harrison hits a two-hander, his movement is more Pete Sampras than, say, Andre Agassi. It was interesting to see the contrast in the faces of Stakhovsky and Harrison. Stakhovsky vaguely resembles a dark haired Petr Korda, his East European features rather prominent, but he had the relaxed demeanor of someone whose been there. By contrast, Harrison was more intense. Maybe it’s his eyebrows, but Harrison looked a bit worried and tense, even though his post-match interview suggested he was focused and feeling pretty good.
With both men charging the net, Harrison nearly had a Roger Federer moment. Chasing down a lob (one of many that Stakhovsky hit), Harrison had an opportunity to hit the tweener. But maybe at age 18, he preferred not taking that kind of chance. Instead, he hit a swinging low forehand for a winner.
Things looked particular dire for Ryan Harrison. Down 3-1 in the fifth, Harrison got down 15-40. He attacked the net when Stakhovsky hit a lob and Harrison did an excellent job chasing it down and hitting the overhead. Harrison eventually won a game he had to, then broke back. They went to a tiebreak where Harrison got to a 6-3 lead in the tiebreak. Stakhovsky won both his point.
Harrison then missed a first serve. On the second serve, Stakhovksy was doing nothing too special, slicing shots back, when Harrison netted his two-hander for no good reason. Harrison then double-faulted to give Stakhovsky match point, and he took it to win the match.
Right now, the difference between Harrison and Stakhovsky is confidence. Harrison might be well advised to re-watch the match, especially, the fifth set, and watch his facial reaction and Stakhovsky’s reactions. Of course, when you are where Harrison is, you’re looking for that first big break. To be fair, Harrison has one interesting achievement. He is the third youngest player to win a match on the ATP tour beating Pablo Cuevas at the 2008 US Claycourt Championships (Houston). Cuevas just lost to Mardy Fish in the second round of the US Open.
Harrison’s style is somewhat a throwback to the 1990s. He looks a touch rigid a la Pete Sampras. The trend in the men’s game is to increased versatility a la Djokovic or Murray. There are competing philosophies, the main one being big hitting, say, Soderling or del Potro. There are players that are trying to come to net more. Stakhovsky is a great recent example, but he also mixes up touch in his game. Harrison might look to a player like Stakhovsky (who is, admittedly, a few inches taller) as a role model, to add more versatility to his game. A player like Soderling can play more one-dimensionally because he hits so hard off the ground and when he’s on, few players can keep up with his power.
Harrison doesn’t play that kind of game. His serve is currently his weapon. He could try to play more big man tennis a la Isner or Querrey where he goes for a big forehand and tries to keep even on his backhand.
Looking at his stats, Stakhovsky played more efficiently at net than Harrison. He hit more aces. Harrison made a lot of unforced errors, nearly twice as much. And yet, despite this, he managed to push it to five sets and was up two sets to one, at one point. At Harrison’s level, controlling his serve game is key. No matter how bad Roger Federer plays, he’ll always be happy when he never faces break point. He’ll take a 7-5, 7-6 win and see it as a positive if he never faces break point. Harrison’s not ready to be that kind of serve holder, but it’s a useful lesson. If you hold yourself easily, your chances of winning go way up. It’s the big reason why Isner and Querrey have moved up the ranks.
The big question is whether Harrison can continue to build on this success. It takes a lot of perseverance and willingness to take lumps, but hopefully, this is the start of a great career.
