The connection between patriotism and sports is scarcely meaningful 

MATCH POINT: Fritz slams door shut on Kecmanovic

INDIAN WELLS, Calif.—How pleasing it is to see American Taylor Fritz reach the semifinals of the BNP Paribas Open for the second straight year. Friday, he earned a 7-6 (5), 3-6, 6-1 quarterfinal win over Miomir Kecmanovic at Indian Wells.

But this I must confess: It doesn’t matter to me that Fritz is an American. From my vantage point, the connection between patriotism and sports is scarcely meaningful. Sure, everyone is technically from a specific country. But to take national pride in the accomplishments of a tennis player is the kind of pride I can do without. Knee-jerk, obvious regionalism in any realm irks me, as it often distances people from one another. Instead, I love the power of choice expressed by such people as my friend Mark, a lifelong New Yorker whose favorite baseball team has always been the Detroit Tigers. Why not? Is my country really better than another because we won more Olympic medals?

To zero in on tennis, if I like Daniil Medvedev, should I think less of him these days now that Russia has invaded Ukraine? At the developmental level, dare we really believe that players with styles as different as Sebastian Korda, Reilly Opelka, Jenson Brooksby, Tommy Paul, Frances Tiafoe and Mackenzie McDonald are the result of a specifically institutionalized American instructional system? Certainly not. Factories produce cars. But tennis players do not roll off assembly lines. They do it their own way, aided by singular parents and highly localized instruction.

One argument holds that American champions are good for the game’s economy. Perhaps that’s true, but it wasn’t the case in the 1990s, when future Hall of Famers Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier and Michael Chang were all at the peak of the game—and tennis’ popularity largely plateaued. Or maybe I’m wrong and the success that quartet enjoyed kept the decline of tennis in America from becoming even steeper. I’m not sure which factors necessarily drive the growth of the tennis economy, be it attendance, viewership, equipment sales or participation. Just about the only functional metric I’ve heard relates to ball sales. Most recently, participation has increased amid the pandemic, tennis a suitable sport to play in an era of social distancing (and, alas, due to supply chain issues, balls are not so easy to obtain).

But the most popular tennis player in America does not have 50 stars on the flag next to his name. My suspicion is that he comes from Switzerland and his first name is Roger. I’m certain that if Federer played a US Open final versus an American that the crowd would be heavily in his corner. This is how tennis has long been. While during the tennis boom years of the 1970s there were many Americans in the mix, other popular players came from Australia, Sweden, Argentina and Romania.

Another border-shattering concept: A great many players sharpen their games all over the world. BNP Paribas Open tournament director Tommy Haas grew up in Germany and by his early teens was a fixture at Nick Bollettieri’s academy in Florida. Andy Murray trekked from Scotland to Barcelona to sharpen his game. Ditto for many other Russians. Instead of being confined to a single country, what if player development was addressed globally, akin to the way the World Health Organization tackles various diseases? Take a Californian and ship him to Spain for some clay-court seasoning. Bring the Spaniard west to sharpen her volleys.

I'm not anti-American. Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup matches represent lively moments, where seeing the players wrap themselves in the red, white and blue can be engaging and even moving. But for the most part, if any endeavor should transcend borders, it’s a sport played by individuals.