Can a player only be considered a success if they've racked up tons of titles and Grand Slams? What about those players who never came close to major glory? How about simply making enough money to earn a living? Where is the line drawn between "success" and "failure" on a pro level? I'm asking these questions because the man I'm covering today, who entered the game with a ton of fanfare only to "disappoint" people in the long run, is an excellent test case for figuring out where one draws the line between success and failure. He's been one of the most analyzed and over-analyzed men's tennis players in my lifetime, honestly - all I'm doing is merely contributing my two cents to the vast ocean of thoughts.
Donald Young was born on July 23rd, 1989 in sweet home Chicago! (Two Chicagoans in a row! Yippee!) He grew up in the South Shore neighborhood. His parents, both avid tennis players themselves, got him involved in the sport at a very, very early age; according to a Chicago Tribune article I dug up from the archives, he was hitting backhands while he was still in diapers, and by the time he was five, he competed in his first tournament. By the time he was 10, there was a ton of fanfare surrounding his abilities; many articles were written about his talent (I've been aware of this man for a long time because I still lived in Chicago when this was going on), and many, many experts tabbed him as The Next Big Thing, even despite the fact that he was, well, young. (Ba dum chish.) Former New York City mayor and huge tennis booster David Dinkins hit with Donald when he was 10 and began spreading the word about the talented youngster, which was the start of all the hype. Supposedly, John McEnroe was in town for a seniors event one year and hit with Donald when he was still just a teenager; afterward, he remarked that Donald "has hands like another lefty I know." (Like Donald, McEnroe is left-handed, for those of you who've never seen him play.) I've since read that this was apparently a publicity stunt, cooked up by IMG to add to the legend of Donald Young, but it was an oft-repeated statement in the early years of Donald's career.
When Donald was 14, he and his family relocated to Atlanta, when his father had the opportunity to take over a tennis academy there. He had a lot of success on the junior circuit, winning the Orange Bowl under-16 title in 2003, the Australian Open junior title in 2005 (finishing that year as the world's #1 junior), and won the junior Wimbledon title in 2007. However, rather than continue his junior development unabated, Donald joined the pro tour as early as 2004, when he was 15 years old; he struggled mightily, often failing to simply win back to back matches, let alone coming close to winning a title. Many think pieces have been written about this approach; whether it was wise to allow Donald to turn professionally as early as he did is something that's surely still debatable. He often seemed overmatched physically, and continually ran into problems with the USTA; Donald preferred to be coached by his parents, while the USTA wanted them to relinquish control and allow Donald to be handled by their own set of coaches. This caused several problems and ugly mudslinging on both sides, especially as Donald continued to struggle on tour, relative to the insane expectations that had been placed on him; this culminated in an ugly war of words on Twitter in 2011, when Donald tweeted some not too nice things about the USTA when they evidently denied him a wild card into Roland Garros that year.
You've probably gathered by now that Young's career has not been a fast track to superstardom that was predicted for him; his highest ranking to date has been a brief stay in the world's top 40, peaking at #38, and he hasn't come close to winning a Grand Slam; his best results to date have been two fourth round finishes at the U.S. Open. As I've mentioned before, many people point to the fact that Donald was allowed to turn pro at 15 as the starting point for all his problems. Prior to Donald hitting the pro tour, the previous generation of American men's tennis was one where many of its stars had success at very early ages - Michael Chang won Roland Garros at age 17 and is still the youngest male major winner to date; Pete Sampras won his first major at the U.S. Open at age 19, where he is still the youngest-ever male U.S. Open champion. Turning pro early has worked for some people, and has been an abject disaster for others - let alone Donald, the sport is littered with stories of people who tried to turn professional and either got burned out quickly or didn't have the success that was predicted for them. He is hardly unique in that regard; the problem is that many of these players were not accompanied by the hype that Donald received. But is that his fault, or that of the media's, so desperate they are at all times to proclaim someone as "The Next Big Thing" and wanting to be right? Then, when it doesn't work out, who is to blame? Well...who created the ruckus in the first place? If you subtract all of the considerable hype that Donald kicked his career off with, his results are honestly not terribly different from your average middling (relatively speaking, but I hope you know what I mean) pro player.
This once again makes me ask the question: what does it mean to be a successful tennis player? If we're limiting the term "success" to mean winning a Grand Slam, then there are very, very few tennis players in the grand scheme of things who could be considered a success, both in the history of the sport and in present times. Hell, just look at the current men's tour for proof. I've mentioned it before during this series, but the "Big Four" of men's tennis players have made it awfully, awfully difficult over the last decade-plus for anyone to break through. Is Donald really any different from Tomas Berdych, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Grigor Dimitrov, or any of the other male players that have failed to break through in the wake of the Big Four? He hasn't been as successful as the players I've named, granted, but the larger point - the lack of Grand Slam victories - still stands. Donald has reached two main draw finals in his career, has won over $3 million in career prize money, has reached the top 40 in the world rankings, won eight Challenger events (the Challenger circuit is kinda like the minor leagues of tennis), and, all things considered, has been able to stick around in professional tennis for the past 13 years - no mean feats. Do you know how many players have entered the pro circuit and haven't even accomplished that much? The considerable hype with which he started his career notwithstanding, Donald has hardly had the worst career of anyone who was predicted for big things; hell, Justin fucking Gimelstob (ick) was once projected to have a bright future - remember that? Of course you don't.
Personally, I'm inclined to cut Donald some slack, regardless of how he may have "disappointed" the experts - it takes a lot of skill and mental fortitude to stick around as long as he has (he's still well within the world's top 100 as I write this, at #74). Even besides all that, though, he's a black man from the south side of Chicago who got to live the dream; hell, he's STILL living the dream. And for that, I salute him, no matter what the naysayers say. He may not have had the career that people so desperately wanted him to have, but he's still kicking, and in an era where we are seeing more and more people have major breakthroughs at previously unheard of ages, it's easy to forget that he's only going to be 28 years old this year. He may yet have some time to pad that resume a little bit more before he's done. Keep on keeping on, Donald.
No comments:
Post a Comment