By Richard Pagliaro | Friday, September 6, 2019
Cliff Drysdale celebrates the 40th anniversary of his ESPN debut on the network's first ever tennis telecast. We caught up with the Hall of Famer for his thoughts on the state of the sport.
Photo credit: ESPN
NEW YORK—Hall of Famer Cliff Drysdale has been tennis’ ultimate host—and house guest—for four decades.
Drysdale celebrates his 40th anniversary as ESPN’s voice of tennis this month and remains right at home on the major stage.
More: US Open Men's Semifinal Preview
The South African native was behind the microphone for the first ESPN tennis telecast—the USA vs. Argentina in a Davis Cup match in Memphis, Tenn., on September 14th, 1979—that came just one week after ESPN had debuted on September 7th, 1979.
In the 40 years since, Drysdale has been a constant voice in the homes of American viewers—and has had a front-row seat for the evolution of the sport during that span. Drysdale remains ESPN's longest-serving commentator.
Grand Slams have been major life-changing moments for Drysdale, who recalls his memorable Wimbledon featuring a walk down the aisle followed by a trip onto Centre Court.
“I’ve been going to Wimbledon since 1962, and reached the semifinals twice and three more times in doubles, but in 1968 I had the most interesting day," Drysdale recalled.
"I got married in the morning in the Chelsea section of London and played on Centre Court in the afternoon. My bride, Jean, was the sister of my Davis Cup teammate Gordon Forbes. And my partner that day—on the court—was Torben Ulrich, father of musician [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich. We lost the match but it was a beautiful time.”
The US Open celebrates the 50th anniversary of Rod Laver completing his second Grand Slam at Forest Hills in 1969.
One year earlier, Drysdale defeated his good friend Laver, 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-1, in the Forest Hills round of 16. The left-handed Laver gained a measure of revenge scoring a straight-sets win in the 1969 Wimbledon quarterfinals during his historic season.
"He could talk a lion into becoming a vegetarian," Laver once remarked of Drysdale's easy-going eloquence.
As one of World Championship Tennis' "Handsome Eight", Drysdale was instrumental in the dawning of professional tennis. As a co-founder and the first president of the ATP, he played a prominent part in providing players with a platform within the politics of the sport, and maintains unique understanding of the decision-making dynamics of the game's governing bodies.
Today, when he’s not calling tennis matches, Drysdale runs Cliff Drysdale Tennis, a tennis club management services company that performs daily tennis operations and management for resorts, hotels and private tennis clubs.
We caught up with the veteran broadcaster for this interview immediately after he spent four hours on air alongside Darren Cahill and Brad Gilbert calling Matteo Berrettini’s epic four-hour, fifth-set tie break win over Gael Monfils in the US Open quarterfinals.
Between bites of spicy Indian food on a couch outside the ESPN broadcast booth, Drysdale discussed the changes in the sport, the champion he regards as GOAT and why he envisions “a new Tour where instead of just four two-week majors, there would be six or seven or even eight.”
Tennis Now: Cliff, this is your 40th anniversary of calling tennis for ESPN. What are the favorite advancements you’ve seen over that 40 year span?
Cliff Drysdale: We’re able to do a lot more now that we ever could: extreme close-ups, slow-mo, instant replay. The technology is such that you can don’t have to mess with the (flow) of the game now. And I think the game has also begun to understand that it’s got to rise with the times.
Because I guess all sports are trying to confine themselves to a slightly lesser time. Because the time constraints we’re living in are not as robust as they used to be. So I think that helps us now with rules in place where the players have to get on court and start pretty much on time, which makes a big difference for us.
The bells and whistles have also made a significant difference. When you can analyze a match now and in the past you would sort of be guessing a little bit. Now, you don’t have to guess anymore because you’ve got the data right there. That’s great.
TN: In the ESPN documentary, Serena vs. the Chair Umpire, your colleague, Patrick Mouratoglou, made the case that controversy is great for the game because it puts tennis on the front page of media all over the world. You played against hard-core raging competitors like Gonzales and Nastase and you covered Connors and McEnroe. At the same time, you competed against Aussies like Laver and Rosewall known as supreme sportsmen and gentlemen. My question is: Does controversy propel the popularity of the sport? Does tennis need characters like Kyrgios or Medvedev really antagonizing the New York crowd at times? What do you think?
Cliff Drysdale: I’m totally in favor of showing personality. So I think within the rules, some players are showing personality and I think that’s a good thing. The match we just saw for example—Berrettini beating Monfils in a fifth-set tie breaker—there’s just so much tension, so much drama that you can’t expect a player to be a computer. Because they’re not. They have human failings and they have human feelings about winning and losing.
It’s a dramatic sport because it’s one-on-one. There’s no teammate that you can rely on or use as an excuse. It’s you vs. the combatant and that has an impact.
TN: We saw that today with the slew of double faults down the stretch—you can’t hide from pressure out there.
Cliff Drysdale: Exactly. Getting back to players who react negatively in certain circumstances, like Nick Kyrgios, for example. Nick goes too far sometimes, but here’s another John McEnroe just walking by (John McEnroe passes Drysdale in the ESPN suite as he speaks). John was very controversial, but he was drawing people to the game and so was Jimmy Connors and so was Ilie Nastase. I hated playing against him but there’s no doubt he did bring the people in. Gonzales, of course, was a big one.
I hope the game doesn’t live or die by controversy. Because I don’t think it does. But does it hurt? No. I do think controversy is okay. I do think if Kyrgios, for example, is being rude and disrespectful that’s not okay.
TN: When you say disrespectful do you mean to the opponent? To the fans? To the game?
Cliff Drysdale: All three. I mean it’s disrespectful when you’re not trying. And when you’re clearly not trying you should pay the price for that. But Nick Kyrgios is still one of the few players I would pay to watch play.
TN: Darren Cahill asked you during this broadcast if you had to pick any player to play with your life on the line—excluding this current generation—who would you pick? You chose Borg on clay immediately. Why?
Cliff Drysdale: Well, Nadal on clay wasn’t in the picture because he’s the current generation. Otherwise I would have definitely picked Nadal on clay. Look at Borg’s results. By far, Borg had the best results until Nadal. And I never thought anyone would be able to be as successful as Borg on clay. Until Nadal came along. There really wasn’t any other real choice as far as I’m concerned.
TN: The US Open is celebrating the 50th anniversary of your good friend, Rod Laver, completing the Grand Slam at Forest Hills in ’69. What do you remember about that? At the time, did you think 50 years later no other man would have done it since?
Cliff Drysdale: Well, the amazing thing is that he won two, the first in ’62, which makes it even more special.
TN: Right. As an amateur.
Cliff Drysdale: Rod Laver is a really good personal friend of mine. We played and battled against each other many times. I beat him at Forest Hills in ’68 the year before he won his second Grand Slam. I have a great deal of respect and love for Rod. I have nothing but admiration for him as a tennis player. He’s also the most humble champion I know of in any sport. And bear in mind, this man won multiple Grand Slams.
TN: How has your relationship with the ESPN audience evolved over the 40 years? Because in some sense it’s a very intimate thing during the Australian Open, for instance, many east coast viewers are watching you from their bedrooms. Or here at the US Open, fans can listen through American Express radio and you’re in their ears and head as they walk around. What is that relationship like?
Cliff Drysdale: I feel confident with the fact I just do what comes naturally—I always have. And you gotta take it or leave it. For me, I really enjoy talking about the sport. And when you have a match like this, for example (Berrettini beating Monfils in a fifth-set tie break), it was really special. So as long as I have honest emotion and I’m not telling lies about anything, which I never am because this is a clean, pure sport. …
Not everyone likes the way I present things and I get negative comments, which is fair, as well as positive comments. That’s the truth. I’m really happy with it. It’s a passion and I’m proud of the contribution I’ve made here.
TN: A match like today’s match you’re on the air nearly continuously for four hours. In your head, are you talking to the viewer for four hours? Or are you talking to Darren Cahill and Brad Gilbert, your broadcast partners?
Cliff Drysdale: I’m talking to Darren and Brad. And I’m also trying to respond honestly to the way I’m watching this match and what I’m seeing, thinking and feeling. I can go a little overboard sometimes with the “oohs and aahs” but that’s the way I feel.
TN: You were instrumental in forming the ATP, you were a co-founder and first president of the ATP. What do you make of the current ATP politics? With Justin Gimelstob resigning from the board, Chris Kermode’s contract not renewed, Roger and Rafa now rejoining Novak on the player council. What is the state of ATP politics in your view? Where is it going?
Cliff Drysdale: I think you always have to examine the details of the sport. I think prize-money distribution is crazy. I don’t think you should double up every time you win a match. I think it should be much closer to golf. I mean the winner of the Masters doesn’t make double what the number two player at the Masters makes. And I think that model should become very much more (prevalent) in what they do here.
It’s not only about prize money. It’s about the basic structure of the Tour, which I think Novak Djokovic has got an issue with. And I think he would rather that things go in the way of a real union where you are not part owners of the Tour.
TN: Isn’t that what you originally tried to do creating the ATP? Is that accurate?
Cliff Drysdale: Uhm, we just wanted to have a say. We were happy with what was called the Men’s International Professional Tennis Council and we had three (representative votes) and the ITF had three and the tournament directors had three. And we would vote on issues like where the tournaments were going, what kind of prize money there would be, etc. But there is a very good case for saying unlike the PGA Tour where they also own the tour basically that they should become a legitimate union. I mean, there is a case to be made for that.
TN: If I’m reading Novak correctly, what he’s basically saying is the current structure itself is flawed or broken in that anytime there’s a deadlock between the player side and the tournament side you have Chris Kermode, or whoever is CEO, casting the deciding vote for the tournament side, then that’s an issue of structure which he feels they have to address to move forward.
Cliff Drysdale: That is what he’s saying. I don’t understand why Kermode would go with the tournament directors when his salary is being paid by the ATP. I’m not familiar with all the intricacies of where they’re at right now. But I do understand the general picture of what they’re talking about. I don’t think it hurts anything. There is another direction where it could go where certain events would like to be two-week events just like the majors.
TN: Like Madrid, Indian Wells, Miami?
Cliff Drysdale: Exactly. Now they can’t do that now. Their hands are tied with the Tour. So can you envision a new Tour where instead of just four two-week majors, there would be six or seven or even eight? Instead of the Super Nine events as we used to call the Masters Series events. Now that would be radical change. But it’s certainly something that could be open for discussion.
I don’t know whether it is or not, but I could see where that could be a major format option. Because now tennis is starting to think in terms of different formats. Like the ATP World Team Cup in Australia, which I think is gonna be a huge success.
I think the game and the ITF need to re-think this format for the Davis Cup. I’m not sure that they’ve got the right formula for this Davis Cup now. And then you’ve got the Laver Cup. In other words, you’ve got different avenues for presenting the sport in the modern world that are definitely worth discussing. Because we had the Super Nine two decades ago but that’s not necessarily the same format we should continue.
TN: Just to pick up on your point. You’re not saying there would be six or seven or eight Grand Slams. You’re saying expand those mega Masters events to two weeks and elevate the prize money, draws and status to major level but not make it an actual Grand Slam? Because you can’t really add new Grand Slams right?
Cliff Drysdale: No, you cannot. I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying status wise. As you said, if you have the same prize money and the same format with a 128-draw in both fields would be something. But you’re never going to change Wimbledon or the US Open from their Grand Slam status.
In fact the thing that aggravated me over the years was at a certain time Slams were not supporting the rest of the Tour sufficiently. They are now, but they were not. Because they didn’t realize if you support players and events and they become successful world wide it does nothing to hinder those at the top because they will always be at the top. It helps them grow. Look, it’s pure speculation on my side.
TN: Last question: You were one of the first Hall of Famers I heard touting Roger Federer as the Greatest of All Time—and this was early on when he didn’t have double-digit Slams yet. Where do you stand on the GOAT now? Do you still believe Roger is the GOAT? Do you see Rafa or Novak or both breaking Roger’s record of 20 Slams? Or do you stand by what you told me many years ago: That Federer is the greatest you’ve ever seen?
Cliff Drysdale: I still think Roger is the greatest of all time. In terms of most complete game, yes I do think that. To me, what detracted a little bit from Rafa was 12 of his 18 are on one surface…
TN: You could say the same about Sampras…
Cliff Drysdale: You could say that about him too, but Sampras is not in that discussion anymore. This is certainly the greatest era, for sure. The fact the three of them have divided the spoils for as long as they have is staggering to be honest with you.
We only have one of the Big 3 left here and I have the sense—and we’ve been saying this for a decade now—that this is the beginning of the end. But this may be the beginning of the end. Because look we’ve got some seriously talented young players, who are really beginning to believe that they can compete with and beat those guys. So that’s very exciting.