Shake and Blake

James Blake should have been the Tiger Woods of men's tennis. But he's not as irascible. He's a bit too good looking. And he's not nearly as supremely talented.

Having said that, I've seen him play a few times recently, and he's got enough speed and power that when he's on his game, he can be tough to beat. But, as good as he is, enough to be a top ten player, he can't even touch Roger Federer, who basically has Blake's number. Blake never seems like he can win against Federer.

And partly because of that, no one much cares about James Blake. Which is too bad, because for a variety of reasons, he should be the kind of guy that promoters ought to love. Yet, because men's tennis is basically the Rafa and Roger show, and even Andy Roddick steals a bit of James's thunder, James Blake has been relegated to the pretty good, but not great player, which, in tennis, in the US, is nothing.

This is how much American care about winners. Heck, Indians, who haven't had a really good singles players in years, follow tennis far more than Americans, who follow football and basketball and sometimes baseball religiously, but no sport that has competitors active from outside North America (the NBA, to its credit, and the MLB, to its, have attracted players from around the world, but the fact is the teams are in the US, and sometimes Canada).

One of these days, maybe more Americans will follow a sport where the best players aren't American.

But don't count on it.