'They play to learn, not teach': Shifting British attitudes to American tennis players around the turn of the 20th century

British attitudes toward athletes of other nations in the late-Victorian era tended to reflect an attitude of parochialism, conservatism and deep-seated arrogance indicative of broader imperial dominance. Tennis was no exception, as opinions of American players in particular tended to posit unequivocal British dominance, both on the court and off, administratively. For their part, the leading American players and officials in the 1880s adopted a mindset of seeking out the British as competitors to improve themselves, thus suggesting general agreement with this narrative. The United States National Lawn Tennis Association (USNLTA) worked tirelessly throughout the 1880s and 90s to tempt the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) of Britain to send players to the States and/or organize official matches between the two nations, but the British appeared untroubled with such concerns as indicative generally in their laissez faire approach to organizing international competitions against nations they considered inferior—both competitively and socially in some cases. Leading American players such as James Dwight and Richard Sears had travelled east on numerous occasions, but the British were not fussed about a reciprocal arrangement. A shift gradually occurred, however, beginning in the mid/late-1890s, when leading British players travelling west on unofficial tours and often struggled to compete with the Americans when playing “across the pond”. The rise of American prowess was also reinforced in early Davis Cup competitions, when Britain’s more relaxed – and strictly amateur – competitive approach was found wanting, much like it did in rowing and sailing at the time and at the 1908 Olympics in London. Set in the context of shifting relations in broader political and economic domains, the rise of American tennis and the shifting attitudes toward both American and British approaches, from the other, is discussed. Personal correspondence between the leading players alongside media narratives during this period, expressed in the leading British and American newspapers and sports magazines, are critically analyzed to gain a sense of how early opinions were tainted with hyperbole and exaggerated notions of differences in “national character”.