James Blake is fed up with the French Open. How else to explain his reaction yesterday after losing his second-round match to Ernests Gulbis, a hard-hitting up-and-comer from Latvia who is no better suited to the slow clay of Roland Garros than Blake?

“I think I played the way too many commentators think I should play,” Blake said, remarking on his noticeable lack of aggression. “There are a lot of guys out there that can dictate play against me if I try to play like that.”

I’m surprised to hear that Blake would follow the advice of a commentator, but now that I know he’s in the mood to listen, I’ll offer a modest proposal. When time comes next year for the French Open, don’t go.

I’m not joking. Last season, the 28-year-old Blake was one of nine American men to lose in the first round in Paris. This year, he lost in the second round. He’s never won more than two matches at Roland Garros and has a 6-6 career record there. With results like that, why bother? Blake ought to skip the rest of the clay-court season, too. As it is, he usually plays in Houston, which doesn’t offer many ranking points, and Rome, where he usually doesn’t win many matches. He hasn’t played in Monte Carlo since 2003 and has a terrible record in Hamburg, and neither of those events will have the same stature next year, unless Hamburg’s lawsuit against the ATP Tour disrupts the tour’s plan to tweak the schedule. Blake gained a grand total of 250 ranking points on clay this year after reaching the final of Houston, winning two matches in Rome, and losing his first match in both Barcelona and Hamburg.

Blake will be 29 years old at the end of the year. His clay-court results are not going to improve. If he skips the clay-court season, he could more than make up for the lost points at other tournaments. In fact, he’d probably earn more points. Blake usually plays a few American hard court tournaments after the Australian Open, but he’s never been to Dubai, a tournament that attracts top players with suitcases full of cash. Why not go full out and play in Delray Beach, Fla., San Jose, Calif., Memphis, and Dubai, followed by the two large hard-court tournaments in Indian Wells, Calif., and Key Biscayne, Fla.? It’s a packed schedule, but after that Blake could rest for three weeks and then begin to train on grass.

About now, alert readers of this column might be thinking, “Blake hasn’t done much better on grass than clay.” True. At Wimbledon, he’s never won more than two matches (same as the French Open). But it’s clear why Blake isn’t a great, or even a better than average, clay-court player. Yes, he’s fast, which is useful on clay — useful, that is, if you’re the sort of player who doesn’t make a lot of mistakes. Blake isn’t that sort of player. As his comments after yesterday’s match show, he doesn’t want to be that sort of player. It’s not his style. He likes to go for broke and well he should (he’s good at it). He likes to take full swings at service returns. He likes to clobber backhands down the line on the run. Grass rewards that abandon and it’s surprising to me that Blake has never had a decent performance at Wimbledon. His serve can be spotty at times, but it’s more than adequate. He’s not a bad volleyer, either. With a lot more practice on grass, and a lot less confidence-sapping frustration on clay, he might do a lot better at Wimbledon and at the few grass tournaments leading up to it. In 2006, Blake reached the final of the Queen’s Club event in London. He beat Andy Roddick in the semifinals before losing to Lleyton Hewitt, an expert grass-court player and former Wimbledon champion. Blake has never beaten an opponent of that quality on clay, and chances are he never will.

In tennis these days, skipping seasons is uncommon. Clay-court players used to do it all the time, but nowadays, most everyone is playing the same way on all surfaces. The best three players in the world, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic, are the best three players on any surface. Blake is something of a throwback in that his game just doesn’t translate to one of the major surfaces. There’s no shame in admitting it. That’s essentially what Andre Agassi, the French Open champion in 1999 at age 29, did when he decided to skip the 2006 French Open in favor of a final visit to Wimbledon.

In 2004 and 2005, Agassi lost in the first round at Roland Garros. He couldn’t move like he once did and he couldn’t last as long in rallies. There wasn’t any point in returning to Paris for a final goodbye, not when he could perhaps have a longer goodbye at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Blake isn’t in Agassi’s class of player, which is no insult, few players are. But that shouldn’t cause him to hold onto dreams of doing well in Paris in the future. The older Blake gets, the better off he’ll be picking his spots and trying to win tournaments where his aggressive game works best. Say your goodbyes to Paris, James, and never return. You won’t be sorry.

***

Roger Federer got off to a rough start yesterday before easily advancing to the third round with a 6-7(5), 6-1, 6-0, 6-4 victory over Albert Montanes. Rafael Nadal, playing for a second consecutive day, also won easily. Nadal will play for a third straight day today, and against his third straight left-hander (Jarkko Nieminen). There’s a chance Nadal will play a fourth consecutive lefty in the fourth round. On the women’s side, darkness prevented Maria Sharapova and American Bethanie Mattek from completing their match. Third seed Jelena Jankovic advanced despite a sore shoulder and Venus Williams easily moved into the third round.

Mr. Perrotta is a senior editor at Tennis magazine. He can be reached at tperrotta@ tennismagazine.com.