Is there another sport as epic, as dramatic as tennis?
A couple of weeks ago, as I was walking on the footpath, I came in front of a ladder that was propped against one of the stores on the side. A man standing on one of the upper rungs was painting over some existing signage, but he isn’t the point of this story. My path would have taken me under the ladder, but just as I neared it I stopped and corrected my course. I went around it. I surprised myself by doing what I did, but I didn’t give it much thought until last Sunday, when I followed the French Open men’s finals without actually seeing it. My cable-TV provider didn’t have the channel that was telecasting the match live, so I opened a new tab on a browser to check what was happening. Novak Djokovic had won the first set, 6-3. Rafael Nadal had won the second set, 7-5, and was leading 3-0 in the third. At the utterly random point that I chose to follow the match, Nadal was leading. I didn’t dare close the browser tab. He won.
Had I closed the tab, or had I typed another URL and gone elsewhere, would he have lost? I don’t know, just as I don’t know what would have happened had I walked under that ladder. But some thoughts are beyond logic, beyond common sense – they bubble up from the most atavistic part of the brain. And the French Open is the most atavistic of the Majors. It even sounds primitive, Roland Garros, with those guttural r’s. Say it out loud and it’s a roar, a Mel Gibson war cry. In contrast, Wimbledon, however emphatically you pronounce it, sounds like the venue of a knitting convention. And then there’s the surface – not manicured grass, reminding us of picnics and civilisation; not some synthetic surface, reminding us of the terrain in an unimpressively designed videogame; but angry-looking red clay, which reminds us of the surface of Mars from all those sci-fi movies. It’s unearthly. Roger Federer, when asked about the toughest surface to play, picked clay. He said the clay reacts to the weather – when it’s hot, the ball jumps up like crazy; when it rains, it bounces low but it’s extremely slow. What he’s saying is that it’s practically a living organism. It’s hostile. It’s out to get you.
And so the matches come to feel epic. This isn’t just about X battling Y but about X battling Y and the elements: the heat, the wind, the clay. But then, there’s always been something gladiatorial about tennis. An enclosed arena. A lusty, cheering crowd. X and Y going at each other with grunts, feeling the pressure, lunging wildly from side to side as if to avoid being felled by a medieval weapon. There’s a reason the winner usually ends up weeping, as if he hasn’t just conquered a rival but conquered death. Cricket is less primal, more collaborative – it’s not X versus Y, but X’s team versus Y’s team. It’s all so gentlemanly. They even come out in turns. Football is wilder, and its rabid fans are certainly from Mars – but again, they bay for the blood of teams, not individuals. And other one-on-one ball games just don’t measure up. I’m sorry if you’re a table tennis fan, but with that tiny ball, that tiny bat, that tiny net, doesn’t it feel like the sporting world’s equivalent of an architect’s model? What about badminton, you ask? It’s two grown-ups knocking about a bunch of feathers, for crying out loud. Squash, though, does come close. It has the grunt factor. But no sport that unfolds in a glorified aquarium can hope to arouse fierce passions.
Without passion, there is no drama – and that, really, is the whole point of tennis. There isn’t another sport that hews, to this extent, to the elements of theatre. Well, golf or chess maybe, if you worship Beckett. (The glazed viewer is waiting… waiting… waiting… go do it!) Tennis, on the other hand, has the thundering declamations across the net, the pauses, the back-and-forth conversations, the breaks between acts, the asides, the unceasing thrust and parry, the character development, the constant change of scenery (unlike, say, cricket, where the pitch is always green), and the acknowledgement of an audience that heckles and cheers. Plus, there’s plot and conflict, not just in the individual matches but in the thrilling trajectories of long-standing rivalries. That’s why we keep coming back – because every time we sit down for a tennis match, the stars come out of their dressing rooms and give us more drama. Roger Federer in The Lion in Winter. Novak Djokovic’s revival of The Iceman Cometh. And of course, the smash of the season, Rafael Nadal in The Miracle Worker.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Madan
June 14, 2014
Great aricle. Boxing is pretty theatrical and gladiatorial as well. Tennis is sometimes compared to boxing because it also pits individuals against each other in an arena. However, boxing lacks (imo) the tactical intrigue of tennis (on the other hand, it is much more physical). It’s interesting, by the way, that the king of grass would call clay the toughest surface. There is certainly an epic quality to intense clay court clashes, especially the last three times that Djoko and Nadal played each other at RG (the hard court epics on the other hand get a bit tedious because of the consistency of the surface). Grass is faster, sharper and more unpredictable and wild cards and dark horses are more likely to stage upsets. There’s been mayhem at Queens and Halle, for those who follow tennis beyond the Slams.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
June 14, 2014
brangan, that was terrific. and quite an unusual surprise from you.tennis is my favorite sport and i feel theres nothing like it and your gladiatorial analogy was spot on. .Roger federer is my favorite player and yeah he’s become sort of like a Lion in winter. But shouldnt he also be the Iceman .I have never seen a more cool controlled player on the court . Djokovic is more of a Raging bull.
LikeLike
Anuja
June 14, 2014
That was superb BR! I adore tennis – it is such a glorious sport. What draws people to the sport is the raw volatile emotions on display in an increasingly blase and cynical world. These guys are fighters, no wonder there is nothing sexier than a tennis player and there is no tennis player hotter than Rafa with the possible exception of Lleyton Hewitt (He had such a ballsy attitude and played every point as though his life depended on it). Those speed demons at F1 are comparable at least, they were in the times of Senna, Proust, Hunt, and Lauda. Now it is like watching an adrenaline – fuelled version of “Here we go round the mulberry bush” and those damn helmets ruin everything!
FYI BR, Federer is no lion. In fact he is not even human. The thing is a creepy version of the terminator, bankrolled by the Swiss (STEREOTYPE ALERT!) who wanted desperately to prove to the world that they can do more than count money and make wicked chocolate and watches. The thing can also win wars for them! Sssh…
LikeLike
Gradwolf
June 14, 2014
Oh no I fear a Fed-Nadal thread now.
Superb write up, actually wish it was longer! Agree with Madan, and no one is objective on these counts but always thought grass was the more unpredictable surface (wrt play and quality of game) though all that is a thing of the past. There was a time when a random person would come win French Open and then disappear. Now we have people struggling to make the switch from clay to grass and that’s probably the reason for mayhem at Queens and Halle. Well, at least Federer is into the finals!
LikeLike
Vishakha
June 15, 2014
From rajni vs kamal to rafa vs roger ?????
LikeLike
MN MURTHY
June 15, 2014
Dear BR, Another offbeat writing and a break from our pop-corn-munching-sport 😛
As i have not volleyed a tennis ball with a racquet ever, i fear if i qualify to comment on it. But having played Cricket, Football and Chess more frenziedly than the game themselves allow. I have these to say:
Individual sports and a game of teams are never the same. If tennis works for you, it will be chess for someone. If Football works for me, it is the Kabaddi for my friends in Vellore District.
But beyond its magic and drama, it is the Football with its demand for strength, speed, athleticism, endurance and craziness, that make it the best amongst all. Well, this has got nothing to do with the ongoing Fifa-Fever.
I have grown under the umbrella of awesome friends who are 1930s-1940s born; I have been an audience of their heated arguments over the grace of Stefan Edberg and the brilliance of John McEnroe or the scintillating Jimmy Connors. Must know:Connors–McEnroe Rivalry And also about Bobby Fisher and Boris Spasky. (Must read:1972 World Chess Championship) Even with them it is Football all the way for the very spirit it imbibes, and they way it reflects life.
Alternatively ESPN has a interesting debate with an interesting results – ESPN:What’s the toughest sport of all?
Cheers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bala
June 15, 2014
@Baradwaj: When did you start watching tennis btw ? I think my first match was the final moments of Sabatini vs Graf but the first match I ever followed comprehending what was happening on court was a Jim Courier vs Mc.Enroe match on clay (don’t remember if it was the French open) with my aunt. And purely because that was the first match I saw, I became a Courier fan (later on a Becker fan due to my dad’s influence) with steadily diminishing returns. For some reason the image I have from those days is of a sweaty Brugera/ Kuerten, white clothes turned red, returning ball after ball with metronomic precision but at no point aiming to actually force a point (Brugera at least). I will be honest, I found tennis on clay very, very boring in those days. Well, except for the 1993 Davis Cup match between India vs France in Frejus. What a contest that was ! Paes defeating Henri Leconte and Ramesh defeating Gilbert. Phew. What a setting.That was gladiatorial indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 15, 2014
Grass is more unpredictable because somebody with a big serve and the boldness to just go for his shots can still send seeds tumbling (Rosol/Stakhovsky/Brown/Lopez etc). As I said, points can get over very quickly if one of the two guys is in a poor court position or makes the slightest error of judgment. On clay, the slow surface neutralises these aspects and allows the player with the stronger defence to get back into points/matches. In the 90s, RG appeared to be unpredictable because there were a bunch of clay court specialists vying for the title and who, largely, did not enjoy much success on grass/hard court. But the noughties have evoked the 70s or 80s with domination by one player from among the top guys or a couple or more at best. Meanwhile, 2013 Wimbledon and Queens/Halle this year have been more like the grass court tournaments of old unlike the stability of the last few years. Say when Kevin Curren got to the finals in 1985, beating McEnroe and Connors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vasisht Das
June 15, 2014
yennathu?
“The glazed viewer is waiting… waiting… waiting… go do it!”-aa?
doctor, neenga rombavey voverraa risk edukkareenga!
like this:
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
June 16, 2014
Brother Das: Tennis padathile panchayat scene irukkumo?
LikeLike
Rajesh
June 16, 2014
Is there another sport as epic, as dramatic as tennis?
– Of course, there is, and that is the beautiful game, Football.
LikeLike
anup gorinka
June 16, 2014
Well written article . True . Tennis is indeed the most beautiful sport to watch . The rivalries , the constant change in settings in a year and the contrasting styles of the games of the present breed of tennis stars is all one could ask for from tennis. Love the game . Btw huge fan of Federer . Go get your 8 th title at Wimbledon .
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 17, 2014
And a great title for the article. One of the best in recent times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ramitbajaj01
June 17, 2014
I would rather like to move on from the atavistic instincts. So French open is my preference no. 4. 1st is Wimbledon. It’s more culturally guarded. Strawberries- creams, white dress, Sunday off, ban of practice on center court, fast surface, more chances of serve-volley shots, sophisticated audience, national loss/hope, everything so attracts me to it. I was the one who cheered when it was suggested to use blue clay in Paris. Red does turn some off. Hard courts too look beautiful. I also dislike nadal’s atavistic urges to itch his back/leg/nose. Federer in comparison is so sophisticated. His grace, cool attitude is such a pleasure to watch. I feel amazed when he sometimes doesn’t go after side shots for he says poise while making shots is more important than winning the point. My respect for him further increases when even at break points, he would experiment with his shots or go for a perfect slice. He would complete the follow through before making a run for another shot. What a respect for the game! Nadal and Djoko on the other hand always appear in a hurry. It could be benefitting them, but it takes some fun away from watching the game. Djoko at least has a funny side to him, so I can at times root for him, but Nadal hardly behaves like a mature champ. He always plays negative. His constant denial of his stardom looks sometimes kiddish. His petty games during interviews is repelling. Murray’s game is also fine to behold especially when there is a full force of a nation behind every shot.
btw, i sense that this article is perhaps written keeping in mind a few close friends. And by denigrating other sports/courts, u r trying to invoke some feelings or testing readers’ tolerance. It’s nice, but I think it somehow undermines ur credibility. Disliking one/two things is fine, but taking a dig at every thing is not healthy i believe, especially if it is done to highlight how good one thing is or for the sake of an essay’s flow. Regarding latter, I have felt many times that flow of ur essay is dearer to you than the justice to the subject. (i am talking abt reviews)
LikeLike
brangan
June 18, 2014
Vishakha: Where are you getting a “versus” feel in this piece?
bala: It was an on and off thing because matches in the 80s were rarely telecast live. Early memories are a blur of Sabatini/Graf, Evert/Navratilova, Becker, Courier, Connors, Borg/McEnroe… I’m sure a lot of these matches were re-runs… But one vivid memory is that of Pat Cash’s climb up the stands…
ramitbajaj01: This is a light piece, meant for Sunday reading. The intent was to evoke a chuckle or two, and certainly not go about “denigrating other sports/court…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Padawan
June 18, 2014
Just found this online.
Nice. But, could not locate Part I, any chance, you might have the links to it?
Also, yoga? 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
MN MURTHY
June 19, 2014
@Padawan : Here’s the link to Part I
→it is brief, but it’s BR’s introduction scene without the title song though← 😉
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan
June 21, 2014
@ padawan. That was great! Thanks..
LikeLike
Jai
June 21, 2014
@ Ramitbajaj
Am a major tennis freak, and a fan of the ‘Big 3’–Fed, Rafa and Djoko (IMO, Murray isn’t up there with them, at least as yet.) Some points of yours I completely agree with, others I was left rather puzzled with.
I agree with you that Fed’s game is easily the most elegant and stylish–a joy to watch. When he was at his peak, he did not seem to be so much playing tennis, as he was practicing the art of the game–he made it all seem so effortless.
But there is a different kind of beauty, a savage one if you will, in Nadal’s game isn’t there? The tenacious retrieving, the gladiator like determination to win? One can make music with a trombone as well as with a violin, you know. Djoko’s athleticism and court coverage are great to watch, too.
“Nadal and Djoko on the other hand always appear in a hurry.”
Actually, No. Both of them have (with some justification, I might add) been accused of slowing down the pace of play by taking too long between points. In fact, Fed has been quite vocal to complain about this (especially when he was losing) 😉 😉
I also remember a statistic, from a Fed–Rafa match a few years back, about how Fed was more successful in the shorter rallies and was therefore trying to finish the points fast, rather than get into extended baseline rallies with Rafa.
When you say about Nadal, “His petty games during interviews is repelling.”, Well, Fed has been extremely petulant after losing, several times. For all his sophistication and grace, his remarks after losing the 2011 USO Semi against Nole (griping about lucky shots!!) and further back, after losing the FABULOUS 2008 Wimby final (blaming loss on poor light!!), reflected poorly on his sportsmanship.
No one’s pitch perfect in their reactions/ attitude all the time–None of the Big 3 are. But I respect them for their game, all I’m trying to say is, if we start singling out one of them for the occasional immature/petty attitude, there is enough ammo to hit all of them with, including Fed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 21, 2014
Djoko is a brilliant strategist. He has the most versatile game of the top four and, especially, can hit backhands from and to virtually any ;part of the court. His first set at this year’s final was incredible because he wasn’t so much outhitting Nadal as outthinking him. Pity he couldn’t sustain the momentum and seemed to wilt under the heat thereafter. There is some strange popular perception that Djoko is just a Nadal-clone and he is anything but. I am sure with the passage of time he will be remembered as a great player in his own right. However, this year, I am rooting for younger blood, namely Dimitrov who played exceptionally well and overcame inexperience to overcome some masterful serve and volley from Lopez. Lopez didn’t help his cause by losing his nerve whenever he neared the prize but that’s another story.
LikeLike
Anuja
June 22, 2014
Jai you made some great points!! Totally agree with you. Fed and Rafa are legends and Nole is getting there. None of them are fans of losing and they take defeat hard, so a tsp of pettiness does not reflect too poorly on any of them. I’ll never forget the time Rafa destroyed Fed in a grand slam final and temporarily thwarted his career grand slam bid. Fed dissolved in tears and Rafa went and consoled him before celebrating his big moment. Later in his speech, he said that Fed will break every record there is because he is the best. After his recent French Open triumph, he spoke encouraging words to Nole as well. Now that is magnanimity and the heart of a true champion!
Fed when programmed right is not too bad either, and I remember him telling him Andy Murray after creaming him in a Wimbledon final, urged him to dry the tears as he was too good not to win a grand slam. Aren’t those tennis players sweet?
LikeLike
Jai
June 23, 2014
@ Madan “There is some strange popular perception that Djoko is just a Nadal-clone and he is anything but.”
Agree on this. My two cents for this perception is, that when the Nadal–Djoko rivalry started really gathering steam, and at least in number of meetings, closely contested H to H, started outstripping the Nadal–Federer rivalry, there was a kind of undercutting of Djoko— Nadal’s matchups as a reaction.
Completely unnecessary, if you ask me. Of course, The Nadal–Federer rivalry is in a league of its own, the sheer contrast in playing styles made it beyond compare, a joy to watch. The finals of Wimbledon 2007 & 2008, and the AO in 2009 have justly earned their place on the Classics list.
But, as you mentioned, it is not that Djoko–Nadal matchups are ‘boring’ or bring the same style on both sides of the net. Though both are baseline players for the most part, there is a difference in playing styles. The AO final 2012 was just a fabulous contest, the sheer determination and grit they both showed, apart from the largely stellar quality of play, made it a match for the ages.
Another possible reason for this ‘Djoko is Nadal’s clone’ perception is the lengthy, almost punishing rallies their matchups have had (2012 AO final, 2013 French semi). There were several rallies of 20 strokes plus, some even touching 30 as I recall. I have had some friends cribbing that this makes the matches ‘boring’. I find this fallacious, I would rather think it makes for compelling, electrifying theatre, to see two players going for broke, covering the court, testing each other to the very limit.
Anuja : “Fed and Rafa are legends and Nole is getting there.”
Very true, I used to be very skeptical of Nole’s attitude during big matches, he was so talented but always seemed to underperform/ choke at the crucial stages in 2006–2010 (even after his first AO win). But those 2 USO semi wins (2010, 2011) against Fed proved his mettle and then of course his fabulous 2011–2012 run. He seems to have regressed somewhat from there though, his endurance again coming into question. Wonder how much of ‘big match belief’ that 2013 French Open semi final loss took from him?
He has had some extremely mystifying losses, the 2012 USO and 2013 Wimbledon finals were very surprising–the results of course, but more so, the way he succumbed to pressure. Seemed to be a bit of a blowback to the earlier, ‘Beta version’ Nole. Hope he snaps out of it soon.
Looking forward to some great matches on July 4th and July 6th this wimbledon. Let’s see what we get!
LikeLike
Madan
June 24, 2014
Interesting theory that perhaps Djoko lost some confidence after the RG 2013 loss because he hasn’t won a slam after Aus Open 2013. Yeah, let’s see if he can rebound at SW19.
LikeLike