A Common Fan’s Sports Diary

Even the great Michael Phelps can't master all the swimming events - there are so many of them

One of the great sporting discussions of our times is to compare Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. This discussion inevitably spills over into a comparison of the sport of golf with tennis – so as to understand how the feats in one sport compare with another.

Someone who has a decent knowledge of both sports can make a reasonable comparison but most people don’t and that leads to some vague assessments

A lot of Federer supporters claim that the Swiss has now won majors on all surfaces whereas Tiger hasn’t won on all the golf courses that he’s played on.

Another often heard argument is that Fedex usually ends up in the top 4 or top 2 of any tournament that he plays but Tiger often ends up way down the leader board.

Anyone who knows both sports will tell you that comparisons between them are not so straightforward.

I have often tried to explain the same to people; reasoning that the two sports require vastly different levels of versatility. Mostly I have not managed to get my point across for lack of a good analogy.

Finally I think I have a decent one.

Golf is like the sport of swimming. There are four different styles and races involve different distances. There are races which even involve a combination of all the four styles. All combine to create more than 20 events with a different challenge for each race. Fundamentally you are doing the same thing (swimming) in each race but each one of them requires a different kind of physical conditioning, training, preparation and tactics. There is no one who has managed to master every kind of race over his or her lifetime.  The greatest of them all, Michael Phelps, has managed to win six individual events at one event. If we wanted to and gave it his all, he could master any race but thanks to the time and effort it will take, he won’t be able to master all of them in a single life.  It is impossible and that is how it will forever be.

Tiger Woods could also master any golf course if he wanted to – he could make alterations in his game and gain familiarity for the course through regular practise. But to master all of them, it will take more than one life.

Scherbo and Federer mastered every challenge that their sport had to offer

Tennis on the other hand is like gymnastics. There are six routines and then there is the all round event. Again the basic requirements for all are the same but each is different in terms of the preparation, practise and planning it takes achieve mastery over it. But the fact that there are only six of them ensures that a really talented gymnast can master all of them. Vitaly Scherbo won a world or an Olympic title in each of the six events and won the all round too. It’s not easy and it takes a special talent but it can be done.

Roger Federer has also done a Scherbo, winning major titles on every surface. But like the gymnast he too had a lesser challenge in terms of the number of variables he needed to master.

Vitaly Scherbo’s complete mastery over gymnastics doesn’t make him a greater champion than Michael Phelps, who hasn’t conquered everything in swimming.  And that is exactly what we need to understand whenever we are engaged in a Federer- Woods discussion.

A lot of people seem to think so, including Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras.

But if being the winner of the maximum number of grand slam titles was the criterion of all time greatness, then Margret Court Smith should be the greatest women’s player of all time. And we all know that she is not even guaranteed a position in the top five.

If being the winner of the maximum number of grand slam titles coupled with the distinction of having completed a career grand slam puts Federer above the likes of Sampras and Laver, then why wasn’t Roy Emerson anointed as the greatest player of all time when he held the same distinction; he happened to complete the career grand slam twice and held the distinction of having won the maximum number of titles for a long time.

Federer’s case is also weakened by the standard of competition in his era. His only contemporary who will qualify as an all time great is Rafael Nadal. The likes of Sampras, Laver and Borg had to compete against a larger group of well accomplished adversaries.
And the clincher against Federer is his haplessness against Rafael Nadal. No other claimant to the title of ‘greatest player of all time’ has been subject to such humiliation at the hands of a fellow player as has Federer against Nadal. Sampras and Laver had positive records against all their peers.

This fallibility becomes all the more important in judging Roger’s greatness because Nadal is the only great player whose career overlaps significantly with that of Federer.

The title of best men’s tennis player of all time is still open to debate. Roger has a strong case but his imperfections are significant enough to delay his coronation.

Doesn't this rivalry look similar to the one below. If not for the stabbing there would have been crying at some point.

Luckily for Nadal, there's no lunatic like Parche to end Federer's misery

Guess which tennis players we are talking about

A sublime and graceful champion with a complete stranglehold on the game, worthy of being called the greatest ever. Was most dominant on the Wimbledon grass and most uncomfortable on the Parisian red clay. Ended the Wimbledon reign of the player with the maximum All-England titles. Blessed with an all-round game based on a splendid forehand and a practitioner of the single-handed backhand.

The player’s reign at the top was ended by a feisty baseliner with a double handed backhand -someone who had become a French Open champion while still a teenager. The two players had a storied rivalry giving tennis fans many memorable matches. The old champion held sway on grass whereas the new one was at their best on clay and getting better on grass. The younger player seemed to have his celebrated opponent’s number, enjoying a substantial edge in their rivalry. A lot of it had to do with the player’s supreme mental strength. The older champion, having conquered everything before running into the young conqueror, was almost driven to despair by his repeated failures.

Current tennis fans would identify the players as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. But go back to the early nineties and the story will remind you of Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. Although it has never been mentioned or written about, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the two rivalries are remarkably similar in almost every aspect.

The players seem to have followed almost the same career paths. They share the same strengths and weaknesses and had comparable playing styles. And to add to that their rivalries followed identical paths. The first one started with Seles’ win over Graf at the 1990 French Open – Similar to the way Nadal and Federer kicked off at the 2005 French Open. Seles first established herself as the queen of clay before she conquered the hard courts. While Graf continued to dominate the former Yugoslavian on grass, Seles was improving rapidly on her least favourite surface, making the finals in 1992.

The Fedex-Rafa rivalry has also played out similarly. Nadal has gone on from the 2005 triumph at Paris to become arguably the best player on clay, ever. He has also improved by leaps and bounds on other surfaces and holds grand slam titles on three surfaces at the time of writing. Roger dominated him on grass initially but Nadal improved enough to break through that bastion as well –winning Wimbledon in 2008.

Seles had a vice like grip over Graf, grinding her into submission time and time again. Rafa enjoys the same dominance over Federer. He plays memorable matches with the Swiss where he almost always comes out on top, thanks to his indomitable spirit. Both Steffi Graf and Roger Federer seemed totally powerless against an opponent who had fewer tennis gifts but far more in terms of desire. Both rivalries came down to a battle of the mind and each time the older player crumbled in the face of their relentless rival.

In addition to the mental warfare, there is another key common component to both rivalries. It is the fact that Seles and Nadal were both left handed and had double handed backhands. On the other hand, Graf and Federer were righties who employed a single handed backhand. To understand the full implication of this dynamic, please read Paul Fein’s brilliant analysis of the same in the Sportstar (the second week issue of February 2009).

Although Fein is referring just to Federer and Nadal, his arguments are universal and holds true for the Seles –Graf rivalry as well. In brief, Fein proves that a left hander enjoys an inherent advantage over a righty when serving and receiving serve. More importantly, he disproves the long held notion that the lack of power in the single handed backhanded is compensated for by its better reach. He also argues and proves through examples that the single handed backhand is less reliable and more prone to errors, especially when under pressure. That is primarily the reason why Federer’s game has often cracked in key situations whereas Nadal’s has held firm. In another time, the same paradigm would have explained why Seles made fewer errors to regularly beat Steffi Graf.

With so much in common it is difficult to understand why no one pointed out the obvious similarities?

One possible reason could be the fact that the first rivalry was cut short by Gunther Parche. The stabbing in Hamburg changed the trajectory of the Seles – Graf rivalry and it never played out in full. Monica was never the same player again and Steffi Graf re-established herself as the undisputed number one player in the world. Because of its short duration, Seles-Graf is not even mentioned as one of the great tennis rivalries. The lasting memory is the stabbing and the tennis that preceded it is generally a blur. Had it lasted for two more years, then things would have been very different. Comparing the Graf-Seles rivalry with Federer -Nadal would have been far more obvious.

John McEnroe turned 50 last week and it’s time to pay him a little tribute

But we aren’t going to talk about how; arguably, he was the most talented tennis player of all time – although his record of just 7 grand slam singles titles really doesn’t position him as one. He had the most amazing single season performance in living memory when he went 82-3 in 1982 and that is the best indicator of what he was capable of.

We will also resist the temptation of indulging in the ‘super brat’ talk – McEnroe’s got enough flak for his on-court misdemeanours.

On this day, we will celebrate the most patriotic of American tennis players – the man who is single-handedly responsible for saving the Davis Cup in the United States.

McEnroe's favourite moment from his favourite tournament

When McEnroe burst upon the scene in the late 70’s, US interest in the Davis Cup was at an all-time low. Top players like Jimmy Connors had shunned the Davis Cup to pursue more lucrative interests – and without its best players the United States was struggling. McEnroe took it upon himself to keep the Star and Stripes flying – a job he did with great distinction – playing an active role in 5 title triumphs from 1978 to 1992.

McEnroe’s tour record is inferior to the likes of Sampras and Agassi but no American can touch him when it comes to Davis Cup. He holds all the records – years played (12), ties (30), singles wins (41), and total wins in singles and doubles (59). And then there are the tales of legend – like the 6-hour, 22-minute victory over Mats Wilander in the deciding rubber of the 3–2 quarterfinal win over Sweden in 1982.

What makes McEnroe’s dedication to the team cause – a cause which did nothing for his singles ranking, all the more impressive is the time in which it took place – a time when the professional game was really expanding, bringing more and more money into it. As a New Yorker, he should have been more individualistic than the other Americans. Instead he chose to balance his New Yorker persona by embracing the un-American (as far as professional sports go) ethos of team and national pride.

McEnroe was lucky to come in contact with coaches Tony Palafox and Harry “Hop” Hopman at an impressionable age in his career – this association played a significant part in developing a passion for the Davis Cup in him.

McEnroe’s favourite Davis Cup moment is his appearance in the 1992 final where the U.S. beat Switzerland 3-1 in Texas. This was Tennis’ version of the dream team as McEnroe was joined by Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Jim Courier.

Recently, McEnroe, the player who always said “I will go anywhere, any time to play Davis Cup for America,” has again been entrusted the task of reviving US interest in the Davis Cup, this time as team captain. I wouldn’t bet against him pulling it off a second time.

The other truly fascinating thing about McEnroe was his love for doubles. Other than Stefan Edberg, who did it for a brief period, no top singles player in the modern era has played so much of doubles and played it so damn well that he was called the greatest doubles player of all time.

McEnroe and Fleming

He was world number one in doubles for 257 weeks and won 9 grand slam titles – including 7 with Peter Fleming. McEnroe’s interest in doubles meshed perfectly with his love for the Davis Cup – he had a 14-1 record along with Fleming.

McEnroe was so good that it was said that he could form the world’s best doubles partnership with almost anyone. And he somewhat proved it by winning the Wimbledon doubles with Michael Stich, a fine singles player but a nobody in doubles before winning the title with McEnroe.

John McEnroe will mostly be remembered as a great singles player and a petulant brat on court. But in that, he wasn’t exceptional. He was truly in a league of his own as a genius doubles player and as an uber -patriotic Yankee who couldn’t have enough of the Davis Cup.

And that is also why it is foolish to hold his singles record against his claim to being the most talented player of all time.

Dubai denied Israeli player Shahar Peer a Visa to play in the Dubai WTA event.

The entire tennis community is up in arms against their decision.

The WTA CEO Larry Scott says that such a move is not pardonable and Dubai stands the risk of losing the high-profile event.

Unnamed event organizers say that there were security issues owing to the recent developments in the region – Israel’s latest attacks in the Gaza Strip.

Scott countered that he had already warned the Dubai organizers last year when an Israeli doubles team was denied entry in the event. He had given them a year’s time to fix their security issues.

Ostensibly the security issues weren’t fixed and hence Peer was denied a visa leading to a possible end of the road for the Dubai event.

But does Mr. Scott really believe that this kind of security issue can be fixed?

Forget an assassination attempt, what happens if some half-mad Arab just flings a fire cracker at Shahar Peer or a hurls a shoe at her or just hits her with a tennis ball.

Is there any security in the world which can stop some fanatic from doing so?

The most powerful country in the world with the most professional and fool-proof security set-up could not stop their President (the most well guarded human on the planet) from being hit by a shoe.

And Mr. Scott should know that as he is an American

What would be Israel’s reaction if Shahar Peer has the most innocuous incident causing the most minor of injuries (say just a small bruise)

Would they ignore it as a minor prank or make a seven course meal out of it?

I am guessing Israel either bombs the hell out of a few tennis facilities in the Gulf state or just fires a few extra rockets in the Gaza Strip.

This is one possibility if Shahar Peer played in Dubai

Would the WTA Tour or the United States or Mr Larry Scott take any measure to stop them from doing so?

Your guess is as good as mine

So when Dubai has to choose between a ban on their tournament and a catastrophic repercussion (from Israel) involving human fatalities, what is the prudent decision for them to make.

A moment to cherish for Indian tennis

First my heartiest congratulations to Yuki Bhambri for becoming the fourth Indian to win the Boys title at a Grand Slam event. Congratulations are also in order for everyone who did his or her bit behind the scenes to make this happen – none more so than his parents who have supported the careers of three tennis playing children and all the costs that come with it, despite being stretched well beyond their means. India could do well with more like you.

Yuki’s triumph has heightened the expectations of Indian tennis fans and raised a number of questions. Let’s look at these questions and try answering them.

How good is winning a Junior Grand Slam title, as an indicator of future success on the men’s tour?

Fairly good.

Check out the complete list of Junior Grand Slam Champions. Some of the winners this decade have been Andy Roddick, Andy Murray, Gael Monfils, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Marcos Baghdatis and Richard Gasquet. Others like Stanislas Wawrinka and Marin Cillic have also had pretty good careers so far.

All the previous Indians to win a junior title – Ramanathan Krishnan, Ramesh Krishnan and Leander Paes – also had a fairly good run at the senior level.

Therefore, winning a junior Grand Slam is a fairly good indicator and there is a very good chance that Yuki will make a successful transition to the senior game.

How difficult is the transition from a successful junior to a player on the men’s tour?

Quite difficult.

Look at the list again. There are some names you wouldn’t recognize – so what happened to those guys. Well, obviously they couldn’t make the leap from successful junior to successful senior. Like in most sports, the ingredients for success change dramatically as you step up into the men’s world, with natural talent playing a lesser role and things like power, fitness and mental toughness becoming increasingly more important. Also as compared to team sports, where you can hide your flaws with the help of your teammates, in an individual sport like tennis, you are completely on your own and every chink in your armour can be mercilessly exploited by your opponent.

Look at the Indians in the list again. Their level of success on the men’s tour is directly proportional to how soon they made an appearance on it, with Ramesh falling short of his father’s standards and Leander failing to match the junior Krishnan’s efforts. The reason is simple – physical fitness and power has become more and more important as years have gone by and the skill-oriented Indians have continued to fall behind. Paes won an Olympic bronze but a lot more was expected of him on the ATP tour.

So what needs to be done to ensure Yuki doesn’t miss?

Yuki needs to be more like Somdev Dev Varman and less like Krishnan and Paes, which means he needs to add a lot of muscle and work on his fitness and conditioning.

He also needs to avoid the temptation of playing too much juniors tennis and start getting a taste of the big bad world of men’s tennis. There is not much to be gained by winning a gaggle of junior trophies and a lot to be learned by playing the men.

He also needs to focus on singles. Doubles helps you with your volleying and provides a little extra cash while you are struggling on the ATP Tour but it also whets your appetite and makes you less hungry for success in singles. Yuki’s a great talent and should maximize his singles potential.

And finally he needs all the guidance and support including financial help as he finds his way in the men’s world.

What is the current state of affairs on Yuki’s development?

Most of it is coming along really well although a lot still needs to be done especially on the money front.

Yuki already trains at the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy, thanks to IMG, and is in very safe hands. The coaches at the NBTA are doing everything to build up his strength and fitness, not to forget helping him become better as a tennis player. He already trains with the men and has decided to focus only on men’s events except for the junior grand slams – another sign of his high maturity – in addition to the mental acumen he displays on court.

Yuki is also part of the government scheme for preparing players for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. The  govt takes care of all his grand slam expenses.

But he needs more financial support to really make the most of his potential. As previously mentioned, his parents’ resources have already been stretched thin. He needs some serious sponsorship to take care of the cost of travel, training and providing for a full fledged support staff. Hopefully, the Australian Open success should attract a few corporates.

He also has the benefit of having a fair number of Indian players on the men’s tour to offer encouragement and support – Paes, Bhupathi, Dev Varman and Prakash Amritraj.

But there is still a lot of work to be done and we are hoping Yuki leaves no stone unturned.

What does this mean for the future of Indian Tennis?

This means that for the first time since the heydays of Vijay Amritraj and Ramesh Krishnan, India could have two fine singles players, playing together at their peak. Somdev Dev Varman is already making rapid strides on the tour and Yuki could join him in a few years time. That will pave the way for a return to the elite World Group in the Davis Cup. Man, have I missed the excitement of the Davis Cup.

Finally a word of caution

We will have to be patient and not over burden the young champion with expectations. It will take a while before Yuki makes his mark on the men’s tour. A look at the list of the Junior Slam winners will show us, that, the Champions since 2006 are yet to establish themselves on the ATP Tour. Most of them are still playing the Futures and the Challengers and trying to find their feet. Yuki Bhambri will also have to go through the same growth curve before he becomes man enough for the ATP Tour.

Till then, let’s get back to cheering for Somdev Dev Varman. He is definitely ready for the expectations.

More glory for Indian Tennis!!!

It could probably have happened if Jimmy Van Allen, the inventor of the tie-break, had never been born.

And in that case, as former Wimbledon Champion Stefan Edberg said, “If he(meaning Jimmy) hadn’t lived, Michael and I might still be out there playing” ,a tennis match would have taken forever to finish, like the mythological battles – the Trojan War or the Mahabharata. And that wouldn’t have been any fun.

Edberg, off course, was referring to his 1991 Wimbledon semi-final match against eventual champion Michael Stich, which he lost 4–6, 7–6(5), 7–6(5), 7–6(2), in spite of never losing his serve in the contest. So much for a vintage display of serve- and- volley tennis

The strange thing is that Jimmy Van Allen died on the same day that this match was played.

I am pretty sure that he couldn’t have asked for a more meaningful tennis match (in terms of the impact of his invention) as a send-off gift.

A glimpse of the match cut short by Van Allen’s intelligence

Thanks to my brother Abhishek for providing the Edberg quote and information on Van Allen

The expression 15 minutes of fame was coined by Andy Warhol. It refers to the fleeting condition of celebrity that grabs onto an object of media attention, and then passes to some new object as soon as people’s attention spans are exhausted. It is often used in reference to figures in the entertainment industry and other areas of popular culture.

In the world of tennis, the attention span of the public and the time period of fleeting celebrity generally last 14 days – the length of a grand slam tournament. The four grand slams are the perfect stage for an unheralded tennis player to hoist himself into the public limelight and many a player has taken advantage of the same- getting his 14 days of world wide fame.

We will now look at some of the most ‘unknown’ names of this rather ‘forgotten’ club. These players are generally only remembered for one glorious stretch of 14 days, fading away from the public eye as quickly as they caught it.

Many one grand slam winners like Michael Chang or one grand slam finalists like Marcelo Rios do not make this list for the simple reason that they had many other days of fame. There are others like Arnaud Clement and Rainer Schuttler who just have one amazing grand slam tournament to talk about but still fail to make the list – simply because even for those 14 days they weren’t famous enough – they still remain relatively unknown and un-remembered.

So here is the list comprising mainly of players from the last 25 odd years. The 14 days of fame are in brackets

Mark Edmondson (Australian Open 1976) – This guy is definitely the leader of this club. He won the 1976 Australian Open on his Grand Slam debut and never won anything big after that. He was ranked 212th when he won the title – the lowest ranked player to win a grand slam title since the ATP rankings were introduced in 1973. That victory was also the last time an Australian won the men’s title at their home grand slam. Who would have known that his 14 days of fame would jinx his country that bad?

Chris Lewis (Wimbledon 1983) – In reaching the 1983 Wimbledon finals, Lewis became only the seventh un-seeded man to accomplish the feat. He was such an underdog that his opponent John McEnroe promised to jump off the Empire State Building if he lost to the New-Zealander. Thankfully the American won and was spared a leap to his death. McEnroe’s outlandish boast forever reminds us of Chris Lewis and his amazing 14 days.

Yannick Noah (French Open 1983) – He is now a very popular pop-soul singer and the father of an NBA star. He is also occasionally referred to whenever a player tries a ‘between the legs shot’ when lobbed at the net by his opponent. But our most long-lasting memory of him as a tennis player is his dream-run at the French Open in 1983. This victory is memorable for a number of other reasons.1) Last Frenchman to win the French. 2) Last guy to win it with a wooden racket. 3) And only the second black male to win a grand slam title. Could you ask for more for 14 days of effort?

Mikael Pernfors (French Open 1986) – He was the opponent when John McEnroe was disqualified from the 1990 Australian Open for violating the code of conduct. He was the opponent when Jimmy Connors made that amazing comeback from 1-6, 1-6, and 1-4 down to win in five sets at Wimbledon 1987. His name would have remained just a difficult trivia question if not for his final appearance at the 1986 French Open. Those 14 days surely made him a better known tennis player.

Andres Gomez (French Open 1990) – Remember him. The guy we all hated for upsetting a 19 year old Andre Agassi in the 1990 French Final. If not for this guy Andre Agassi would have become the 4th guy to win all four majors long back. Well never mind, Agassi got his record anyways. And Andres got his 14 days of fame. And how many of us know that Andres came from Ecuador.

Alberto Berasategui (French Open 1994) – This guy had an unusual grip on his racket which allowed him to hit both forehands and backhands with the same side of the racket. We would have never known about this extraordinary fact if the Spaniard hadn’t reached the French Open final in 1994. That was how unknown he was save for those 14 days.

Malivai Washington (Wimbledon 1996) – Wimbledon 1996 saw far more upsets than usual. Richard Krajicek upset the perennial winner Pete Sampras and was rewarded with a title. Malivai Washington made the most of an upset prone tournament to make his way to the final winning two amazing come- from -behind matches on the way. The Dutchman was hogging all the attention for his clinical performances but Washington got his 14 days worth of fame as well.

Martin Verkerk (French Open 2003) – Before his 2003 run he was relatively unknown, even in his native Netherlands. But thanks to his underdog status and on-court antics he became so popular that his final defeat against Juan Carlos Ferrero was watched by even more people in the Netherlands than when countryman Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon. He never did better than a third round otherwise but who cares. No one ruled Dutch tennis hearts like he did for those 14 days.

Mariano Puerta (French Open 2005) – Many athletes have taken drugs but Ben Johnson’s name always comes up first. Why? Because he won at the Olympics. Many tennis players have taken drugs but we will always remember Mariano Puerta. Why? Because he made the 2005 French Open final. Even for hi-profile notoriety you first need fame.

Marcos Baghdatis (Australian Open 2006) – In the January of 2006, there was a sudden wave of frenzy amongst the Greek-Cypriot population of Melbourne, Australia. Many of them were waving flags and cheering raucously inside Melbourne Park as well. The reason for all this was the giant-killing run of Marcos Baghdatis. Baghdatis’s performance was by far the biggest sporting achievement for Cyprus. I wouldn’t be surprised if those 14 days are celebrated as a national sports fortnight in his native Cyprus.

Growing up as a sports fan in the late 80’s and early 90’s in India, tennis was my window to a lot of things in the world. This was before cable TV came into our lives – things like European Football and the NBA were only found occasionally in the SportStar ( god bless them for that) . Tennis was one international sport that we got to see a lot of, courtesy Doordarshan, even though they used to break- off for the news at the most crucial moments of the game.

Tennis played an extremely important role in filling me with life’s wisdom – pertaining to love – its various forms and its nuances. Its role in this regard was very similar to the way we got educated in the tenets of love and romance by foreign novels and movies.

I think this happened because tennis was an individual game and an extremely popular one as well – there were lots of characters and good looking stars – and as a result tennis stars got a lot of attention from the media which was forever filling us in with juicy details of the player’s private lives. There was also plenty of time during the matches to catch frequent glimpses of the special boxes for the players’ entourage – as a result we got to see and know the player’s family, their love interests and their coaches as well. Tennis had both men and women players creating enough possibilities for real life case studies. Additionally, those players were largely westerners who led far more colourful lives adding to our educational process

The only other sport which we saw often was cricket but for some reason this generation largely escaped public scrutiny of their private lives, well except for a few like Ravi Shastri and Vivian Richards.

This was the closest they got to being a couple

The first thing that tennis did was to shake me out of a child’s notion of a perfect love story, instilled in me largely by Hindi movies. Back in the day, I expected Steffi Graf and Boris Becker to fall in love and get married. After all they were both top tennis players, immensely popular and good looking and from the same country – so no relocation and adjustment problems. They were like a lead pair in a Hindi film and seemed perfect. Their not falling in love taught me a lesson that this perfect love story concept between two people who were perfect in a similar kind of way was just a creation of Hindi films and nothing more.

This lesson was repeated when I discovered that a similar perfect pair from America had also not managed to go beyond a brief romance. That Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert had tried and failed was in fact a more telling rejection of my old theory.

Andre and the women in his life

After battering one of my theories, tennis, much to my surprise corroborated something else that I had discovered through Hindi films – that there existed these gifted individuals called playboys who could make many women fall in love with them at the same time without making the slightest bit of effort. Andre Agassi was the first who made me feel jealous and then Bjorn Born added really rubbed it in.

Tennis was responsible for my early education on same-sex love

And then tennis gave me a shocker – people of the same sex could also love one another intimately. This knowledge was thanks to Judy Nelson demanding a share of Martina Navratilova’s wealth for being her partner. It took me a while to figure this concept out but I found a lot of reference material in the Sports World magazine (may its soul rest in piece, there was no Google then) to help me understand what a ‘partner’ meant in this particular case. I was a lot less shocked when I found that another tennis player, Billie Jean King had actually championed the cause of these same sex lovers.

This shocked everyone in Germany and someone in India

A little later I discovered why Boris Becker didn’t fall for Steffi Graf – because he was in love with Barbara Feltus. This saga also opened my eyes to inter-racial love and its unacceptable status in society. I never knew of such issues – in India we were all brown people. Boris Becker became a poster child of the cause. Being a major fan I couldn’t help but get a finer understanding of the issues. Detailed information was again courtesy of the Sports World.

Love is a meeting of minds

If Becker was wooing Barbara, then his celebrated rival Stefan Edberg was falling in love with Annette Olsen. While I hated the Swede’s talent on a grass court, there was no doubt that he was a tremendously good looking and handsome man. Nothing less than a modern-day Helen or Cleopatra would be good enough for his combination of looks and talent. But here he was madly in love with a cute but plump woman. The moral of the story – Love is not just about physical attraction. It’s also about matching mental wavelengths. Today when I see Federer and Mirjka, I can’t stop thinking about Edberg.

The greatest love story ever

The final lesson happened a lot later. But it involved two characters from the old days – Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi – two of the most popular players of this era. For years Steffi Graf had been in a quiet relationship with Michael Bartels. Agassi on the other hand had had a dream marriage after finally finding love with Brooke Shields. Then there was heart burn for both of them as Steffi and Bartels broke up and Agassi and Shields divorced. But in a most amazing turn of events, Agassi and Graf met, fell in love, got married, had two children and have lived happily ever after. This is one of the most amazing love stories ever and gives hope to everyone who believes in true love. The final love lesson from tennis was about believing in love itself.

Croatia have been penalized for hosting their September encounter against Brazil on a tennis court deemed too fast for Davis Cup play by the International Tennis Federation. I have a lot of sympathy for their opponents. There is only one other thing as scary as facing these big-serving giants on an extra-fast tennis court – facing the West Indian fast bowling giants of the 70’s on the extra fast pitches of the Kensington Oval,Bridgetown. These bowlers necessitated the use of helmets in cricket. Could tennis be needing something similar soon?

This is going to be the next cool thing in tennis fashion