There are two reasons why I enjoy watching tennis matches at Wimbledon on TV. The first is pretty obvious; they are played at a convenient time. The second is that it is a grass court that is conducive to the fast serve and volley game; so different from the baseline slugfests on the slow red clay courts of the French Open. The third reason that I used to earlier watch Wimbledon, was to see Steffi Graf play! Alas, no more!
This year’s Wimbledon should go down in history for us Indians, because we had three World Champions – Leander Paes in the Mixed Doubles, Sania Mirza in the Women’s Doubles, and Sumit Nagal in the Boys’ Doubles. Was it a coincidence that all these victories were in Doubles, and not a single one in the Singles? I don’t believe in coincidences. I prefer to analyse the circumstances and arrive at a logical conclusion.
Let me give you my ringside views. I watched both Paes’ and Sania’s matches, eventhough the latter ended at 2 a.m. First Paes. The pace of his serves was clocked at 90 mph. In contrast, top Men’s Singles players serve at between 130 – 140 mph. So what chances would Paes have stood in the Singles? None. He therefore wisely chose to play Doubles, as did Sania. Her serve too would be no match for the much taller and stronger built women’s singles players like Serena Williams or Maria Sharapova.
The key to the Indians’ success is to be found in what a commentator said when Paes, partnering Martina Hingis, was running away with the championship in less than 40 minutes, with a score line of 6-1, 6-1. While appreciating the pair’s exquisite tennis, the commentator said that they used technique, not physique, to win. Thereby hangs a tale! At 42, Paes’ technique outclassed the physique of his much younger opponents.
This now leads me to our national game – hockey. It was my favourite sport during the 8 years that I spent in a boarding school. In both hockey and football I always played what we now call “left winger”; even for my school’s junior and colts’ teams (I was too small to be in the senior’s team).
In retrospect I wonder if my left position in sports was a precursor to my leftist leanings in matters religious, social or political? But now I don’t like watching hockey. On today’s astro turf it is worlds apart from the hockey we played on bajri (fine gravel) or grass. No place for the artistic dribbling wizardry of our Major Dhyan Chand. He would probably not find a place in today’s team, where it is all about smooth long passes, penalty corners and goalkeepers who look like the armoured knights of King Arthur!
In Dhyan Chand’s time it was more of technique. Today’s hockey depends on your physique. Small wonder then that beefy teams from Australia or Holland can beat our vegetarian players! The diet effect.
The same would go for tennis. Both Leander and sania would be carnivores, as were the other legendary tennis players, the Amritraj brothers, Vijay and Anand. Our world boxing champion, Mary Kom is also on record for her proclivity for pork.
Now let’s move to our national obsession – cricket. We can’t produce genuine pace bowlers (physique), but we have enough of wily spinners (technique).
Cricket, I believe, is a mind game, with permutations and combinations of bowlers, fielders and batsmen. The game often depends on good captaincy (the mind). In contrast, the “beautiful” game of football is controlled by the off-field coach; who may even substitute the captain from the playing eleven. That is why India succeeds in a mind game like cricket, but is at the bottom of the heap in football.
The same goes for chess, that requires mental stamina, giving us champions like Vishwanathan Anand. We have also succeeded in other sports that require maximum concentration – like billiards, shooting and archery. It is technique, not physique, that matters.
Of late we have had a level of success in body contact sports like boxing and wrestling, though they do require strength. But there is a rider – weight categories, so our athletes get a level playing field. There should be a lesson for us in this. Sports authorities should identify those disciplines that require more of technique, and establish centres for them. We will then have more than three world champions to boast of.
Before concluding, I must be fair to an exception, Saina Nehwal, in badminton. Few of us would be aware that a shuttlecock in badminton is the fastest projectile in any sport. It beats a tennis serve, a penalty corner shot or a pace bowler! Kudos to Saina. But then, exceptions prove the rule, even for champions.
(The writer is a sports enthusiast.)