Disadvantage tennis

Except among people who wish to understand a sport, tennis in the present case, in its historical setting, the name William Renshaw is unlikely to ring a bell. The record that Renshaw had set in the 1880s — winning Wimbledon six times uninterrupted — is unbroken to date. Bjorn Borg could not break it, though he came close to equalling the record by winning the tournament five times on the trot. Nor did Pete Sampras, but he set another record by winning Wimbledon seven times (that record too has been broken). And Roger Federer, whom some glibly describe as the world’s greatest ever, too proved a failure on this count despite being afforded a wonderful opportunity to do so because the times that he, or Rafael Nadal, played in were remarkable for competition having simply vanished from the sport.

Or take the example of Richard Sears, who won the US National Championships (the previous incarnation of the US Open) for seven times in a row, right from the first year of the tournament. And look at the list of the runners-up. You will find seven different names.

The stupendous dominance of Renshaw or Sears in the 1880s did not survive the decade. The reason for this is that even though in their time there weren’t too many brilliant players on the horizon, in an individual game such as tennis, the burn-out factor is always present. Given that, it is simply amazing how Federer is still winning Grand Slam tournaments despite the man being on the highest circuits of tennis for 15 years. He won Wimbledon first in 2003 and repeated it many times, the last of which was in 2017. And Rafael Nadal has just won the French Open for the 11th time (the first was in 2005), an achievement that’s similar in texture to that of Sears or Renshaw and some others of an age when tennis players wore full pants. And one can think of just another example — that of Ken Rosewall — of a person holding on to form for so long as Federer and Nadal have done even though, despite being the great player that he was, Rosewall did not win in as prolific a manner as the current winners do. He did not win Wimbledon even once though he reached the final four times, the first time in 1954 and last occasion was 20 years later. Even the great Rod Laver could not stick to his winning ways for more than 10 years.

The 1920s of tennis is sometimes seen as the age of Bill Tilden though, except in the US National Championships, he had not been a mind-blowing success anywhere else. Why? Because that was an age in which there were players such as Cochet, Lacoste and Borotra. And Tilden petered out after 1930, which is again an adumbration of the fact that in tennis of some standards a person cannot stay in winning form for long.

After winning Wimbledon in 1961 and 1962 would Laver have continued to win had he not become a professional? One doubts. Because he would have faced formidable competition from his compatriots such as Ashley Cooper, Neale Fraser, Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Tony Roche and Fred Stolle (I am not including Rosewall because he became a professional before Laver, and the handsome Lew Hoad because he had lost form a little too early).

Coming to times closer to ours, one finds even greater competition. A great player like Arthur Ashe could win Wimbledon only once. And the age of Borg and Connors was not entirely dominated by the two. There were Guillermo Vilas, Raul Ramirez, Roscoe Tanner, etc. And how long did the Borg- Connors age last? Just seveneight years, 1974 to 1982, until both were supplanted by John McEnroe, who, in turn, ceded ground to Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg in the mid1980s. And that was the best age of world tennis because there were outstanding players from various countries. No fan could predict certain victory for his hero.

However, this level of competition started ebbing in the 1990s and has virtually tapered off now. Hence the unabated success of Federer and Nadal. And this is reminiscent of tennis that used to be played before the First World War, when there were instances of players winning a tournament three, four, or five times in a row. This is a comparison that Federer fans would find most odious.

Whether it is taking a position on Federer or Sachin Tendulkar, there is a tendency on the part of an overwhelmingly large number of people to see the best of their time as the best of all time. Sometimes there are commercial reasons for this. But taking positions without an application of mind leads to unhealthy consequences, which can have wider manifestations. It should certainly not be encouraged.

Every week, Eye Culture features writers with an entertaining critical take on art, music, dance, film and sport