Wimbledon 2015

Did you honestly think I would not write about Wimbledon? If you thought I had forgotten Federer, or was ignoring Wimbledon's white pristine snobbishness, you are wrong.

Before the tournament began, we had a very distinct narrative for each of the four male tennis stars. Federer is really old. He is not athletic enough, not powerful enough, not agile enough. Murray is alright now, maybe he'll actually win. Maybe Britain will be happy again. Nadal is a lost cause. He's injured. Not to be confused with Federer's old age. And Djokovic is playing really well, but we don't really like him. He's too brash for Wimbledon. Also, he wears Uniqlo. More on all of this later.

So, Wimbledon 2015. What did you take away? There were large strawberries with fresh cream. There was a dress code controversy. Fun fact: the official Wimbledon headband was too bright to be allowed on court this year. There was that day where the temperatures crossed 36ºC and everyone panicked. John Isner played a long match though it did not (thankfully) come close to the 2010 one. Lleyton Hewitt retired, with his first round loss. Martina Hingis showed the world what a true champion she is, winning the Women's Doubles, as well as the Mixed Doubles. Fun fact: her partners in both cases were Indians. This, along with Sumit Nagal's Junior Doubles win, made 2015 a very good year for Indian tennis.

Unsurprisingly however, the biggest talking points were from the Men's and Women's Singles events. Serena Williams won spectacularly, defeating her sister, Azarenka, and Sharapova among others. Her "Serena Slam" broke quite a few records. It is sad that we underestimate her skill and prowess and find reasons such as her "man's body" to dismiss her achievements. I have never heard anyone attribute Djokovic's wins to his well-shaped ankles, have you? This discrepancy between Men's and Women's tennis annoys me greatly. Williams deserves a lot more credit and praise for her achievements, and I really do hope she manages to get a complete Grand Slam this year. She will then join a very elite club which includes Graff and Laver along with three others.

Should we get to Federer now? We've talked about everything else, haven't we? Well, Nadal did lose early on, struggling post-injury. That narrative was right. So now, Federer? It's sad. Federer played beautiful tennis this Wimbledon. As everyone has pointed out, he served magnificently throughout the two weeks. He only lost one set until the finals. His match against Murray was very interesting. Wimbledon dotes on Federer, but gets enmeshed in a deep moral conflict when he plays Murray. Crowd support was weirdly scattered and noisy. However, Federer served remarkably well and won relatively comfortably.

Last year, everyone sort of forgot Federer until he reached the finals. You just expected him to do well on grass, but you did not think too much about him - he was old. The media was determined to not repeat that mistake this year, and that became very apparent with the media coverage this year. Federer was playing beautifully, despite his age. He hadn't lost his serve, despite being almost 34. Oh look, he is so graceful but looks tired. Of course, he's so old after all. The media did not want to forget Federer, but did not want us to forget his age either. And so, as Federer reached the finals, we were all told about how absolutely beautiful his game was, but also that age affected stamina and confidence and ability.

I did not have access to a good stream for the finals, neither did I have access to a TV. So I decided to go the old fashioned way - I listened to the official Wimbledon radio stream! I had the score tracker open and tried to sync the score update to the radio. It didn't work very well; the radio lagged by two seconds throughout. Have I proved my loyalty though? So there I was, listening to a pompous British voice (who seemed to support Djokovic ever so slightly), while visualizing what was happening. "A sharp backhand from Federer straight down the court and Novak responds with a crosscourt forehand. We have Federer running down the court..." you get the point. My favourite line of the day was "He looks like a man possessed. It only remains to be seen whether he will possess the trophy tonight." I was hoping that the match would go differently than what happened last year. The first set should have been Federer's. That was truly cruel. But, he did well by winning the second set. However, the rain break messed things up.

I have to admit, I don't like Djokovic. While his beating Federer is part of the reason, it's not the only contributing factor. Djokovic is simply too loud, too brash, almost too crude. His game, one has to admit, is practically flawless. But, there is just something jarring and unpleasant about him. I swear, it's not just me: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/02/the-third-man-8. This is from 2013. While Djokovic has won a lot more since then, the basic tenet of the piece holds - his manner marks him as a permanent outsider in this world. And he's not the kind of outsider you feel bad for- or even support because he's different. He is the kinds you wished you could like, but simply cannot. I'm rambling now, but hopefully you get why I don't like him(and agree).

I was not crushed with Federer's defeat. I would have loved for him to win, but the loss did not hurt as much it did in 2008 or even last year. That seemed to be true for Federer himself, and a large portion of Federer fans, by the looks of it. Maybe, we are all learning to treat triumph and disaster just the same, as the gates to the Centre Court ask us to. Kipling would be proud. It is very clear that Federer is still very motivated to play, really likes to play, and still plays exceedingly well. We might want him to retire on a winning note, but he has been remarkably open and explicit about this - he wants to play while he enjoys it. He says he will come back to Wimbledon next year. Maybe, he'll win next year. Maybe, he won't. But we seem to be fine either way. And if that's how things roll now, then why not? You get to see elegant tennis. You get to see Federer mostly win. 

One sports columnist wrote, "Four years ago, I wrote that there was “an aura of weird sadness” around Federer’s arrested decline. Federer seemed invincible for so long — not just better than everyone else, invincible— that it was unnerving at first when he didn’t. ....These days, though? Federer’s career doesn’t seem so sad. ....it’s because Federer seems to be enjoying himself so much....What you take from watching him now is not so much a sense of tennis, but the sense of a life. .... when he’s beaten and leaving the stadium with tears in his eyes and one hand raised to the crowd, you understand why the moment doesn’t exactly feel bad, even though it hurts." (I would strongly recommend the article. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-sun-never-sets-on-roger-federer-endings-and-wimbledon/)

And that's how it is now. Federer seems to be happy, and that's enough for me to keep my faith in peRFection. 

Wimbledon 2014

Disclaimer: Unabashed Roger Federer gushing follows.

I have been writing on the Wimbledon every year, since the last few years. It's become a habit. But this year, I was terribly disappointed on Finals night. Roger Federer's loss to Djokovic might not have been as 'epic' as his loss to Nadal in 2008, but it hurt just as much. However, I thought I'd try treating triumph and disaster, the wily impostors, just the same. Roger Federer's loss doesn't take anything away from Wimbledon's grandeur, although it does manage to diminish its charm.

Wimbledon 2014 was full of upsets. A 19 year old wild card showed Nadal the door. Crowd favourite Murray did not move beyond the quarterfinals. Ferrer didn't see the second Monday. Gasquet, Monfils, and Berdych didn't do as well as they probably hoped to do. The semifinals did not pitch the Big Four against each other, as fans traditionally hoped.

Despite the haphazard tumbling of the top seeds, Wimbledon remained what it has always been: pristine in its white purity, polite in its fandom, and perfect in its ageless appeal. Impeccably British. What never ceases to amaze me is how wonderfully old-fashioned Wimbledon can be. It upholds tradition not with the upturned nose of a snob, but with a unmoving air of assertion. We're sorry, no swearing please. We're sorry, but no orange shoes and soles are a part of shoes please. We're sorry but you were cheering too loudly there. The Holy Grail of tennis is undoubtedly Wimbledon, and traditions are a large part of ensuring that. You've to admit there is something wonderfully elegant about not having fluorescent green headbands and shocking pink wristbands.

Roger Federer's journey through the two weeks went relatively unnoticed. His presence was a given because it's Wimbledon and he is Federer, but it was just as surprising because he is 33. Britain's sole (and sore) tennis star was the object of greater scrutiny. People took notice only when he beat his compatriot Wawrinka to enter the semifinals. Suddenly, it was Federer all over again. He was the man with countless records; he was the man with a blistering backhand and a magical forehand; he was never someone written off by critics.

The final was breathtaking, albeit extremely painful. I hate to admit it, but Djokovic was at his finest. Federer was his old self again. He was no longer 33: untroubled, elegant, and a class apart. His game is beauty personified. His defining characteristic is not his strength, a specific shot, or even his stamina. It is his ability to play with effortless elegance and unperturbed ease. The way he won the fourth set to steal the first Championship point from Djokovic is perfect evidence of that.

Wimbledon is not used to seeing him lose. His loss was greeted with a second of shocked silence. As much as I dislike Djokovic, his sportsmanship was touching. To thank your opponent for allowing you to win, at the pinnacle of the sport, without a trace of malice or snideness is remarkable humility. You could see that Federer was close to tears, and I'm glad he did not cry while on court. I would have started howling myself.

But, he's promised he'll be back next year. That is the only thing that makes his finals defeat bearable. He'll be there again, with his calm smile, his beautiful brand of tennis, and Wimbledon will be Wimbledon again.

Here's to peRFection.

Wimbledon 2013

Thoughts post Wimbledon 2013:

I am a Federer fan. An all-out, no holds barred Federer fan. I sometimes wonder whether I follow tennis or whether I follow Roger Federer. So you can imagine my disappointment and my surprise when he lost in the second round at Wimbledon. Wimbledon, to me and to many others around the world, is the Holy Grail of tennis. It is tennis at its purest, sincerest and finest. Something about those grass courts, that dress code and the years of tradition brings out everyone’s best.

But before you knew what was happening, Federer lost in the second round. The unthinkable had happened. Before the first week was out, some of the finest names in the game were ousted by relatively obscure names. It has been called the ‘weird Wimbledon’ because of the sheer number of top guns who lost before the fourth round. I thought that probably this year, the Wimbledon was rigged. Could it be possible? But then, I rather have Federer lose than have Federer be accused of cheating. So, bad idea.

With my sole tennis hero being out of contention for the game’s finest honor, I was stupidly hoping that both Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic also lost. I mean, it was only fair: Nadal and Federer lose, so Murray and Djokovic should follow suit! A completely unexpected, new man wins. But that didn’t happen. Instead, we had them play the final.

I decided to support whoever swore less during the finals (see, I seriously am a hardcore Federer fan—I don’t know whom else to support in his absence!). So I watched the ‘Gentlemen’s Final 2013’ without supporting either players. I watched for tennis’ sake. I cheered whoever played better, which meant that I was praising both players’ shots and strategies. Oh, and for once, my brother and I didn’t fight during a Grand Slam final.

That, I realize, is the beauty of the game. One then begins to appreciate skill for skill’s sake; see sportsmanship in its purest and enjoy a game beyond its winners. The gates to the Centre Court are inscribed with lines from Rudyard Kipling’s historic poem: 

“If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same”. 

In today’s match, I felt that. I appreciated the pressure under which Murray played, with a constant reminder of 77 years of history. I appreciated Djokovic’s magnamity to praise Murray for handling this pressure and playing the way he did.

It is not just Wimbledon. Every game in its highest form exudes an aura of excellence, perfection and sportsmanship. It is just that today, in the absence of the compulsive habit to take sides did I appreciate it. So, as always, the Rolex ad has got it right: Wimbledon is where legends are made.

PS: No one can match Federer’s grace and dignity though. End of the day, it is peRFection for me!

---

As I post this I realize, that a lot remains same. The things I appreciated about Wimbledon last year are also what I do this year. I guess that's the thing with being one of the oldest tournaments!

Wimbledon 2012

Thoughts post Wimbledon 2012:

Immaculate lawns, players in pristine whites, audiences at their finest and history at its tallest. Where else but for the Wimbledon Championships is this possible? As the most prestigious lawn tennis tournament enters its 136th year; it shows, as the ad goes, that there is more to the event that just prestige.

As the Rolex ad says, Wimbledon whites are more than just tradition, the green lawns more than just courts, games much more than wins and losses. What makes the Wimbledon so special can probably be demonstrated by drawing a parallel with the Ashes from cricket, the UEFA Championships from football, the NBA for basketball or just about every sport in its highest glory and spirit.

In its 136 years of existence since 1877 when there were just 22 people for the men’s draw, it has gradually established itself as a tournament which is titled as forever legendary. What makes it stand apart is the fact that in all these years not much has changed. The Queen of England still graces the All England Tennis Club with her presence, the whites remain, the grass courts are still kept the same and, spectators continue with their same strawberry and cream as they watch matches: the old charm is retained.

Only have the players changed from Rod Laver or Bjorn Borg or John McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras or Roger Federer; or from Navratilova to the William sisters to Li Na. But the spirit of the game, the solemnity of the event, the sincerity of efforts, the beauty of the game, the weight of history remain, as inscribed in the gates to Centre Court with the lines

“If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same”.

Each game has its own Wimbledon, as in; every sport has one moment where who wins doesn’t matter, where playing precedes winning; where records are meant to be broken but the spirit of the game never is. And that is again what makes Wimbledon so great, the fact that it can translate into different games because at the end of the day it is greatness which is its hallmark, not a volley or blistering backhand.

It really doesn’t matter who won the finals on Sunday, because that is not what it is all about. Rather, it is like the Rolex ad:

When is greatness achieved?
Is it when you win your first tournament?
When you achieve a lifetime’s ambition
Or when you inspire others to be more
Or maybe when you ask yourself what is next?