ALMOST A PERFECT GRAND SLAM YEAR - MARTINA HINGIS IN 1997

1997 French Open was the first Grand Slam tournament Hingis took part ranked as number-one women's tennis player. She was the youngest and only the seventh tennis player to achieve numero uno, since the computer system was introduced in the 1970's.

She was on a winning streak of 31 matches and had not lost a single match in 1997. And then, freak! She got injured: cruciate rupture of the left knee and was advised a break in excess of a month. This happened in the third week of April and with five weeks to go for the French Open, she found herself unable to straighten her left leg. She underwent arthroscopy, and during this frustrating time, her fighting mode comforted her and as soon she felt good, her first words to herself were: "I am Martina Hingis, and I will be back".

HER PASSION FOR HORSES

Martina Hingis took to horse riding at age eleven. With time, it became her greatest passion, more than tennis at times. Riding was convenient, as there were horse stables close to her former residence at Trübbach. Though riding on horses isn't exactly safe for a tennis player, Hingis was quick to saddle up on those horses, found at ease and off-she went!

Her mother cum coach Melanie always encouraged horse riding as she felt it would be a welcome change for Hingis from the rigours of training and playing tennis. This was Hingis's unique way to relax and round off a training session. Accidents were not new while she was on the horse, but it never was serious. In fact, during the 1997 Australian Open, which she won, in the second week of the tournament, she had a fall from a horse and that never came in the way of winning her maiden Grand Slam singles title.

But few weeks later, it was a different story. While she was riding high and winning every match she took part in, the horse fall came at the most unexpected time. "It was not my own horse and we went for a few jumps towards the end. I was tired and for the first time I felt something like fear". Fear does creep in when you are no longer the 'underdog'. Martina was number one favourite and people expected this sixteen-year old to perform 'miracles' each time she went out on the court. The clay court season was about to begin - Hamburg, Berlin and Rome leading up to the premier clay event at Roland Garros. She was number one now and she must not get injured, those thoughts came to her mind while she was on the horse one day and next moment, she experienced the ill-fate Humpty-Dumpty did in the nursery rhyme (had a great fall).

1997 FRENCH OPEN

35 days was all it took for Hingis to be back on the tennis court. Without any practice, she enters the clay courts of Roland Garros and wins her first match. In her second game after the comeback, she was under pressure. The Italian Gloria Pizzichini, after taking the first set was five points away from winning the match. The bounce-back ability of Hingis kicked in, she broke Gloria's game, took the second set and then breezed her way through to the next round, which was a walk in the park against her future doubles partner Anna Kournikova.

"I knew that if I made it to the second round I would become dangerous". Barbara Paulus, the sixteenth seeded Austrian showed some fight - but was not able to sustain the pressure to cause an upset.

THE LAST WEEK

This is the business end of any Grand Slam. The last three matches and much tougher opponents. How will Hingis and her body hold up? Was age on her side, which normally helps to heal and recover much quickly? Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, winner of two French Open titles leading up to this match (in total she was won three, the last of which was in 1998) found no rhythm and not once was she in the game. 6-2, 6-2 in favour of Hingis and next up was the third seeded Monica Seles at the semi-finals.

The three-time winner at the Roland Garros was good, but nowhere as frightening as she was before the stabbing incident in 1993. The match went close, really close into the third set. Both players moved around the court in search of that pivotal 'break' in the opponent's serve - it was Hingis, who managed to hold on and win 6-4 in the third set. Her wins for 1997 had now stretched to '37' and looked set to win her second consecutive Grand Slam title.

   

YOU JUST KILLED ME TODAY

Iva Majoli, the nineteen-year old Croatian was in her first Grand Slam final. Though she had come through a string of wins against good opponents, the pundits gave her no 'chance' against the world number one. Bulk of the crowd, the experts, hoped she would give a good fight to the child-prodigy Hingis, who was the clear favourite. Few minutes into the game, it was anti-climax. Majoli, the ninth seed was in total control and the 'underdog' tag helped her to play more freely. Hingis was unable to contend Majoli as the Croatian took the first set 6-4. In second set, the top game of Majoli continued and forced Hingis to make errors one-after the other, and soon she delivered the upset by taking the set 6-3  to become the first Croatian to win a Grand Slam.

"I don't know why, but something wasn't going the right way, the way I wanted it on the court. If something didn't work before, I always had another weapon to get out of the pressure, but today, I didn't have anything, and she was just better".

Holding the runner-up platter, Hingis was shocked about her own inability to have answers to this onslaught by Majoli. "I won 37 matches this year and you're the only one who beat me". With no past champions in the finals since a decade, the crowd saw a newly crowned women's champion and against the odds, Majoli was the one who prevailed in the finals of two teenagers.

"I was feeling like an underdog, but that helped. I knew she was confident, but I knew she's not unbeatable. My plan was just to attack her serve, put more pressure on her forehand, just be aggressive. Luckily, today everything worked", the joyous Majoli after she became the lowest-seeded woman to win a Grand Slam in the Open era.

The French Open finals was one such occasion which tested Hingis, the mental aspect of a high pressure match coupled with her physical ailment - a raw occasion of how Hingis would react when things didn't seem to go her way. Mind you, Hingis was the number one player and with it came different expectations. Did these expectations weighed heavily under crunch situations, just like she found herself against Iva Majoli? Hingis took a strategic bathroom break, the break did no good. On the last game of the match, Hingis took an injury timeout and treated herself to a massage and did few extension exercises to her left leg (the one she had surgery five weeks ago), but to no avail.

"Maybe I didn't play my best tennis in this tournament, and my serve will always be a little problem, especially if I'm getting tired. In a Grand Slam, you just don't feel every day in your best shape" - conceded Hingis after her first loss of the year.

ALMOST A PERFECT YEAR

Post Roland Garros, all eyes were on Hingis to see if she could live up to the initial promise and hype. In a month's time, she claimed the most sought after trophy in tennis, the 'Wimbledon' defeating Jana Novotna and few months later, she faced Venus Williams at the Flushing Meadows and won it comfortably 6-0 6-4 to cap off a almost perfect Grand Slam year.

The year 1997, more than any other time in her career, she displayed her repertoire, be it the variations in height and length, the chess-like plays, those use of drops and lobs. With each victory, her fame grew and the Swiss teenager became the talk of the tennis town. Praises and superlatives were common and why not; Hingis was in a zone of almost perfection, a state which most tennis players aspire to reach and only few have attained that state of 'nirvana'.

Hailing from a country which is obsessed with patterns, formula etc, Hingis and her tennis always had a surprise element or two. Her opponents, and even spectators had a tough time adjusting to her unpredictable play. Defeats came rare as though it didn't exist in her playbook for most parts of the year. Hingis of 1997 was simply a level better than her opponents. With 75 wins in 80 games, twelve victories in 13 finals, she played one of the best seasons in the history of tennis.

In 1997, very few could refute the fact that, she played as though she was one of the most complete tennis players of all time.

Marathon Man vs Raging Bull - Federer vs Nadal at the Majors

Rafael Nadal lost in the final hurdle of Australian Open 2014 to a Swiss tennis player. It was not Roger Federer for once! Stainslas Wawrinka was the underdog going into the final men's singles match and at the end of it his achievements echoed the feelings of "Yo, Adrian, I did it". This was no Hollywood and Wawrinka's celebrations was nowhere close to the exuberance 'Rocky Balboa'  exhibited on-screen in Rocky II.

Important question - If Nadal were to be 100% fit, would Wawrinka be a threat to Nadal and his power play? Make no mistake the end result did appear as an upset and even with Wawrinka's confidence brimming sky high, it would have been a herculean effort to win against the quality player like Nadal. In fact age-wise, Nadal is a year younger to the reigning Australian Open champion; so there is no question of young legs over powering the might. In Wawrinka's defence, he is probably playing the best tennis of his life at the moment and his win must not be treated as a total surprise.

I rest the case of Wawrinka here and introduce another champion, his compatriot Roger Federer. It is interesting to note that, Federer this year was playing in his 57^th Grand Slam event since Australian Open 2000. He is currently in his 15^th year of playing non-stop at the premier events of tennis. That's in the level of a iron man if not a marathon man.

Top stuff! considering the number of events conducted around the four major tournaments and throw in few national tournaments in between, you are looking at a very packed and physically demanding schedule. He will be 33 years by the time he would be playing his first match at the US Open and honestly going by the past record, only few players have managed to win singles title at that age. His peak years are behind him and all he has with him are the years of experience and the inner desire to play tennis. He loves playing tennis - a fact pretty evident as he does not seem to be bogged down with legacy and terms like 'retiring on a high'.

Now coming to the pocket dynamo, the enigmatic Nadal and his performances at the Grand Slams. He turns 28 this June and he already has 13 titles to his credit - including French Open a record 8 times (Whoa, that's out of this world stuff!!!). In spite of all his muscles, his penchant for baseline tennis and what not (ask the ladies), I have a problem with him when it comes to consistency.

It is not that Nadal is extraordinary, even Federer had 15 titles to his credit when he was 28 years of age. And going by the trend in tennis, it is a lot difficult to win as age advances. This is one sport where there is no replacement for physical demands. Experience and skills can guide you in crunch moments - if one is not fit to run around and constantly play the strokes with ease and precise, you are asking for trouble.

Since the time Nadal has made his Grand Slam debut - forty three Grand Slam tournaments have taken place and he has missed six tournaments during this period. He has managed to play a meagre 13 major tournaments in a row. 

On the court Nadal exerts himself to such a degree that he is prone to injuries - a technical flaw in my opinion. Probably the number would have been much less than 13 if he had taken a more steady approach. It's his natural game! 

Talking about steadiness - it is interesting to note that Nadal is a natural baseline player who loves and prefers to drain out his opponents engaging in a series of long rallies. Federer is quite the opposite; he loves to play serve and volley. Though well adapted to playing long rallies, he is always short of answers when it comes to playing on slow surfaces against the top three. Off late he is struggling practically in every surface and he is relying on his skills and all the knowledge accumulated over the years to reach the top four or top eight.

Federer remains a disciplined student of the game like a school student who refuses to skip even a single lecture till his schooling days are over. On the other hand, Nadal epitomises the 'cool' college going student who is smart, pumped up and restless like a raging bull - prone to accidents now and then, only to make a comeback with a bang. The mixed fortune cycle of pain and glory repeats at regular intervals. How long can he sustain such a professional lifestyle? One, two, three, four years or more.... Luckily, age is on his side.

As to Roger Federer - the 'aura' of  awesomeness is missing from the past 3-4 years. Yet, he marches on year after year participating in many of the elite tournaments worldwide, travelling constantly with his young family, fighting to remain in the top five with a hope of one last victory at a Grand Slam. It's been a while he shed those tears of joy and kiss the winner's trophy - a ritual which he and a lot of his fans were so accustomed to. 

"Legend remains victorious in spite of history" - Sarah Bernhardt 

Celebrating Twenty Years of Tennis in my Life

Raaghu was and will always remain the first person with whom I played tennis. This present year would be the time when we would have celebrated our 20^th year anniversary of playing tennis. The game of tennis was a short lived affair and if my memory serves right, we played for about 3-4 years. I continued with other friends for another four years into the early years of this millennium. I loved cricket and equally I enjoyed playing tennis, and Raaghu was equally excited about playing with me. He was my cousin alright; my tennis mate was apt at that time.

We watched a lot of cricket and tennis together but when it came to playing, he preferred tennis and I don’t know why. He resisted coming to play cricket with us and was always game to play one of our versions of Grand Slam tournaments. Soon this bug caught on with a lot of my friends and we had to draw the ties, have a proper line umpire and what not.

There were two courts bang opposite to our respective homes; both the court lines drawn manually by me and Raaghu. There were no different grades of hard courts, clay was nowhere to be seen and grass? Well, let’s just say it was meant for the cows to graze or to be adorned in the rectangular empty plots. After having drawn the boundaries with accuracy, the space inside those brick red lines became our playing world. We played Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open – all on the same surface; the tarred roads of Bangalore and in our locality in particular.

This craze like I mentioned before caught on and attracted my peers like ants to sugar blocks. It was an amazing piece of entertainment and more importantly, an arena in which we felt we could play tennis with zero investment. Mind you, traffic was alien to us at that time and so except for few stares by pedestrians and fan gathering, the game went on regularly uninterrupted. Flood lights in the form of bright street lights were a boon and we played tennis under lights, just like Australian or the US Open.

There were three setters, five setters and doubles tournament – the frenzy went on for months and a few years. It was not a regular past time; it was seasonal which peaked with that of the professional tennis season, namely the Grand Slams. I felt for Mary Joe Fernandez losing the French Open to Steffi Graf in 1993 and immediately in the next tournament I can still recall the teary eyes of Jana Novotna (Navrathna, as I used to call her) on that Saturday evening of the Wimbledon finals. It is still etched in my memory. One of the reasons being, we started playing tennis during that time. 

When Sergei Brugera won a five set thriller against Jim Courier in the French Open finals, we also started to stretch our play and started playing five setters. The triumph of Jensen brothers in the men’s doubles and with growing popularity of our local tennis doubles game made its debut. We imitated many of the tennis players and the serve of Pete Sampras became my style, or atleast I tried hard to replicate. He won his first Wimbledon in that year and in the process went on to become my favourite player. It was Jim Courier again who lost the finals in consecutive tournaments.

I have won a Grand Slam; won many of the doubles matches and at the same time have lost too. Raaghu had his share of victories too. And that my dear friends, is how we consumed tennis outside of television - without racquets, without tennis overalls and most importantly without tennis courts. The only common equipment between the elite players and us were the use of tennis balls, and most of it was locally made.

Wilson was the biggest brand we aspired to have, and believe me twenty years ago if I were to be presented with a set of Wilson tennis balls, I would have kept it safely without letting air whistle through the vacuumed container and touch those precious tennis balls. However, there was no shortage of seriousness and we played till the last drop of sweat fell onto the ground. Yeah, there was no prize money, so what?

That was when I was nine years of age and I was hooked onto tennis just like I was crazy about playing cricket. The hero of Indian tennis back then was Leander Paes and Ramesh Krishnan. Krishnan retired few years later while Paes has continued and recently won his 14^th Grand Slam title in doubles.

I don’t quite know what me remember this phase of our childhood. Maybe it was a conversation I had in the morning which made me realise how deeply I love sports and the short work I did with tennis. I have not played a tennis match in a long time. It’s high time I played a game of tennis on a proper court, holding a racquet with a hope of winning a game, a set and probably a match.