The Green Grass of Home

With the traditional summer months fast approaching, those of a sporting persuasion will begin think of the hallowed lush turf of Wimbledon, and its famed tennis championships. Holding the distinction of being the oldest tennis tournament in the world, Wimbledon is considered the most prestigious event on the tennis calendar. 

A position that plays in no small part thanks to the tournament’s steep history, and its importance on tradition. Currently, Wimbledon is the only Grand Slam tournament which is still played on the sport’s original surface of lawn grass.

With that said, looking at the tennis circuit as a whole, there is an apparent lack of grass court events being played. In fact, there are only seven during the year on both the men’s and women’s tour combined, which is frantically boxed in duel two week window either side of Wimbledon.

The existing schedule of tournaments staged is dominated by outdoor and indoor hard court events, and clay court competitions. With such a focus by the gatekeepers of the sport, there is a growing number querying why grass does not feature just as keenly during the year.  

The lack of grass tournaments is somewhat a strange scenario, particularly as tennis’s roots so to speak, have largely been based on this surface. The 1920’s saw a significant shift begin as what is now recognised as the French Open, embarked on a switch and began to be played on clay. Along with the prominence of the Open Era in 1968, such movements have helped usher the differing court surfaces we have today.

But why is there a dearth of grass competitions if for so long it was the primary surface of choice? In reviewing the situation, it is easy to understand why grass court events are not plentiful. The cost of grass court maintenance is significantly higher when compared to its counterparts, and the required natural elements needed to play, are a large part of when grass tournaments can be staged.   

 

Even so, as the three main surfaces differ greatly in terms of texture and feel, a court’s facade can favour one style of tennis player to have an advantage over another player, and their natural approach. So should the tennis world continually allow grass to go overlooked?

Both the men’s and women’s tour which is administered by the ATP and WTA respectively, set aside a period which is defined and concluded by a forthcoming Grand Slam event on the diary. Based on the surface which the Grand Slam tournament is recognised for, the respective tours dedicate at least one prime event during this time, which acts as a fitting pre-cursor to the imminent Major. Wimbledon and the grass court season is the only exception. Using the men’s ATP tour as an example, the nine primary events that rank just beneath the Grand Slams, five are contested on outdoor hard, three on clay, and the remaining tournament is an indoor hard court competition. 

At present, we are in the midst of the clay court season as both the men and women players recently participated at the Madrid Open. For those wondering, Petra Kvitova took the women’s singles title in the Spanish capital, and Novak Djokovic continued his winning run in 2011 by defeating Rafael Nadal in the men’s championship. Before returning to the matter at hand, I must give a special mention to Rafael Nadal, who played one of the most astonishing shots you will ever see. If you have not seen the shot, I implore you to look it up on the vast media sources available on the internet.  

With that bit of housekeeping done, it is clear the different surfaces play an important part of the sport’s package. Grass court tournaments should be given the due time and attention that its equivalents presently hold. An equal amount of court surface events on show, would present a challenging situation for the players to adjust their play, and try to negate the demands each surface brings. Players would look to be more proficient on all of the featured surfaces, and allow a greater variation of tennis matches played whilst enhancing our public interest and the sport’s charm.

Murray Mountain

A new year, another grand slam final passes, but yet another effort that came a little short for Britain’s Andy Murray in the Australian Open final. Murray’s latest disappointment came by the hands of Serbia’s Novak Djokovic, with the number three seed winning their encounter 6-4 6-2 6-3.

Going into the tournament Murray arguably seemed to possess the most difficult of minefields, in navigating a course to the final. However with likely opponents to be faced en-route to the final in  the form of Robin Soderling, Marcos Baghdatis, and Rafael Nadal exiting early in their respective matches, this latest opportunity presented Murray with his best chance to date to finally record a maiden Grand Slam win. A fact underlined particularly with no Roger Federer to contend with in the final. A mammoth situation that Murray had faced in his previous two Grand Slam final appearances, so this time round the odds certainly were more equally balanced than ever before for Murray.

But with this loss in the Rod Laver Arena, the doomsayers would eagerly depict the gloomy picture that Murray is simply not good enough, and mentally not tough enough to finally end Britain’s long 74-year wait for a male Grand Slam winner. Personally I do not buy into this notion and do feel that unlike some of his more recent British predecessors, Andy Murray possess more than enough talent at the elite level principally to finally end his and Britain’s long drought.

Surely if you are good enough, ones talent should prevail. With Murray consistently knocking on the door and contesting these major finals, you think at some stage in his career that lady luck would certainly be in Murray’s favour. You only have to look at past tennis greats such as Ivan Lendl, Goran Ivanisevic and Andre Agassi who appeared in multiple finals in search of their first major win before they finally reached tennis’ zenith.

However at a sprightly 23 years of age, in tennis terms, recent history has dictated that Murray is at a juncture where a player’s abilities should be coming to the boil and should be recording Grand Slam victories at the very highest level. We only have to look at his peers to see that Rafael Nadal had already posted seven of his current nine Grand Slam wins before tuning 24, and Argentina’s Juan Martin Del Potro at 20 years of age had already won the US Open back in 2009. The great Roger Federer had amassed five Slam wins at this stage in his career, and with Novak Djokovic’s latest win over Murray in Melbourne, the 23 year old Serb who is a week younger than Murray has now posted two victories in the major championships.

I’m not saying all is lost Andy Murray and his career should already be confined to the scrapheap, but with each occasion that passes, his task becomes more difficult.  For the most part, with the natural evolution the sport holds with its participants, the next big crop of talent to burst on the scene can suddenly just occur at such a tender age. Thus making Murray’s annual challenges in the Slams that much more complex in trying to accomplish and achieve. Nevertheless we must put this into context.

Battling against arguably the two greatest of all time in Federer and Nadal for some of the game’s major honours is no mean feat. For this, I for one feel Murray must be commended for even being on par with such a stellar cast list to clash with, when competing for some of the game biggest titles. But this should not be the justification that withholds Murray from fulfilling his capable promise.

Time will indeed tell when or if Andy Murray does ever win a Grand Slam, but either way it will gripping and compelling viewing to see him try. On a personal note, if Andy Murray does ever win a Slam, I do wish he could do this when Roger Federer is long gone from the tennis scene.