The truth about Wimbledon. Review on Tennis

Foreword

A very important case has come up before me for hearing. The case has to be heard and the verdict to be pronounced before the last Monday of June.

Wimbledon is just round the corner. For two weeks the quiet London suburb basks in the media publicity of what is promoted as ? The Championship? . Does this tournament deserve the tag of being the premier tournament of tennis glory? Is it still the most important tournament for the players ?

Let us hear from both parties as they slug it out. This is the time to sit back, listen, ponder and let the evidence speak for itself.

Presenting the case for Wimbledon.

1. Wimbledon is the only grass court grand slam event

   
   




2. It is the oldest of the four grand slam events

   
   




3. It is the place were you can experience the joy of serve and volley game

   
   




4. Matches are short and not oh so boring

   
   




5. It is steeped in tradition

   
   




6. It is the Mecca of Tennis. Need we say more?

   
   

The dissenters counter argument

1. We are talking about Tennis here and not lawn tennis. Forty years ago your argument would be valid. Wimbledon was the tournament. That was when three of the four grand slams were played on grass.

   
   




2. How many tour events are played on grass? Queens and Rotterdam before Wimbledon and another one at Newport sometime before the hard court season.

   
   




3. Serve and volley is just one part of the game.

   
   




4. Boom service and a weak return to the net is far more monotonous. Time is relative and a ninety minute match at Wimbledon may seem an eternity when compared to a five hour five set epic at Rolland Garros.

   
   




5. Wimbledon is in a time wrap. They have just about abolished curtsey to the royal box- fifty years too late.

   
   




6. Yes preserve it as a world Heritage site

   
   

Opponents of Wimbledon also put forward their side of the story

1. Only a handful of today?s players consider Wimbledon as the tournament. This has to do with the globalisation of the game wherein Latin American and European players prefer clay , American & Asian players hardcourts. Only WW veterans and players with wooden rackets prefer Wimbledon.

   
   




2. See the entries for Wimbledon and compare it with either French or US opens. More of the top 100 players skip Wimbledon than the other two.

   
   




3. A serve is meant to be the start of a point and not the be all and end all as is the case in a grass court tournament

   
   




4. A complete tennis player will be found out only in a clay court or hardcourt. You have to have good ground strokes, physical fitness and most importantly gray stuff between your ears to out think and outmaneuver your opponent. Compare it to you typical boom boom champion at Wimbledon to know the difference.

   
   




5. A clay court makes for good drama and gives everyone a chance. The person who grabs the opportunity with both hands wins

   
   




6. In terms of the coverage of tennis too Roland Garros scores over Wimbledon. Not only is red clay pleasant to look at but the camera angles, montages shown are top class. Paris has style while Wimbledon is as exciting as a spinster with a bout of arthritis.

   
   




7. By the time the finals are played the center court has disintegrated beyond recognition and resembles a barn from where the cows have run away.

   
   

Wimbledon aficionados counter thus

1. This has more to do with the inability of the players to cope with the rigors of grass

   
   




2. Reason is as above

   
   




3. An ace sets the pulse racing. Is there a better sight than a Sampras overhead smash or the poetic motion of an Edberg backhand volley? Where else but Wimbledon can you get to watch them.

   
   




4. The best things in life are simple- Wimbledon is no exception. Get a good first serve in , move in intercept your opponent?s return and close out with the first volley. As simple as 1,2, & 3

   
   




5. Bjorn Borg was not a serve and volleyer but isn?t he the best Wimbledon champ. Don?t forget Agassi. He too won from the baseline didn?t he?

   
   




6. Do you prefer style over substance?

   
   




7. Hmm that is the nature of grass . Do not tamper with nature.

   
   

By the way things are going , it will be year end before the two parties finish their arguments. So using my judicial prerogative I command each side to succinctly give their closing arguments.

For Wimbledon

1. The vast majority of the players and public consider this as the ultimate tournament.

   
   




2. Where else would you find a disconsolate runner up sobbing on the shoulders of royalty?

   
   




3. Ask Bjorn Borg, Sampras , Navrotilova and you would get the answer. When the best like Wimbledon is there any need for this trial.

   
   

Dissenters

1. Grass has only curiosity value.

   
   




2. Ask Kuerten, Bruguera , Corretja and Courier . they all have something to say about Wimbledon

   
   




3. Why did Australian Open and U S Open replace grass.?

   
   




4. As we said earlier the game now being played is Tennis and not lawn tennis. There in lies our case.

   
   

Expert Testimony

Before coming to a conclusion I would like to call on three special witnesses to testify before this court. I have carefully chosen such people who I think all have some stature whose integrity is above reproach .

Guilermo Vilas: .Grass is for cows

Bjorn Borg: .

Wimbledon is best , but wait a minute I have won eight French Open and I really wanted to be a fighter pilot once. So what I want to say is that while French Open is better in that?..

(Me: ( To myself)Why did I call this man? (Loudly) Mr Borg I order you to contest elections in Bihar in the seat to be vacated by Laloo Prasad . I order you to contest in the RJD ticket against yourself on the BJP ticket ?( come on what is happening to me?got to get a hold of myself)

Agassi: . Steffi is waiting for me yon.

I started out at Wimbledon and finish

I did my slam at Paris man.

So both have a special place in my heart.

But one is the start and the other is the fin.

If you got what I mean ,you sure are fine.

The Verdict.

A hell a lot of good these expert witnesses were to me.

After carefully considering the evidence and arguments placed before this court while I do recognize the importance given by the print media to this tournament over the years there is a real case in the prosecution theory that tennis is no longer a lawn game and as such the stature of grass tournaments have taken a beating. But has this reduced the preeminent position of the tournament. The answer would have to be in the negative.

However as a tennis fan of some thirty years standing it pains me to see the snobbery of most fanatical supporters of Wimbledon who feel that other tournaments are inferior. Nothing could be farther from truth. While an Edberg back hand volley is a truly exhilarating spectacle , it should not be forgotten a Jim Courier inside forehand played on the red clay of Paris is a joy forever. While waxing eloquent on Sampras?s sky hooks can one forget the poetry in motion of a Guga one handed backhand.

The court therefore while upholding that Wimbledon is still tremendously popular forbids it to advertise itself as ? The Championship? as if the other three ?especially the French open were inferior to it. .