What it means to be a tennis fan. Part 1

So following on from the previous blog relating to nursing, I also want to mention a couple of thoughts about what it means to be a tennis fan. To be honest this isn’t something I thought I’d ever write about but I read a comment in an article in the Evening Standard last Friday which made me a little cross to say the least. It was about the win Andy Murray had in his second round match with Radek Stepanek in the Monte Carlo Masters and the credit Andy gave to the boxer David Haye for helping him with his “self belief and aggressive winning mentality”. Fair enough, nothing wrong with that and a credit to them both. There’s nothing worse or more likely to make you feel uncomfortable as a tennis fan than watching a player struggle with a defeatist mental attitude.
The aspect of the article that really pissed me off and which tennis fans the world over will empathise with was the introductory comment made by the journalist; “The genteel strawberries and cream world of tennis may appear to have little in common with the blood and guts of boxing”.
I actually need to take a minute before I go on as this has incensed me so much. It really gets my goat that tennis is referred to in such a way; another particular favourite is that it’s an ‘old man’s game’. Yeah right, only you don’t see any old men playing competitive tennis though do you? They wouldn’t even be able to beat the women if they were. I admit to deliberately missing the point there but in my experience the majority of spectators don’t fall into the ‘old men’ category either.
Ok back to the comment in the article. One of the first things I ever learned about tennis is that it’s a mental game, and I don’t mean mental as in mad, although that could be argued, just not now; but that it’s down to your mental determination and self belief. I’ve been watching tennis since I was 11 and the first player I totally fell in love with was Bjorn Borg when he won the Wimbledon final in 1980. Borg was my first crush I think and I read articles and devoured books about him, his game and what made him great. Actually one of the best insights was in John McEnroe’s autobiography when he not only discussed their professional rivalry but also their friendship and how much he missed Borg from the tour when he retired.
The element of Borg’s game which received the most commentary and which stayed with me, apart from his physical physique, was his mental toughness, his cool. The 4th set tie break in the 1980 final is legendary; let’s face it whenever there’s rain during the Wimbledon fortnight you can guarantee the BBC will dust it off and run it. It’s not a problem, it’s a good match and appeals to all fans, but what’s clear about that match and all good matches is the way the big points are played, that’s where the psychological tests are. Not only the 4th set tie breaks but for example, a score of 15:40 in the 7th game of a set is gonna test your mental toughness. Tennis matches are lost and won on a handful of key points and that’s what makes it so compelling. Well that and the skill of a well executed and well placed volley or lob, positioning in defence or a sweet backhand down the line, to name but a few.
So it’s understandable that Murray would be likely to benefit from Hayes in the way the article describes and in the match against Stepanek you could see it starting to pay off. But to say that tennis is so far removed from boxing is ludicrous. In addition to the mental ability, players need be extremely physically fit, light on their feet, have stamina and endurance, be agile, able to change direction and react quickly, able to outthink their opponent, have excellent defence.....sounds like boxing to me.