The missing links: Why, despite Ramkumar’s win, Indian tennis isn’t going anywhere in a hurry

In August 1998, a young Leander Paes (then ranked world No 100) beat the then world number 2 Pete Sampras in straight sets 6-3, 6-4.

The young Indian was in his element – hitting big inside-out forehands in the first set to complement his chip and charge tactics. In the second set, he added the running forehand (perhaps a nod to Sampras himself) to the mix. He won and convincingly at that.

That one win – helped his ranking jump from 100 to 73, which remained the high point of his career.

One though would be tempted to defer judgment and say that perhaps Paes’s finest moment was not his win against Sampras but a loss against Andre Agassi – not at the Olympics but at the US Open in 1996. It was the round of 64 and the match lasted two hours and 28 minutes.

For one-and-a-half set, Paes could do no wrong. He went big, he went for broke and it seemed to be paying off. Once again, he went for the chip-and-charge strategy and unleashed big forehands. Agassi was caught off-guard initially and as the crowd cheered for Paes, one could feel a Davis Cup spirit rising.

Still, Paes eventually ran out of steam and lost. But having a homegrown guy to root for in big matches is a special kind of fun. And we, in India, have missed that feeling for far too long.

Then, suddenly, out of the blue came the news that Ramkumar Ramnathan, just 22 and ranked 222 in the world, had beaten world No 8 Dominic Thiem 6-3, 6-2 at Antalya. There were reports that Thiem was tired, that he had travelled 2,900 kms and that his heart wasn’t in it. None of that was Ramkumar’s fault – the win was his and he earned it.

But still if the doubters had any doubts, Ramkumar washed them away with his performance against Marcos Baghdatis (once ranked world No 10, now world No 79). For two hours and 43 minutes, Ramkumar matched him shot for shot. And even though he lost, he gave India some hope – hope that at long last we just might have a player who will make it to the top 100.

The losing argument

The arguments of why India’s tennis players are no good are plentiful and we have been hearing them for a while. We have no system, we have no planning, and we don’t have enough funding. But how much of that really matters?

At the 2017 French Open, Jelena Ostapenko became the first player from Latvia to win a Grand Slam tournament, and the first unseeded player to win the French Open since 1933. And Latvia has no real tennis culture to speak of. And until Ostapenko happened, their achievements were lesser than that of India. Their talent pool was smaller and Ostapenko was coached by her mom (her dad was her trainer).

Vece Paes, Leander’s father, played a huge role in his early career but even he understands that a system is not necessary.

“You can take the horse to the water but can you make it drink?” said Vece Paes. “An individual produces himself. He reacts to his environment. Some people thrive, some people don’t.”

He added, “In Indian tennis, we try and produce ‘correct players’. But if you want to win matches and points, there is no such thing as keeping the ball in play. If you play to a steady rhythm, your opponent will get used to that rhythm. If he gets used to the rhythm, you are finished.

“At the end of the day, tennis is a game of crises. In every game, in every match – you will reach a point where you will either sink or swim. At that point, do you want to keep the ball in play or do you want to win the point on the basis of your own strength? The idea of perfect practice doesn’t exist, it shouldn’t.”

Ostapenko’s game is a bit like that. She constantly goes for the lines; she constantly goes for broke. It will backfire until she finds consistency and the range to go with the attitude, but once she does, she will be in a position to challenge the best. And isn’t that what we want from our players?

Coaches should want to build up players – so that by a certain age their game comes together. In India, though, the pressure on the kids is immense.

Shot in the dark

Former Davis Cupper Sandeep Kirtane, who has now turned to coaching, feels that part of the problem is India’s love of the shot.

“We want to see good shots but we don’t want to see how the child moves before the good shot or how much the child has moved after it,” he said. “This love of the shot means that while our technique becomes good, our fitness remains very poor. So what are you building on? Why do you think our players keep breaking down?”

There was a time when people played serve-and-volley tennis. There was a time when rallies were short. But now the rallies are longer, which invariably means that you need greater stamina, better footwork, and more point creation.

“But unfortunately, our players simply can’t do that,” said Kirtane, who was once Asia’s top-ranked junior. “I have taken players to Europe and after two 20-shot rallies, our players are tired. It is sad but it is true. Our players are skillful and intelligent with their shot-making, so clearly if they can work on their fitness, they will stand a chance.”

Vece Paes concurs. He believes in the 10,000-hour training method. To get to the top, juniors need to train their hearts out and reach that threshold by the time they are 18-19.

“Tennis has just become too physical,” he said. “That we are not able to keep up comes down to our culture. We don’t come out saying, ‘I want to take them down.’ Leander wanted to, but he was short and in a game that is dominated by the serve that is a huge downer.”

He added, “The Indian system doesn’t lack facilities. It doesn’t lack money. Nor does it lack talent. But a change of mindset is crucial. We need to be aggressive, we need to develop that kind of physicality and finally, we need to be fearless.”

The parent trap

Vishal Uppal, another former Davis Cupper, who now coaches Abhimanyu Vannemreddy (who played at the junior French Open) and Tanisha Kashyap (reigning U-16 India singles and doubles champ) among others, feels the biggest problem though might be the parents.

“But perhaps the biggest menace is parental over-instruction,” he said. “They may have never held a racket in their hands but they feel it is fine to tell the coach and their child about how to go about things. YouTube videos don’t help matters either. Suddenly, everyone feels that they are an expert.”

It doesn’t stop there. It never does. With all the technology available, parents sit and try and break down their child’s shot. Sometimes, they also show them Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal’s game.

“According to me, it is criminal to show a child Roger Federer’s game,” said Kirtane. “Are you really expecting an eight-year-old to be able to do what Roger does, or even more incredibly what Nadal does? But they don’t ask, they believe that because they have paid us, we have to listen to them.”

Of course, that isn’t the biggest problem either. Uppal believes that India’s education system is such that a child will almost never be allowed to put sports ahead of studies. Not that the parents will allow it either.

“Indian kids growing up have to contend with academics at every stage,” he said. “They lose a month or two every year because schools simply refuse to give them the assistance they need. If the schools support an athlete, it will make things so much easier. As things stand, they are rarely if ever are able to focus on just one thing. Kids need to be able to train all the time.”

The harsh truth is that Indians are essentially afraid to go for broke. They are always looking for a backup plan. If this doesn’t work, then what… But can you aim to become a professional with that sort of weak mindset?

To Kirtane, the problem is multiplied when the parents start looking at the percentages. Not enough Indians have made it big in tennis. Even a Yuki Bhambri, who was the word’s top-ranked junior, has struggled at the senior level.

“You can see it happen right in front of you,” Uppal added. “If one tells a parent that his child has great talent and that he should pursue just sport, the parents are immediately thinking along the lines of how many Indians have actually made it big and what are the chances of my kid doing the same.”

Money, money, money

Vece Paes talked of a story from Leander’s junior days when he was playing a tournament in Wolfsburg.

“One day, Leander had gone to Wolfsburg to play in a junior tournament and he called back. He was sobbing and he said he has no money. I have to pay the hotel bills but I have just $100. If I pay the bills, I will not be able to buy food. I am cold and hungry.”

Vece Paes added, “I just told him to stop complaining. ‘It was all on a platter for you. You have to decide what you want to do. You have to find the answer.’ The next thing he did was that he somehow managed to convince the dressing room attendant to let him stay on. It was against the rules but the guy said he would pretend to lock him in every night. He did that and Leander had enough money to buy sandwiches.

“All I am trying to say is that nobody is an island. You need all the support possible to raise a future tennis star. We had money – sponsors had stepped in and we used to get funding to the tune of Rs 35 lakh - Rs 40 lakh. But even that wasn’t enough. You have to big deep and you have to hope you survive. No, you have to survive.”

At 16, you pay… say $1,000 for a coach, and another $2,000 for a trainer. These costs ensure that only the rich kids stay in business, but do they have the talent? A single hitting session with a reputed coach can cost you anywhere between Rs 3,000- Rs 4,000. A full-time coach also takes 10% - 15% of the prize money. Ramkumar, himself, spends upwards of Rs 50 lakh annually.

“Indian sport – not just tennis – loses a lot of top talent due to lack of funds,” added Uppal. “The difference between India and abroad is that they will back a 100 kids and maybe one of them will come good. In India, on the other hand, we only want to support those who have already made it big. Given how expensive playing tennis can be, who do you think needs the money? The established star or the one trying to make it big?”

That is partly why India has a lot of juniors, but very few who make the cut at the senior level.

“India will have 100 kids at the U-16 level. But by the time, they are 17-18, just 10-15 remain in the pool,” said Vece Paes. “And the numbers whittle down even more after that.”

A dream too far?

To sum it up, everyone seems to know what India’s problem is but still the answers are hard to come by. Firstly, the emphasis for India players is not on fitness and skills. Secondly, winning in the short-term and getting as much sponsorship as possible is all that matters. Thirdly, we don’t plan in the right way.

Instead, someone needs to tell kids that it is okay to lose when you initially move up from juniors to seniors. As a junior, you will lose. At 22, you will start winning a little. At 25, you will be at your best. There are exceptions to the rule but you have to hit your high points at the right time. Do all of that and with a little bit of luck, maybe the sight of an Indian player beat a top seed will not remain a rarity anymore.