A capricious generation of no favourites makes sport enjoyable

Roger Federer and Pete Sampras: Champions of an era

Champions bring thrill, exhilaration, set unprecedented benchmarks and take the sport to another level. In the 90s, the world of sport was dull, not because of the lack of quality, neither because of the absence of state of the art technology. The simple reason being that we had Michael Schumacher, Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods and Steve Waugh’s Australian team.

The aforementioned athletes hated one word: losing. The sweat, toil and relentless pursuit to avoid the second best position made the fans stand up and take notice. Critics bewailed. The mellifluous metaphors were limited; the reverberation in eulogizing the same protagonists had become a routine chore. So when Sampras swept the Wimbledon titles staring from 1993 to 2000 (barring 1996, when some writer might have predicted Sampras’ ouster), everyone knew he was the best man to win the trophy. Writing about the possibility of Petr Korda winning was considered crazy.

Formula One was ruled by Michael Schumacher. His victories reinforced his position at the top by a long margin. Every victory was a carbon copy of the master class. A second position for the German made headlines in newspapers around the world. Presses stopped, inked the news and sold loads of copies. The critics woke up. All of a sudden, the world was a better place to live in when other drivers, mere mortals, got on the level-playing terms with the champion. And all this would be a minor aberration when Schumacher came back and won races again and again.

Tiger Woods has redefined perfection. Winning four majors in a row is beyond realms of imagination. The plausibility of such a thing happening is quite rare. The phenomenon of impossibility was put under severe test.

But today, there are no single favourites in the game anymore. The underdogs, as they are called, have the mental fortitude to compete with the top players. A Lukas Rasol is there to knock out Rafael Nadal, the Dutch cricket team has the arsenal to beat England at Lord’s in the T20 cricket World Cup, the South African hockey team has the gumption to beat the beleaguered Indian hockey team at London. The tales of upsets has become a routine. There is no cloak of impregnability anymore.

Schumacher, the ultimate champion in F1 history, retired and came back in the sport; but he is not the same. The wins eluded him. Sampras, who almost owned the Wimbledon court, was humbled by George Bastl, while the Australian cricket team was whitewashed by India. Federer, a 17-time Grand Slam champion, was challenged by Julien Bennateau at the centre court, and beaten by Thomas Berdych at the US Open. The emergence of Andy Murray as a British Grand Slam winner. Top four winning a Grand Slam each in 2012. How about David Ferrer, Jo-Wilfred Tsonga or Janko Tipsarevic winning a Grand Slam? An Associate nation reaching the semi-final of a cricket World Cup?

Isn’t that good for the spectators’ point of view? Don’t we get bored if same person/team wins again and again? Don’t we want to get titillated before a contest begins? Don’t we just hate the lopsided contests like the thrashing we get in hockey?

Domination is somewhat dour in sport. The cul de sac takes away the intrigue. Change has come, new champions have emerged. Bolt is invincible no doubt; but there is a Yohan Blake giving him run for his money. Hopefully, in coming years, unpredictability shall be the name of the game. If that happens, we will have enough stories to tell our grandchildren- intriguing stories mind you, not mere recitations of ‘dominating’ champions.