 "Long tennis")
Sumit Nagal was born in August 1997, in Jhajjar, Haryana. But Sumit Nagal the rising star of Indian tennis was born on the lush turquoise blue turf at Melbourne Park in January this year, when he defeated Kazakhstan’s Alexander Bubik.
In doing so, Nagal would become the first Indian since Ramesh Krishnan in 1989 to beat a seeded player in the singles main draw of a Grand Slam event.
Last Sunday, Nagal won the Heilbronner Neckarcup ATP Challenger event, quelling the challenge of unheralded Swiss Alexander Ritschard in a gruelling three-set encounter, and vaulting in the world ranking to a career best 77. This helped him secure the coveted Paris 2024 quota for India. A ranking of 80 or higher is the cut-off.
In between the euphoria Down Under and the sealing of the spot in Paris, Nagal won another Challenger event in Chennai. And he showcased his nous on the clay surface in Monte Carlo, when he pushed World No. 15 Holger Rune to three sets.
It capped the 26-year-old’s stellar journey to success by bouncing back from the lows of injury, obscurity, self-doubt, and years of frustration.
Add to that his battle with a dwindling bank balance. With less than $1,000 in his account, life for the then 122nd ranked Nagal, son of a primary school teacher, was arduous, and required constant juggling between remaining competitive and avoiding going bankrupt.
The victory against Bubik was the shot in the arm he desperately needed to overcome the financial hurdles, and also to keep his disillusionment at bay.
He pocketed a cool $118,000 for his efforts Down Under.
“At the start of this year, Sumit had two goals in front of him. First, represent India at the Olympics, and second, break into the top 100 ranking. He has achieved both these goals,” Suresh Nagal, Sumit’s father, tells Business Standard.
India, with a population of more than 1.4 billion, has lesser pedigree when it comes to churning out singles players in tennis. But Sumit, with a world-ranking of 77 and an Olympic quota under his belt, could be the catalyst for the sport.
Burning and flickering
Like cricket, tennis has its origins in Great Britain. But the sport took a while to catch the imagination of the colonised. After Independence, more specifically from the 1960s, tennis began making headlines in Indian newspapers, courtesy the dazzling Ramanathan Krishnan.
Krishnan’s finesse and graceful half volley drop shots made him a player of exquisite beauty. He heralded the next generation of Indian tennis players in the 1970s. In 1973, thanks in no small measure to a protest and pullout by several top players, seven Indians played the main singles men’s draw at Wimbledon. One of them was Vijay Amritraj, who was one of the top players in the world, and who later passed on the baton to Krishnan’s son, Ramesh.
After that, the lights went out.
Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi became household names in the 1990s, as did Sania Mirza later, and Rohan Bopanna burns bright to this day. But their best accomplishments have been in the doubles arena. And this too has not engendered a sustained tennis tradition in India.
In the past decade, Somdev Devvarman, Sanket Myneni, Sanam Singh and Yuki Bhambri flickered fleetingly, but they were never in the same league as Krishnan or Paes.
Contrastingly, badminton, another racquet sport, has seen an inversely proportional rise to tennis.
Asia advantage
Badminton burst into national consciousness in 1980, after Prakash Padukone’s crowning glory at the All England Open. In 2001, when Pullela Gopichand matched Padukone to win the All England Open, and gave youngsters across the country a reason to pick up a abadminton racquet.
Years later, when Gopichand took over as the coach, the floodgates opened. It helped that Asia is the seat of world badminton.
“Around 70 per cent of badminton tournaments are played in Asia. For tennis, the epicentre is Europe, North America and Australia. So, it is much easier for a Spaniard tennis player to make his presence felt than an Asian,” Zeeshan Ali, India’s Davis Cup coach and a former player who competed at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, tells Business Standard.
That has an impact on the cost of being a pro.
“Spending three months in Europe is expensive. Badminton has that advantage. There are more badminton academies mushrooming across India. You can have four badminton courts in the space of a single tennis court,” Ali explains.
Glamour no bar
Logistics notwithstanding, the glamour, money and world-wide recognition a tennis player gets is far greater than in badminton. Last year’s World Tour Finals, the season-ending extravaganza in badminton, had a prize money of $2.5 million, spread across five categories. In comparison, the singles champion at this year’s Wimbledon, one of the four Grand Slam tournaments in tennis, will walk home with a $3.5 million cheque.
“I think one of the main things for the popularity of any sport is to have stars. When Sania (Mirza) broke onto the scene, I had more girls joining tennis classes than boys,” Ali elaborates.
After Saina, no female tennis player has managed to come through.
In badminton, however, it is like players are being churned off an assembly line. First, it was Saina Nehwal winning the bronze at the 2012 Olympics that caught the nation’s attention. Then PV Sindhu raised the pitch in 2016 with the silver at the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.
The bulk of the credit must go to Gopichand for creating a world-class academy in Hyderabad, which has turned into Indian badminton’s epicentre.
“Gopichand has created a completely different coaching centre, which has produced all these stars. One is the money, with the growing sponsorships, and second is the limelight. Consequently, the awareness about a sport like badminton has increased manifold,” Ali says.
Gopichand, for his part, downplays the hype. Speaking to Business Standard, he says: “I really don’t want to compare badminton with tennis. What I can tell you is that we have been able to create an ecosystem for badminton. I also believe that Indians have a physicality for the sport. It also has had a bit of a trickle-down effect. Badminton has seen the rise of several superstars who won medals in Olympics and other world events.”
A lot of youngsters play tennis at the junior level, which grants them an easy entry into the top universities in the United States, with the accommodation, training and meals taken care of.
Things change drastically when the player turns professional.
The difficulty of being pro
“Once a player graduates from a US university, having played tennis for four years, he faces a dilemma. Should I go through campus placement, get a steady job, and settle in the US or anywhere abroad, or should I break my back on the tennis circuit? Eighty per cent settle for a job,” Ali says.
So, what is the road ahead for Indian tennis?
According to Ali, tennis needs more sponsorships. A pool of eight to 10 young players can be identified, trained, put on the
right diet, kept fit, and groomed for the rigours of the pro circuit.
“That’s what the US did in the 1980s and through the 1990s,” he says. “Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, and David Wheaton had support staff travelling with them at all times. The local federation also chipped in. That’s how you build players.”
The lack of a thriving ecosystem offers little hope for India to consistently produce tennis players on the world stage.
But for now, in Nagal we trust.
