In the tennis world there has been a dominance by the American and the European players in both the men's category and the women's.
The 1970s and the early 80s saw the era of players like Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe. The mid and late eighties saw players like Boris Becker and the early, mid and late nineties: Pete Sampras, Goran Ivansevic and Andre Agassi. The new millennium and the current world saw and is seeing players like Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal (to name a few).
Similarly, in the women's category, players like Virginia Wade, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Justine Henin, the Williams sisters, Maria Sharapova, Jelena Jankovic, and Ana Ivanovic ruled. And some of these players are still ruling the pack.
Some might wonder why have I not mentioned any Australian players, except for Lleyton Hewitt. Yes, I do acknowledge the fact there have been Australians who have won Grand Slams, and are very well known, but now there is not a single Australian who features in the top 20 rankings.
Now, in the current ATP and Wta rankings the top 10 players are either from America or Europe. By America, I mean both North and Latin America.
There are players from Asia like Zheng Zie, Li Na, Sania Mirza who play, but somehow they seem to be vulnerable to the Americans and the Europeans.
It's like monopoly in oligopoly and I do not mean to imply that I don't like it. I do, but sometimes, it makes me feel that a bit of change in the line-up won't affect anyone excepting the players and the fans.
Every year, in fact, I am sure every day, a new player emerges, and almost 90 percent of the time, the player turns to be either American or European.
By this, I don't mean that all the American and the European players should lose or anything, all I am trying to say is that the participation and dedication from other countries should also increase.
The dedication and determination of these players should act as a catalyst and spur the others.
Another point that, even if non-European and non-American players win, they do not seem to be maintaining it. They somehow or the other end up losing to either an American or an European.
What is it that these players have that the others don't? A passion, a desire, the ability to go for the kill? Or is it that there is a lack of interest and participation from the other countries? Or do these players have some supernatural ability like superman that gives them a shield of invincibility?
Whatever the case may be, these players add spark and life to the game and watching them play is a feast for the eyes.
[And finally, by way of conclusion, I would like to add that I am not writing this article as being anti-American or anti-European. I'm writing this article because I feel it would be refreshing to have a change.]
4 comments Last one added 8 months ago — Leave a Comment
Long John Silver 8 months ago
SURE - but its like wishing an Indian tennis player to win wimbledon
it wont hap - because .... lets face it, cricket
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 8 months ago
funny you speak about monopoly and oligopoly
but see - here is the flaw in your argument
the monopoly exists because an organization wants to dominate the market, same with an oligopoly
i dont think the americans and europeans pick up a racket intending to monopolise the tennis market,. since there is a lack of Asians, it just happens that way ...
so this isnt a monopoly, its just a roll of a dice -
Edit Comment Cancel
Rohini Iyer 8 months ago
but long, barring four nations, no other nation plays cricket, i mean we have south east asian countries also, but they do not play that well. similarly we don't have any players from african countries. most of these countries don't play cricket.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rohini Iyer 8 months ago
those four nations are asian: india, sri lanka, bangladesh and pakistan.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.