Bleacher Report - Articles by Prasant Tangirala

2009 Wimbledon Preview: Serena Williams—Depravity in Paradise

Prasant Tangirala — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:30:04 -0400

In an episode of the American sitcom, 'Seinfeld', Jerry contemplates breaking up with a girl he is dating. The reason? She is too nice.

Then he asks a question that is very telling: "Where is the depravity?" Seinfeld is known for its portrayal of life's universal truths in a kitschy, but accurate manner. However, even Seinfeld outdoes itself when it recognizes that one of the constants in our life is our craving for the dark side.

We always have, and probably always will like our heroes flawed.

In Biblical times, Sampson's legendary strength lay in his hair, and once Delilah cut off his seven locks, he loses his strength. In Greek mythology, Homer's The Iliad, Achilles' heel made him mortal, but he is immortalized in modern lexicon. The term is literally used to denote a flaw in an otherwise perfect being. A demi-god if you will.

This desire to see the proverbial chink in our heroes' armours is not limited to the West. In Hindu mythology, which far predates the Greeks, Krishna, the eighth avatar of Lord Vishnu and the main protagonist in the Hindu epic, The Mahabharata, is killed by the arrow of a mere hunter who shoots an arrow into his foot, causing him to bleed to death.

Why do we suffer from this sadistic desire to see our heroes flawed?

I am going to answer this question in much the same way that Deep Thought, the quirky supercomputer in Douglas Adams' classic, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' answers the ultimate question of 'life, the universe and everything' posed by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings. With a number: 8.

That's the length of a blade of grass in millimeters in every single court in the pristine lawns of the All England Lawn Tennis and Crouquet Club, or simply Wimbledon. A veritable oasis in the harsh desert that is professional tennis in the 21st century. A lush, green paradise, where even the strawberries are perfectly dimpled. Nothing is out of place.

In short, everything is perfect.

Some might even call it boring, but good boring. What can possibly make it better?

Why, some depravity of course.

Serena Williams brings it in spades. Before you fly off the handle in righteous rage, allow me to explain.

After one of her matches at the French Open last month, she casually mentioned that drama follows her around. And not unlike one of her blistering forehands past her hapless opponents, this statement is dead on the mark.

They say drama is composed of equal measure of humor and pathos. Both are base emotions. In medieval times people had a morbid fear of the performing arts and theater, thinking it corrupted the religious beliefs of the masses with its depravity.

Even the famous bard whose hometown of Stratford-Upon-Avon is exactly 100 miles northwest of Wimbledon wasn't spared and had to conduct his literary machinations in a clandestine fashion.

Serena is that unique athlete that combines a singular desire to win with an equally impressive ability to vex and madden. Very few athletes have this disposition in all of sports, let alone tennis.

John McEnroe was of course another master of these dark arts.

Perfection scares us. If even our Gods cannot be perfect, what right do we ordinary mortals have to endeavor to reach this higher plane?

Athletes such as Serena Williams offer us an escape from our cookie-cutter heroes. They provide the alter-ego of the all-conquering, all-pleasing champion by giving us a more human alternative. The Anti-Federer if you will.

Serena probably won't win this tournament. This is one place where the game of her older sibling Venus, trumps hers. However, you can be sure of one thing. The renegades among us, the ones who crave for the hedonistic red streak in the pearly white canvas of Wimbledon will be rooting for the anti-hero. The hero for the fallen, for the depraved.

Bigger Than the Game: The Triumph Of The Human Spirit

Prasant Tangirala — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:04:34 -0400

We’ve all felt it before.

Call it what you want. The precipice of history. An epochal moment. A once-in-a-lifetime event.

In history, our ancestors felt it when Michelangelo was putting the finishing touches on the ‘Creation of Adam’on the Sistine Chapel. Or when the world first set its eyes on the Taj Mahal, the ultimate monument to love.

In sport, we’ve seen it when Barry Bonds was about to break Mark McGwire’s single-season home-run record. When Sachin Tendulkar was on the verge of overtaking Brian Lara’s test match runs record. When Michael Phelps swam towards and past Spitz’s Olympic gold medal haul.

Records and statistics are integral to sports and imperative to sports fans. Mathematical musings for us fans to argue, discuss and yes, often fight each other for proving that our idol, team and country is better than the other's.

It is what makes us look forward to sporting events with pertinent passion and conduct post-mortems with morbid meaninglessness. Will England ever capture that second soccer World Cup and finally emulate its 1966 heroics? Will the Chicago Cubs ever break the curse of the Billy goat and win that elusive World Series?

Often, the discussion cuts across sports in a perverse coming-together of sports fans from different realms. Is a grand slam home-run in baseball more momentous than a Hail Mary in American Football?

It is all subjective, to be sure. And for the most part fairly harmless.

But scratch the surface and you will see that an ominous side-effect lurks in this murky business.

At first It is barely perceptive. A fleeting realization that something sinister is afoot comes next. And before you know it, it has happened. The sport itself has been eaten up by the statistic it has spawned.

Why do we let this happen to the very sports we love? More disturbingly, why do we revel in it?

Some say it is to keep casual fans interested and grow the sport. After all, everyone loves witnessing history in the making, right? Others claim it lends a sense of direction to the otherwise meaningless competitive slugfest that is the modern sports landscape.

I think it goes deeper than that.

Breaking records and statistics are proof that the human spirit rises above the artificial constructs of sport with its rigorous rules and laborious laws. A feeling so pure that it is unadulterated with the mundane humdrum of 150-game seasons and so removed from the maudlin milieu of base emotions commonly associated with sports.

We will celebrate it when the great Tiger Woods inevitably finally breaks Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 majors. We will be dancing in the bleachers when the blur of the phenomenon that is Usain Bolt streaks past the finish line in ungodly time.

Rest assured, we will be reaching for the skies if Roger Federer lifts the Coupe des Mousquetaires this Sunday.

French Open Mid-Term Grades: For the Coverage

Prasant Tangirala — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:37:33 -0400

During Grand Slam events, players’ performance obviously and rightfully gets the most attention. Often, sportswriters and bloggers assign players mid-term grades based on their performance in the first week of the event.

For the TV audience, performance of the television personalities of the broadcasting channel is an important part of the viewing experience.

A good commentator actually adds to the excitement of the match, while a sub—par commentator can make you reach for that mute button.

ESPN’s coverage of the French Open has been slightly above average. Here are my grades on its coverage of Week One of the French Open.

Darren Cahill (A) – Aussie tops the list. Technical analysis? Check. Interesting anecdotes? Check. Infusing just the right amount of humor? Check. Roger Federer’s loss (of a coach) is our gain (of a commentator). Kudos.
Brad Gilbert (A-) – Has been improving with each event, but has been a revelation this year. His cameo with Darren demonstrating the "clay-court slide" was educating as well as entertaining. As a player he may have won ugly, but as a commentator he talks beautifully.
Patrick McEnroe (B+) – Always brings the well-rounded perspective that comes from being an ex-player, coach, television personality and Davis Cup captain. Needs to bring the tone of excitement that bro John brings so effortlessly, but I am nitpicking here.
Mary-Joe Fernandez (B) – Another top ex-player who has seamless moved to a more than competent television personality. Downer: Her comments always seem rather US-centric. Maybe it is her role as the captain of the US Fed Cup team. She would do well to learn from Patrick McEnroe, who refuses to let his captaincy of the US Davis Cup team affect his commentary.
Chris Fowler (B-) – Normally very good, but his comments during the Sharapova-Shvedova match were in bad taste. He actually said that “glorious nation of Kazakhstan” (apparently his guide to world geography is Borat) “lured Shvedova with money” to change her national allegiance. I suppose he believes that when players like Navratilova and Lendl become US citizens, they do it for their love of liberty and freedom. Right.
Dick Enberg (C) – The gaffes have been building up for a while now, but at least he was still good for a story or two. His comments during the postmatch presentation at the 2007 US Open (when he introduced Justine Henin as Henin-Hardenne and actually referring to her as "Christine" in a prior year) should have been told his employers at CBS that he is past his use-by-date. Now his commentary just seems hackneyed and predictable.
Pam Shriver (C-) – Her whining about how the French crowd doesn’t “respect” Serena or always supports her opponent is pathetic. She seems genuinely baffled why people will not support a player who routinely refuses to give her opponents credit and keeps doubting the accuracy of the official WTA rankings. Wasn’t a fan of hers during her playing days, even less so now.
Off-Court Coverage (D) – Yes, we get it. We are in France. Do we really need the cheesy accordion music and touristy postcards of Parisian landmarks to ram the fact down our throats?
Tape Delayed Matches (F) – Seriously ESPN, other than for the benefit of Luddites who don’t have the benefit of the Internet, what is the point of these matches? Do it live!!

Race and Color in Tennis: Whither Diversity?

Prasant Tangirala — Fri, 22 May 2009 23:24:46 -0400

Here is a startling statistic: Of the top 100 on the ATP rankings (as of 5/18), only four are non-white: the French duo of Jo-Wilfred Tsonga (#9) and Gael Monfils(#11), American James Blake (#16), and Taipei's Yen-Hsun Lu (#66). Four. Out of a hundred. Four percent.

In the words of Yogi Berra, "I know color when I see it, and this ain't it!"

Okay, he never actually said that, but you get the idea.

For some years now, tennis has had an interesting dichotomy. It is played in more countries than ever before, and has been growing in popularity in places it hasn't been in the past.

On the other side of the coin, it has been on the decline in its most lucrative market - the US. Considering that the US is one of the most race-diverse countries in the world, is it a stretch to claim that tennis' lack of race-diversity is to blame for this downward trend?

I would argue that any time a sport is dominated by one race, its popularity among other races suffers. Let's take a closer look at the recent history of sports other than tennis for comparison.

Basketball in the US went through a phase in the 80's and 90's where a majority of the players in the National Basketball Association (NBA) were black. This coincided with the era of Michael Jordan, skewing the viewership statistics upward, but the NBA suffered from the disenfranchisement of people who grew up idolizing Larry Bird and Jerry West.

By the time Jordan retired for the second time in 1998 (he would have another stint with the Washington Wizards from 2001-03, before he retired for good), the NBA had become a marginal league and was (and still is) overshadowed by the more diverse NCAA (college) basketball.

However, David Stern, the visionary chief of the NBA has realized that desperate measures are needed to revive the game. Stern has been instrumental in expanding the NBA to markets such as China, South America and Europe, with superstars like Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli taking center-stage. The results are there for all to see: the NBA has experienced a happy rebound in its popularity.

Baseball has a similar story. America's favorite past-time has experienced a rebirth owing to a surge of international players from Japan and the Dominican Republic. Superstars like Matsui, Daisuke and Tony Abreu, have a huge following in their home countries (although Abreu is American-born, he is of Dominican Republic heritage).

The National Hockey League (NHL) is almost entirely made up of white players. Its popularity is stagnant, or even declining. (Disclaimer: I don't follow the NHL actively).

The National Football League (NFL) is the most popular sports league in the US by far. It is no coincidence that it has incredible race diversity: black, white, at least one Mexican of Chinese origin (Juan Wong), an American of Japanese origin (Noriaki Kinoshita) and an American of Samoan origin (Junior Seau). Though NFL Europa closed in 2007 after 16 years, the NFL is headed in the right direction.

Major international sports such as cricket (powered by India, and actively played by people from all continents) and soccer (driven by South America) have no such problems, and it is no surprise that their popularity is at an all-time high and growing.

Which brings us back to tennis.

As an individual sport that needs expensive courts and gear, tennis is often considered a rich-man's sport. And this is cited as the reason for its lack of growth in places like Asia and Africa. To this argument, I cry, "Fault!" and I offer golf as a counterpoint. Also often considered a sport for the privileged, golf has a strong presence in middle-income Asian countries such as India and Thailand.

So what hinders tennis' ability to grow in non-European countries and countries with a significant non-white population (such as the US)?

In one word, exposure.

With tournaments in Shanghai, Chennai and Dubai (apparently city names in Asia need to end with an 'I' to qualify to host tennis tournaments. I am guessing Mumbai is next), audiences in Asia have started watching top players in action, but more needs to happen. And don't even get me started on Africa.

Tennis clinics, challengers, exhibitions, and yes, a Grand Slam tournament.

Sport has the unique ability to bind cultures and bring people closer. Nowhere is this more evident than in tennis. Tennis fans don't see Nadal as a Spaniard, or Federer as a Swiss, but as players with mental/physical force, and grace/elegance respectively. Top non-white players such as Arthur Ashe, Yannick Noah, and Vijay Amritraj, who have had a similar cross-over appeal are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

We cannot afford to miss an opportunity during this golden period in tennis to build the sport's presence in parts of the world that could benefit from its presence and vice-versa.

Fred Perry's Shadow: The Search for the "Home Slam" Champion

Prasant Tangirala — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:40:42 -0400

Recent events on the ATP tour have got me thinking about a question that rarely gets asked in the country-agnostic world of professional tennis: Who among the current top players is most likely to win a "Home" Grand Slam?

Or at the very least, how likely is he to win the most prestigious tournament that his country hosts? (If said player's country doesn't host a Grand Slam)

Novak Djokovic won the inaugural Serbian Open earlier this month. While it is not a Masters level tournament by a long shot, it is the only ATP tennis tournament hosted by Nole's home country.

Notwithstanding the Serbian Open Conflict of Interest covered by fellow writer, Long John Silver in his article from a couple of weeks ago, one can argue that Novak did in fact, win it fair and square.

The Djoker's play on clay has been improving by leaps and bounds, and one suspects he will be winning this tournament on a regular basis in the coming few years.

The recently concluded Mutua Madrilena tournament is classified as an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event, leading some to call it the "Fifth Grand Slam." In the weeks leading to the event, that included the Blue Clay controversy, Rafael Nadal was expected to win Spain's most prestigious tennis offering handily. A Nadal win on clay is Peseta in the banco, no?

Well, no.

As we know, atired Nadal lost to an inspired Federer in the finals rather tamely. Nadal last won this event in 2005 when it was played on hard courts.

The high altitude, combined with the faster surface means that Nadal will always have a tougher time winning here than French Open's slower courts, giving it the distinctive high-bounce and responsiveness to topspin that heavily favors Nadal's game. Next year, maybe.

Speaking of which, the top French players—Tsonga, Simon, and Monfils (excluding the unfortunate Mr. Gasquet)—form an exciting group of three musketeers, but their clay-court games are still work in progress. Their chances of lifting the trophy are blanc for the next few years at least.

Roger Federer has pretty much owned the US Open for the past five years, and the DecoTurf surface is so much to his liking that it provided the only salve to his "dismal" 2008.

Andy Roddick was the last American male to win this tournament and given recent history, a repeat looks highly unlikely in the near future. James Blake, Mardy Fish and Sam Querry, Andy's fellow countrymen are even less likely to make an impact.

That brings us to the big W. Wimbledon.

Despite his undeniable talent and multiple semi-final appearances at Wimbledon, Tim Henman never really had the X-factor that separates a Slam champion from a contender.

Starved of a champion, the British public always put enormous pressure on the shoulders of "Our Tim," and inevitably, he always succumbed at critical stages due to a combination of nerves, weather, and a guy called Pete Sampras, who's been known to win a match or two on grass.

But how things have changed.

Andy Murray's game is matched only by his chutzpah, and notwithstanding the usual hype by the British media, it appears that Britain may finally have its first male Grand Slam champion since Fred Perry.

There is one little problem though.

Murray's game is ideally suited to fast courts, and while it might have bode well for his chances at SW17 a few years ago, the ever-slowing courts mean that his percentage game is somewhat neutralized on the manicured lawns of the All England Club.

It's only a matter of time before Andy Murray picks up his first Grand Slam title and ends Britain's Grand Slam drought, but in an ultimate twist of irony, it won't be at Wimbledon.

Turns out, Fred Perry's shadow falls lengthier at Wimbledon than at other places.