The good, the bad and the ugly: The continuing story of tennis in India

One would think Indian tennis is in a good spot right now. Prajnesh Gunneswaran and Sumit Nagal have been in the news of late, and for all the right reasons. Prajnesh was in the singles main draw of all four Slams this year and has featured well inside the top 100 for most of 2019.

The 22-year-old Sumit started the year ranked outside 350 in the ATP rankings. The first tournament of the year in Pune, India’s only ATP tour event, overlooked him for a wild card in the qualifying. That took a chunk out of his ego, but it also fueled his desire to succeed. Through many difficult changes, he has made, Sumit is now slowly starting to smell success.

To the average Indian sports fan, this is exciting news - our very own players are finally on the world stage at the Grand Slams in singles. Taking a set off the great Roger Federer in Arthur Ashe stadium is no mean feat, but hold on. There’s a lot more to this story that needs attention and as a former player, the central question that comes into focus is this- To what do we owe the success that these two players are experiencing?

Does the AITA, the governing body of tennis in India, have a role to play in it? Are we growing our infrastructure and support systems to produce better players? The answer is sadly a resounding no.

A player on a tour as rigorous as the ATP/ WTA needs reserves of strength and strategy to see him or her through to the upper levels of the game. This comes not just in the form of financial sponsorship, but also sound training facilities, fitness and nutrition programmes, an encouraging fraternity and a culture of respect for sport at a more general level.

This scenario is far from the reality of Indian tennis as it stands today. For us as a nation to celebrate the success of Prajnesh and Sumit, without calling into account the role of the AITA in it, would be regressive, short-sighted and off the mark.

Let's take a look at the career trajectories of these athletes. Prajnesh grew up in Chennai, went to college in America for a short stint at the University of Tennessee, after which he has spent most of his time training in Germany. He’s never had a national coach nor any push for sponsors or funding from the federation when he needed it the most.

Sumit was spotted as a young talent by Mahesh Bhupathi at the tender age of 10, trained in Bangalore till he was 14 and moved to Canada in 2011. He too moved to Germany for training by the time he was 18 and he’s currently still in Germany with a new team since late 2018.

Going further back, Leander moved to Florida in the early 90’s post his training at BAT in Chennai. I moved to the states in 2004 after my time at BAT and never looked to come back till I retired. When Sania was successful she had stints with Bob Brett in France. Karman Thandi is currently also based in France at the Mouratoglou academy.

Several other players to mention would be Ramkumar, who has spent most of his time in Spain since he was a junior, Karan Rastogi who trained at IMG in Florida just like Yuki Bhambri did. Sanam Singh, Saketh Myneni and Jeevan Neduncheziyan are all products of the American college system.

I'm starting to wonder if you’re also seeing a pattern here? The sad reality is, if you want to get any sort of quality training, you can't get it in India. Equally importantly, what are we doing to change this trend?

Change can only come about if we first identify the problem and accept that it exists. The AITA have no history of engaging with player development. They are unfortunately oblivious to the most crucial requirements of a player and the reason this trend will continue is simple- there is nobody in their midst who have any qualification or expertise to help a player.

The only realistic way the federation can help is to attract and organize private or government funding for the players. After being a national observer for over three years now, I can say with assurance that the AITA do a very poor job at that too.

So how do these men and women make it? The truth is not surprising. The only people who deserve any credit for their success are the players themselves, their close inner circles, and their sponsors, in that order.

In Prajnesh’s case, I think it’s safe to say that over 95% of his 'funding' has come from his incredibly supportive family. Being the top 100 in the world is no joke, and Praj deserves all the credit in the world for this accomplishment. As for Sumit, he got lucky, but differently.

In 2008, Mahesh Bhupathi spotted Sumit in his pursuit to find the next Indian talent and the rest, as they say, is history. Ask Mahesh and he’ll tell you that he’s had to fight tooth and nail to get funding for various parts of Sumit’s career, a task he describes as “painful and virtually impossible”.

This brings me to my point of writing this piece, and the question which I ask as a tennis enthusiast. To ensure that the game is growing in the right direction, how will we capitalise internally on the international success of our players to grow the game and make it more popular?

The answer is we won't. Because we never have.

The Golden era of tennis in India was in the ’60s. From the dream team of 1966 which included players like Ramanathan Krishnan, Jaidip Mukherjea, Premjit Lall, to the Davis Cup teams of 1974 and 1987 that included Anand Amritraj, Vijay and Ramesh Krishnan, history has shown us that we have never really addressed this issue.

In the 90’s it was virtually two players really who carried the nation. Lee and Hesh.

Bopanna carried the baton for a bit and continues to do so, but the one who took it to the next level was undoubtedly Sania Mirza. Her rise to superstardom in India from the time she was a teenager was something the nation had never seen. Sania mania was everywhere and if you lived in the 2000s, you witnessed it.

Wouldn't you imagine that every little girl in India who played tennis wanted to be like Sania? How many more kids could have picked up the sport? What an opportunity to attract new investments, new sponsors, new coaches, better coaching systems. But alas, we failed. Individually, all the players in question experienced commercial success in India. But the sport itself or level of expertise internally didn't grow. The systems and structures only got worse and the key people in the federation remained the same.

In start-up language, imagine you’re a venture capitalist looking to invest in a company. Regardless of the nature of the business, I would imagine that you‘d look for at least two key qualities in the people you’re investing in- in-depth knowledge about the business and the motivation to succeed. It’s very clear that the AITA has neither. I remember having a conversation with my friends Boria Majumdar and Ayaz Memon during the Asian Games 2018 and we all agreed that most of the success of Indian athletes is despite the system, not because of it.

Why is this narrative still being accepted?

I hope the readers understand that long term success in world sport won't come unless we hold ourselves accountable for doing things by world-class standards. As a former Indian athlete and as someone who wants the best for Indian sport, I beg the question, do you really think we’re doing things in the best ways possible?

As the saying goes, the proof lies in the pudding.