This refers to Suveen K Sinha’s column about how the career Grand Slam is no big deal anymore (“What’s the big deal?”, September 18). Why exactly has the career Grand Slam become “no big deal”? The whole tennis world certainly seems to think it’s a big deal. Is it because of technology or is there something we’re missing that only the writer is privy to? The fact is that it took Nadal four years (two of them as a losing finalist) to crack Wimbledon. So it was darn difficult for him to win Wimbledon.
And he was able to do it because he went way beyond being a clay court king. That’s what marks out champions. They constantly evolve. Tiger Woods retooled his swing thrice in the course of his career. Federer has constantly been adding facets to his tennis armoury. Did technology help them? Of course it did. But the same technology is available to everyone so that argument does not stand true. In such matters it is better to get the view of the greats of the game. I suggest the writer reads up on what John McEnroe and his ilk have to say about the Nadal of 2010.
Thomas Abraham, on email