This question was originally asked during an “ask me anything” Quora Session I hosted. I’ve updated, improved and expanded upon that answer here.
The short answer is that it’s a combination of the two rather than one or the other.
Genes absolutely play an important role in determining the potential of our athletic abilities. I’m convinced that all champions are born with certain genetic traits that give them an advantage.
For example, I was very fast over short distances. My genetic makeup gave me the potential to break the world record sprint over 10 metres. This is one of the advantages that allowed me to achieve success in tennis. But never in my wildest dreams could I run a marathon at the pace required to be a champion marathon runner. I am physically not built for it.
Yes I could train hard, improve and become a good long distance runner but I would never win a gold medal competing against guys with genetic traits advantageous for long distance endurance.
The same principle applies to Usain Bolt. If you took away some of his unique physical abilities it wouldn’t matter how hard he trained or how badly he wanted it, he simply would not be as fast because his body wouldn’t allow it.
Now it’s important to remember that when I talk about genetics or natural talent I’m talking about “potential”.
You may have the genes of Laver, Ali and Pele with the potential to become a Superman-like athlete, but that doesn’t mean anything unless you have the other part of the equation too. The will to win, dedication to work hard, creativity to overcome obstacles, ability to plan ahead and the fortitude to deal with tough times are all essential. Without these qualities one can not become a champion.
One of the problematic side effects of watching athletes in the Olympics or a Grand Slam is that we only see the fine-tuned finished product. Rarely do we see the blood, sweat, tears and thousands of hours of intense work that goes into it. Or the thousands of who tried hard but never made it. Viewers only see the winners on the podium with a gold medal or trophy lifted high.
This often leads to the illusion that anyone can do it. We’ve all heard motivational speakers or our parents tell us we can achieve anything as long as we put our mind to it. This is a beautiful idea that unfortunately isn’t always true and in some cases can be misleading.
There is no “champions” gene that predetermines who will achieve athletic success. But wishful thinking and training alone will not not win you a Roland Garros, US Open, Australian Open or Wimbledon title either.
I believe all top tennis players and athletes have combined their natural talents with their passion for the sport. This passion drives them to work hard and allows them to reach their genetic potential and maximise their natural talents.
“I am an ordinary man who worked hard to develop the talent I was given.” – Muhammad Ali
At the end of the day natural talent will only get you a foot in the door. Because at the highest levels everyone is talented. Hard work, creativity and willpower is what’s needed to take you the rest of the way.
If I had to choose between having natural talent or the ability to work hard. I’d pick hard work every time.
If you enjoyed this post please sign up for my newsletter. It’s where I share member exclusive content not found anywhere else. Including interviews, my favourite gear, health & fitness exercises, tennis tips and more. Sign up here.
This question was originally asked during an “ask me anything” Quora Session I hosted. I’ve updated, improved and expanded upon that answer here.
My immediate feeling is that Novak isn’t as popular as Roger or Rafa simply because he’s not them.
Make no mistake, Djokovic is a very likable, popular and respected guy but it’s true that he doesn’t command the same level of international following as Federer or Nadal. At first glance this is all the more puzzling as he’s been the dominant force in tennis over the past few years and has enjoyed greater success than Federer and Nadal.
I bet the above comment is has probably infuriated many Federer and Nadal fans already. It’s interesting how people have their favourites and will emotionally defend them no matter what others say or what the facts point out. He/she is the best, greatest, smartest, etc. and that’s that!
Personally I don’t get too emotional about tennis these days. I see it as it is, a game, a sport for play or entertainment (of course when I was on the tour it felt very different). However, If you ask me about Australian rules football or music I’m very passionate! So it’s easy for me to understand the passion of tennis fans even though I don’t have favourites among the tops guys.
I think one of the reasons Roger Federer is so popular (aside from his immense achievements) is that he’s somewhat old school. He brought the old generation style (mine) into the power era. Combining classic style with the modern technology of power racquets and string, he pulled off shots thought near impossible before. Add impressive athletic abilities and a stoic like poise under pressure and it’s hard to imagine a world where he wouldn’t be as popular as he is.
Take a step forward and we have Rafael Nadal. A powerhouse of a player. Never in tennis had we seen a forehand like that. Not to mention the power and spin on the ground strokes. Or the physical presence he has on court. Combine his match intensity with his humble personality and it’s easy to see why he excited a new generation of fans.
Suddenly, with Roger and Rafa we had the rivalry we’d been missing since Sampras and Agassi. Two players with different styles. Elegance vs power. This rivalry dominated the tennis world for a long time and allowed Roger and Rafa to become two of the most popular players ever (for good reason).
Take another step forward and you have Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. They are the new boys in town trying to kill the Kings and no one wants their kings to be killed… well not a popular king anyway.
So now we’ve got Novak Djokovic, young, confident and in the early days perhaps a little brash and grumpy. He didn’t have the poise of Federer or the geniality of Nadal and his style isn’t as flashy (yet unbelievably effective). So for many people those on court personalities were not as nice to watch. Add to this the fact that he retired from some big matches for seemingly (to the outside world) trivial reasons and Novak’s got a bad first impression on his hands. Then factor in that he’s challenging the thrones of two of the most beloved players ever.
It’s easy to see why he hasn’t yet achieved the fandom and popularity of players like Federer and Nadal isn’t it…
As Djokovic has clearly demonstrated he can beat both Nadal and Federer in their primes so his trailing fan following isn’t because he’s not as good as those guys. In fact, his success against Roger and Rafa may be a small part as to why he’s not as popular as them.
I’ve always had tremendous respect for Djokovic and that has been reinforced after his unbelievable performance in the US Open 2015 final. In that match Novak not only had to compete against a Federer playing some of the very best tennis of his career, but also 23,000 screaming fans! Many of which were rude and very disrespectful. It was one of, if not the greatest performance I have ever seen on a tennis court! If you were there in person you would have to agree. He was mentally tougher than anyone I’ve seen. Playing under pressure time and again as Federer relentlessly attacked, Novak somehow withstood the pressure and came up with amazing shot after shot.
Like I said before, I don’t have an emotional attachment so I watch all their matches and don’t mind who wins. I just want to see great tennis and these guys rarely disappoint. But I expect and hope people come to love Novak as much as Roger and Rafa.
If you enjoyed this post please sign up for my newsletter. It’s where I share member exclusive content not found anywhere else. Including interviews, my favourite gear, health & fitness exercises, tennis tips and more. Sign up here.
To be honest I’ve been hesitant to touch this controversial issue. In today’s politically correct climate and social media fueled outrage culture there seems to be some topics that simply cannot be discussed without immediately being called a sexist or worse. Shutting down conversations by resorting to name calling rather than engaging with the idea in an intellectually honest way has unfortunately become commonplace online. The reputational cost of being smeared simply for sharing my thoughts and the resulting headache in having to deal with the fallout is one the reason I almost didn’t write this post. However, problems don’t go away if we don’t talk about them. And the controversy and problems surrounding the gender equality and equal prize money debate in tennis will not go away until we can have an open and honest conversation about it. That’s what I’m trying to do here. Let’s hope I don’t regret it.
So without further ado I’m going to try and break this down and give you my opinion. But before I jump into the equal prize money debate I feel we need to define what equality means.
Defining Equality.
For a term that’s talked about so much, we seldom come across a clear definition of what equality and gender equality actually means. Not defining words correctly is a fast way to end up with misunderstandings and heated debates that go nowhere.
Let’s start with a definition of equality from the Oxford Dictionary:
“The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.”
A good definition a bit vague. Let’s narrow our focus further with a definition of gender equality from the Cambridge Dictionary:
“The act of treating women and men equally: Gender equality does not imply that women and men are the same, but that they have equal value and should be accorded equal treatment.”
Together these definitions do a pretty good job defining what equality and gender equality are. For the purpose of this post I’m going to clarify this even further by breaking it down into three main points.
All people have the same intrinsic value. Hopefully this is obvious to everyone. Whatever your sexual orientation, religion, race, sex, ethnicity, etc., all humans have the same value.
Everyone deserves equal opportunities. Everyone has the right to be treated without discrimination based on their sex, race, etc. For example, who gets a job should be determined by competence and individual merit not sex or skin colour.
Equality does not mean we have to become the same. We are all different and that’s okay. Equality means we’re all valued equally and receive equal opportunities despite our differences. Everyone deserves the freedom to choose a path in life that is right for them.
Phew, now that we’re all on the same page let’s move on to the controversy surrounding equal prize money in tennis.
About The Grand Slams.
The debate surrounding equal pay in tennis has raged on for decades and the topic is as complicated as it is polarizing. This post will not be a comprehensive analysis of the entire issue. Rather I am going to touch on and attempt to clarify certain points that seem to have people confused. Like why do women play best-of-3 sets and men play best-of-5 five sets in Grand Slam matches?
So, in case you don’t know, at the Grand Slams men play best-of-5 set matches and women play best-of-3 set matches. During the rest of the tour calendar both the men’s and women’s tour play best-of-3 set matches.
Let’s talk about the Grand Slams. The holy grails of tennis…
On the men’s side, one of the reasons winning a Grand Slam is considered the pinnacle of tennis achievement is because of best-of-5 set matches. This format is the best way to ensure the best player takes home the trophy. You consistently have to be the best player over the course of the whole event. In other words you have to be the toughest and fittest player both physically and mentally to win. The five set format not only distinguishes Grand Slams from regular tour tournaments, it also enables great rivalries to further flourish and develop. A by-product of this is some of the most epic, emotional and entertaining moments in sports. This in turn is why the prize money at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, etc., is so high.
Recently I conducted a highly scientific and rigorous piece of research…. I polled my Twitter followers.
As you can see from the above screenshot, most people prefer best-of-five set matches. Next I asked the following question:
Again 5 set matches proved to be the most popular.
Why don’t women play five set matches at Grand Slams?
This is a good question and I think the reason is mostly rooted in the old outdated mindset that women are too delicate and don’t have the stamina to go five sets. If you don’t think Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf or Serena Williams could handle five sets you are a fool.
The notion that women can’t play five sets is ridiculous and quite frankly condescending. My friends on the WTA tour would relish the opportunity to compete over five sets like Billie Jean King at the Battle of the Sexes. Or the legendary 1990 WTA Tour Finals where Monica Seles won in 5 after coming back from a 2-1 deficit. A title she would have lost under best-of-3 sets.
As you can see there is some historical precedent. In fact the top players and the WTA itself have frequently asked to play best-of-five in the Grand Slams. Stacey Allaster, previously the head of the WTA, said her women are ‘ready, willing and able’ to play five sets. She’s said this on multiple occasions. So has Navratilova, the Williams sisters and many more.
Yes it is more physically and mentally challenging to play for longer. Just like it’s tougher to run 5 miles rather than 3. It’s easier and more comfortable to not go the extra mile and to stay complacent sticking with the status quo. And I’m sure some will want to do that. But it’s this extra challenge that makes best-of-five so exciting. It forces players to bring their absolute best, pushes them to their limits and elevates the game as a whole. This is something all great competitors and fans want.
The sad truth is that women don’t play best of five sets partly for reasons rooted in old fashioned sexism of low expectations. Yes there would be scheduling challenges and a myriad of other logistical issues to consider. But just because it is inconvenient doesn’t mean women shouldn’t have the same opportunity men have to play full best-of-5 set matches at the Grand Slams if they want.
Should men play best of three set matches at Grand Slams?
Why should they? Best of five set matches has always been how the game has been played at Grand Slams. For reasons I’ve mentioned above, I believe changing this would be a mistake. It would fundamentally change the game for the worse. Players would lose the opportunity to reach their full potential and viewers would forever miss out on epic showdowns like the 2008 Wimbledon Men’s Final (considered by many to be the greatest match ever). It would hurt the game of tennis as a whole and nobody want’s this. I’ve yet to see any proof of how this would benefit anyone or why it would be a good idea.
Equal prize money at the Grand Slams.
So do men and women win the same amount of money at Grand Slams?
Yes they do.
Does this mean there is gender equality, in particular equal pay in tennis?
No not quite unfortunately.
I know, I know it’s confusing. But I’ll try to explain…
Imagine you and another person had the same exact same position in a company. Except that you worked 40% more – longer hours, overtime, out of office work, etc. In this situation would it be fair if you both got paid the exact same amount? Does your colleague deserve equal pay for doing less work?
Doesn’t seem right does it.
At the Grand Slam events a men’s singles match can go on for 40% longer than their fellow women competitors. Obviously this percentage varies from match to match but over the course of an event this adds up to a lot more work. And this is not counting the extra physical and mental training required to prepare for and recover from such occasions. Now I’m not saying female players don’t compete and train as hard as male players do. I’m just saying they don’t have to do as much of it (they don’t have to incorporate the additional training required to prepare for 5 set matches).
Now I’m not advocating that players should be paid exclusively based on match time. That would just be silly. What I’m getting at is that there needs to be a level playing field. The framework we operate within needs to be the same for all players so that everyone has equal and fair opportunities. In most popular sports the game (rules, distance, field size, etc.) isn’t substantially different between the sexes. Female athletes don’t run 60 metres at the 100 metre sprint at the olympics. Why should this be the case for women’s tennis?
“It’s not about the money. It’s about the equality message”.
I absolutely agree with her. Equality means women and men should be accorded equal treatment. At joint events like the Grand Slams this means the rules, scoring and prize money should all be the same (in other words equal). To believe otherwise is hypocritical in my eyes.
What is the solution?
Well I see two logical and fair solutions to the equal pay/prize money issue at the Grand Slams:
Scenario 1: Women and men both play best-of-5 sets in Grand Slams. Everyone gets equal prize money.
Scenario 2: Men play 5 set and women play 3 set in Grand Slams. Men get more prize money.
As many may have guessed by now I believe scenario 1 to be the best option. Aside from some logistical issues I don’t see a downside here. In this scenario men and women are valued equally and earn equal prize money for playing equal amounts of tennis.
Please keep in mind that I’m not discussing the economic issues like market value, TV licences, ticket prices/sales, etc. This post is already too long for that!
Conclusion.
The fight for equal prize money at the Grand Slams has been long and hard but tennis has become better as a whole for it. However, things are still not quite equal. Yes we’re closer but we still have a little way to go. At the moment the system is biased against male players and favorable towards women’s Grand Slam players.
Yes overall things are much better than they were. However, the scales seem to have tipped too far in the other direction to be considered equal or fair. But where are the voices who have been so vocal for women’s equality now that the shoe is on the other foot? In this politically correct world it’s important that they keep speaking up because many men on the tour are afraid to speak up for fear of being unfairly branded sexist. Again, this is not about the money (which is good enough to go around) it’s about the principle of equality.
Until we can talk openly about all aspects of the equal pay issue, it will continue to rear its head. The sport has already come so far in terms of gender equality so there’s no reason that decision makers and players can’t come together to make these changes happen. There’s no way to make absolutely everyone happy but I think what I’ve suggested can be easily supported by both sides.
Lets at least start with best-of-5 sets for the women’s final. Logistically speaking this is easy to schedule and it’s something just about everyone wants to see.
This is a great opportunity and we shouldn’t let it pass without having some serious discussions. What do you think…?
If you enjoyed this post please sign up for my newsletter. It’s where I share member exclusive content not found anywhere else. Including interviews, my favourite gear, health & fitness exercises, tennis tips and more. Sign up here.
ASIDE from hoping the Australian Open gets a real classic of a men’s final after two weeks during which the integrity of the sport has been repeatedly questioned, I want to see Andy Murray get the title his talent and commitment deserves.
Saying it’s not going to be easy is a bit like saying Murray faces a long journey home afterwards. Any encounter with Novak Djokovic in this form and state of mind is the most challenging task any sportsman could face. Melbourne Park’s Rod Laver Arena has become his favourite place of work.
However, I will go against public opinion and say Murray has an extremely good shot of collecting his third Grand Slam title and first since beating Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2013. Why? Because of marked improvements in his game after finally addressing glaring deficiencies, and because he is not playing with the kind of pressure he’s put on himself in past years after adopting the mindset throughout the tournament that if he loses, it can be a good thing because he will go home earlier to be with his wife as they await their first child.
Then there is the Davis Cup. Murray, inset, had to be tougher than most in the way he led Britain from the front and never once faltered. He became a more complete, confident, steely competitor when that precise lob hit the spot to spark the celebrations in Ghent last November. It has stood him in good stead for what has been the most arduous Aussie Open he’s ever known.
I don’t care that he didn’t have to play a single top 10 player during Britain’s march to the Davis Cup. He had to carry the strain of the entire team, finish off ties in the knowledge that matches would hang in the balance if they went to a deciding fifth rubber and, for three ties, shoulder the responsibility of playing singles and doubles. Believe me, that can only help make you a tougher, more robust player.
And with Djokovic playing the kind of tennis he showed in his semi-final against Roger Federer, Murray must be focused, prepared and not selfdestructive. But I think that is a lesson he’s learnt and although you will never stop the complaints and grumbles to his back-up team, it is only a release mechanism. Yes, of course, too much negative stuff gets anybody down. It wastes energy and affects concentration.
Previously when Murray has come down here, he’s just had tennis to occupy his mind. The situation at home, with the knowledge that his wife, Kim, could go into labour at any minute, and the shock of his father-inlaw, Nigel Sears, being rushed into hospital after suffering some kind of serious cardiac problem in the stands while coaching Ana Ivanovic, have been tough on him. Whatever hurts you ultimately makes you stronger and that’s true of Murray this fortnight. Of course it would be so easy to simply say this is Djokovic’s title for the sixth time but so much of this final is going to be played in the minds of the two players. However, Murray is technically a better player than this time last year when he allowed an early upper hand in the final against Djokovic to disappear. Murray’s second serve was always his glaring weakness. He thought he could get away with curling the ball into play and take control of extended rallies with his variety from the baseline and great powers of defence. Finally he has realised that’s not good enough and during the offseason, he’s put a lot more pace and bite on that second delivery.
He’s just realised you have to be the aggressor on first and second balls and by putting something like an extra 10mph and more kick on the second serve, Murray has overcome the problem. Djokovic will have noticed it, and his coach Boris Becker is too experienced in big-time matches not to have worked out some counter tactics, but Murray possesses the variety to cause new problems.
I don’t subscribe to the view Djokovic will be better rested because he’s had three days off to sit in his hyperbaric chambers and get his oxygen fix. I’m told Murray has tried it and didn’t find it beneficial. I believe an extra day off takes you out of the normal Grand Slam two-day rhythm of play, recover, play recover.
Murray has never had a better chance of winning the Australian Open. He knows the importance of putting together a firm game plan he must stick to and he must concentrate of the positivity of having beaten Djokovic in the US Open and Wimbledon finals rather than thinking negatively about losing 10 of his past 11 meetings with today’s opponent.
It would be easy to say it’s going to be another title for Djokovic but Murray has never had a better chance of winning this title.
DOWN here in the land of plenty, there is a new look to the Australian tennis scene. Take a look at the names and you will see what I mean: Nick Kyrgios, Bernie Tomic, Thanasi Kokkinakis, Daria Gavrilova and, before she got married a couple of weeks ago, Jamila Gajdosova.
Nobody needs to tell me we are a country with many ethnic groups and that’s just fine by me because I think the future is exciting. Gone is the old Irish influence, with players such as Fitzgerald, McNamara, McNamee, Rafter and, of course, Cash now playing veterans events.
I have, however, got a little tired with some of my dyedin-the-wool countrymen who have been more than a little grumpy this week about Johanna Konta enjoying success with GB behind her name rather than AUS.
Of course I know Konta was born in Sydney and I’m well aware of the fact that she is a product of the Tennis Australia junior schemes. But in every group of youngsters there is invariably one who slips through the net and it looks like this one slipped all the way to Britain.
I have quite firm views on sportsmen and women changing nationality. I make no secret of the fact I’ve called London home for the past 30 years but I have never even vaguely considered switching the passport I use on my travels. One of my proudest experiences was winning the Davis Cup for Australia a couple of times.
The fact I have stayed true to the green and gold has not always worked in my favour. I don’t think I have too many friends in the corridors of Tennis Australia and the Aussie Davis Cup captaincy has been up for grabs a few times without my name being mentioned. But I am not one to bear a grudge and this week I got my reward of sorts; Australia Post issued a new set of stamps depicting the nation’s tennis legends and there’s me, chequered headband and all, on the $1 variety. That would never have happened if I had defected and become a Brit.
Twenty years ago, when Greg Rusedski left Canada and took his tennis allegiance across the Atlantic, I must admit to viewing the whole affair a little cynically. At least he never played for the country of his birth in the Davis Cup or the Olympics. Aljaz Bedene, who is still appealing against his attempted switch to Britain being blocked by the International Tennis Federation, is different. He has played for Slovenia, albeit in dead rubbers, and that should be the end of the story. He made his decision when he walked on court.
Konta was only 14 when she moved to England with her parents. Whether it was a family decision for a better life or simply to help Johanna with her tennis, only they will know. It does not matter now.
I have felt sorry for Konta having to face the same questions in every press conference. Why did you leave Australia? Have you still got any family here? Do they treat you better over there? Why don’t you come back? Come on, look at our Davis Cup and Fed Cup teams. Yes, Russia can probably scratch together a women’s team without Gavrilova and the Rodionova sisters. But what would these Aussies say if Greece, down in depths of the Europe Zone Group three with Andorra, Iceland and Ireland, started claiming Kyrgios and Kokkinakis for their team? So good on Konta for getting through the first week of the Australian Open and here’s hoping she goes further. She should enjoy returning to the country of her birth and getting a bit of success. If anyone complains again, just point out to them that the only true Aussie tennis player there has ever been is Evonne Goolagong.
