How tennis has changed over the years

Just have a look at these two videos.

1. Bjorne Borg vs. John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon final

2. Federer vs. Nadal, 2008 Wimbledon Final

See the difference? Forget the big fibre-based racquets of Nadal and Federer, forget their improved athletics. Notice the grass on the Centre Court in both the videos. In the first video, you will see that the grass is considerably worn out even near the net, indicating the dominance of serve-and-volley type of play. Watch how frequently McEnroe and Borg rush towards the net in order to play their volleys and remove the sting out of the opponent's returns.

In the second video, you will still notice green grass near the nets. But at the base line, the grass is completely worn out. This is the change I am talking about. From the serve-and-volley type of game to booming from the baseline itself. Notice how rarely do Federer and Nadal come close to the net. Both try to hit towards the base line and from there itself.

Tennis has changed over time and as usual, Wimbledon is there to remind us about it and help in etching these changes in our memories.

Amritraj is tennis's Arun Lal

Vijay Amritraj and Arun Lal have two things in common. Both are commentators, and both decide the person/team they are going to support during the course of the match. Why does Star Sports have Amritraj as a commentator? He isn't as famous as John McEnroe. He hasn't won a Grand Slam at any level. Ramesh Krishnan is better than him. He atleast has won the French and Wimbledon juniors' titles. In India, people would know more about McEnroe's achievements rather than Amritraj's. And why doesn't Amritraj stick to giving balanced views of the play, rather than gettting hyper about every stroke that his favourite player plays.

I was watching the epic Wimbledon final. The match was awesome and is fit to go into the annals as one of the best matches ever played on grass court. No player was relaxing for any moment, giving their hundred percent for every point. But, our Amritraj had planned to support Andy Roddick. Every bit of his commentary was brazenly pro-Roddick. About Federer, he was completely unenthusiastic. If Roddick barely managed to take a point, Amritraj was touting it to be a master stroke, whereas difficult shots and beautiful returns by Federer were mentioned as if they were ordinary shots. Even Alan Wilkins, who was Amritraj's partner, was giving a balanced view, though Wilkins too was inclined towards Roddick.

In the fifth set, Amritraj even went on to say- "If Federer hasn't broken Roddick even once in the past three hours, where is this match going?" If it wasn't enough to say it once, Amritraj repeated his statement once the set went past 6-6. Well, eventually Federer did break Roddick's serve. He broke it once and that's what mattered to be crowned as Wimbledon Champion.

In cricket too, Arun Lal does the same thing. Sometimes, he himself doesn't understand what he is talking about. After the T20 World Cup, Arun Lal demanded that Dhoni should resign from the captaincy. Two weeks back, the same Arun Lal was praising Dhoni's 'coolness' in the IPL games.

Why are we supposed to hear to such mediocre commentary? As cricket has its Sunil Gavaskar, tennis too might have someone. I'm not sure who, but probably McEnroe would be a better commentator than Amritraj. We viewers should write to Star Sports and force them to remove Amritraj. After all, customer is the king!