The Hindu : Sport : Athletes choke, but not because they are too nice

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
ePaper

Sport

Sport

Athletes choke, but not because they are too nice

In a trash-talking, self-indulgent sporting universe, Clijsters was a refreshing, unaffected star, writes Rohit Brijnath

ADIEU: Kim Clijsters, though not a dazzling player, attracted attention. _ PHOTO: AP

Kim Clijsters has left tennis and the game will miss her engaging manner.

She was not a dazzling player but nevertheless attracted attention. Not only because she lost numerous important matches, but also because she was so charming in the face of defeat. It made some people wonder: if sport is a heartless pursuit, are some athletes too amiable to win? Clijsters was No.1 in singles and doubles, and won 34 titles, including the 2005 U.S. Open. Yet considerable attention is paid to the four Grand Slam finals and seven semifinals she lost. Her physical skills were substantial, especially her booming strokes that brought to mind artillery barrages. But as big matches edged towards conclusion, her competitive spirit often collapsed.

Craving challenges

All athletes choke occasionally, but the great ones find a way to consistently free their arms under pressure. Some instinctively crave challenges, like Tiger Woods, who confessed last week that he goes for his five-mile runs when the heat is the greatest just to test himself.

Clijsters failed many tests of composure, but then many athletes capitulate at vital moments. If her case was uniquely complicated, it was because she was an inherently enchanting woman.

In a trash-talking, self-indulgent sporting universe, she was a refreshing, unaffected star. One year she reportedly bought every one of 10,000 spectators in Antwerp a bottle of champagne. When she was victorious at the U.S. Open she treated her entire village to a round of beer.

Courteous

She'd remember the names of courtesy car drivers and leave thank-you notes at tournaments. When she dated Hewitt, the whole of Australia swooned. She was slow to sulk, quick to congratulate, ready to autograph and six times was recipient of the player-voted Karen Krantzcke Sportsmanship Award.

When she succumbed to Serena Williams in the Australian Open semifinals in 2003, after leading 5-1 in the third, she entered the press conference wearing a lottery winner's smile. In a cringing era of excuses, she shone by saying: "Serena took the risks, she came to the net and just went for it. All credit to her.''

Clijsters's affability spawned a theory: did she implode in major matches (in the 2001, '03 French finals, '04 Australian final, '03 U.S. Open final) because she was simply too nice? Not hard enough, not mean-spirited enough to win? Was this the cause of her killer instinct deficiency? Clijsters would not buy this. "It really bothered me when people said I was too nice to win," she once said. She was right to refute the theory for there appears no correlation between niceness and an absence of mental toughness.

Finest gentlemen

Roger Federer is unforgiving when he plays, yet remembers to congratulate even his opponents' coaches. Indeed, not every champion must snarl to show he is a serious competitor. India's toughest cricketers of the past 15 years are also, fittingly, its finest gentlemen: Tendulkar, Kumble and Dravid.

Brazil's footballers were rarely brutal or boastful, yet dominated. Mats Wilander was self-effacing, genial, yet driven. He was scarcely disrespectful to opponents, but interestingly motivated himself by creating an artificial dislike. As he explained: "I've played a lot of matches where I don't care if he's a great player, I just don't like you. I don't dislike (you), but I can find something in you that I don't like to fuel me." You can make friends and still win matches, you can be courteous and a champion. Adam Gilchrist murders bowlers with a smile. Jonathan Edwards was a man of God but a devil of a triple jumper. Hardness in the arena need not translate to rudeness.

Perhaps the cause of Clijsters' early failures was not niceness, just an inexplicable nervousness in major finals. Perhaps, unlike the champion who finds losing unbearable and thus pushes harder, her well-being was not entirely dependent on her on-court performance. Perhaps we'll never know why she hiccuped.

Even though she conquered her fears finally in the 2005 U.S. Open final (and perhaps then had nothing to prove), Clijsters does not qualify as "great".

One Slam is insufficient for that label. But in a way it does not matter. So many players win multiple Slams. But few depart the game having left so much cheer behind.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport