You’ll always be a Grunt without a grunt

Why British tennis players are semi-finalists

 

My childhood summers in the late 1950s involved a lot of walking in and out of the house during late June.  Breaking off now and then from kicking a footie ball against the garage door, I’d go into our dining room to catch up on how Wimbledon was getting on.

Mum would be glued to the 12” Bush mono picture, ironing as she peered through the transmission lines on-screen in order to follow the fate of her favourite stars: Little Mo, Lew Hoad, Ken Rosewall, and Maria Bueno. It didn’t escape my notice that none of these gladiators were British, but some of them seemed that way and so Mum liked them. She especially liked the Aussie Ken Rosewall because he’d get two sets up and then cock it up, which was very British indeed. He never won the title, and was therefore clutched tight to her Underdog heart forever. The British love nothing more than tragic failure: for us, dignity in defeat is worth a thousand gold medals.

“What’s the score?” I’d ask.

“Forty-fifteen” Mum would reply, “Two set points”

She might as well have answered ‘seven to four the field’, because I didn’t understand tennis scoring. It involved juices and aces and advantages and games and sets and matches – almost as if there were three sports going on at once. The trailing through mysteriously non-metric (nay sir, not even binary) scoring based on units of fifteen was (and still is) bizarre, but this too was quintessentially British, like sixteen ounces in a pound and twelve pence in a shilling. Indeed, it often seemed to me that most fifteenth century English mathematicians might well have been Masons - designing houses and measuring stones, but deliberately obfuscating what was going on. Builders and architects abroad (and abroad was still a ‘rum’ place then) eschewed the rolling up of trouser legs and thus opted instead for lots of straightforward tens and noughts; but in Britain we had seventeen and fourpence ha’penny as the bill for carrots, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce and tomatoes which came in pecks, bushels and imperial ounces, the grocery shop being a furlong and two thirds from our house, or seventeen chains depending on your religion.

There weren’t any good English tennis players in 1955. I say English because we sort of assumed that north of the Border they tossed cabers and ate high tea instead. We had Stanley Matthews in soccer, and Roger Bannister was good at running miles. Peter May was the ultimate matinee idol cricketer, taking on the mantle of Brylcreem Boy from Denis Compton. But it was so long since we’d had anyone good at tennis, the last bloke’s name had been Bunny. I mean, c’mon – Bunny? That’s worse than Algernon.

Then suddenly in 1957, a young lady called Christine Truman arrived at Wimbledon for the second time and, aged eighteen, got to the semi-finals. Of course, she lost. From then on, my sporadic visits indoors for a chocolate biscuit and the latest score became ever more predictable. Miss Truman enjoyed a build rather more suited to shot-putting than tennis, and her nerves were what my great aunt Lizzie used to call ‘not entirely dependable’. 

“What’s the score?” I’d ask.

“She’s lost the first set” Mum would reply, the steam from her iron misting up the diagonal TV picture, “but Christine only needs this to break serve.” Truman would break the serve, and then double fault her way through the next service game.

A sport in which one had to break limbs or make a mistake twice over (and where we always lost) was a mystery too far for me. I retained some passing interest in Wimbledon, but only because the love of my life Linda Mordin played tennis for the St Margarets club, and I was desperate to have a conversation beyond “Hello” followed by much red-faced staring at my feet. The years passed, with gallant Brits remaining solid semi-finalists in tennis at every level. As a term, ‘semi-finalist’ itself sounds like something unfinished, not quite the real deal -  as indeed most of our competitors weren’t. Jock Stein, Matt Busby and Alf Ramsey stunned all of us by winning pretty much everything soccer had to give from 1966 to 1968, but in every other sport we just weren’t the final production model; more your prototype – cutting edge, but with fatal flaws.

When up popped RogerTaylor…..and for the very first time, it looked like we might have a ruthless winner. You see, in those days, only Americans were ruthless. OK, the Australian Rod Laver was a winner, but he was an android with a funny hooter. Great player and all that, but he won without seeming to break into anything beyond a vague glow. Like Nigel Mansell, he was the best in a fundamentally boring way, and about as charismatic as R2D2. But Taylor seemed to have it all: tanned, dark good looks, great pecs……and he started winning stuff like the French Open, the US Masters and many other things the newly professional and global game had on offer. He even beat the Swedish Cyborg. A Bjorn had never, ever been beaten by a Roger. Taylor changed that forever.

But Taylor too wasn’t the final product; like our golfers in those far-off days, he always fluffed the Big Chance. In fact, the easier it was, the more certainly he’d fluff it. Bruce Biceps from Sydney would be on his backside at the other end of the Court and looking on helplessly, but with ten square miles of ‘in’ to aim at Our Roger would tap it harmlessly into the net. Then he’d look at what he’d done, and the expression was pure “Oh Christ, he missed it….no, hang on, I’m RogerTaylor – I missed it”. He too was semi-not-quite-in-the-Big-One-as-such finalist in 1970 and 1973.

To be fair to my native isle, a little later there was Virginia Wade: she won the title in 1977 – and like Edmund Hillary in 1953, she came top in an important Royal year. But this was a scam, and we all knew it: not only did she sound like Pik Botha, she shared his sexuality. Wade had been nurtured by the excellence of white South African training, not by keen amateurism on some suburban park’s gravel Courts. And such were the attitudes towards lesbianism in those days, the unspoken sentiment was ‘Well, she won – and so she should: she’s a bloody bloke’.

In the same year, Britain placed ill-starred hopes for an all-Brit final on Sue Barker. She’d won a couple of Grand Slams, and she too made it into a semi-final. Myself and a few others at the ad agency CDP had a vested interest in her success: a client of ours had been persuaded to use Sue for a topical deodorant ad headlined ‘Sue Barker: no sweat’. In order for this ad to run of course, it was pretty vital she should win. And the portents were good, for she faced Betty Stove - a woman who might best be described as Holland’s Christine Truman, and who did indeed move around the Court like a disabled Aga. Barker lost.

Much later came Tim Henman, and although he clearly had the genes (his forebears had been galloping around Wimbledon courts since the Edwardian era) over the years ‘Tiger Tim’ turned losing semi-finals into an art-form. In fact, he remains easily the all-time semis bottler, reaching all but one of all the last-four stages between 1998 and 2002, and losing the lot. Mind you, Henners did have three chances in the Queen’s Club final. He blew them all.

The centuries changed hands and found me to be a man who – at last – represented the triumph of experience over optimism. As retirement approached, I took up the game of tennis again while with friends in Menorca, and discovered that I was thoroughly, unashamedly ruthless after all, but also fifty-one years old. However, with my new-found skill I sized Henman up, and decided he was lacking in the right stuff: very good Let’s Cheer Tim On fodder for the tabloids, but never likely to beat the Wimbledon semi-final hoodoo. In 2001 he had 30-love - two points away from serving for the match – and my wife Jan said “This is it”. But of course, it wasn’t.

Last Friday, against my better judgement, I took time out from doing other stuff to cheer on Andy Murray. By now a senior student of Deepak Chopra thinking, it was my intention to focus all those painstakingly acquired powers on the telly, and alter the quantum future in Murray’s favour. The attempt bounced off his opponent Andy Roddick like candy floss hitting the Enterprise Force Shield, and the caber-tosser turned Man of Steel flopped.

That said, I have a hunch that Andrew Murray will finally match the achievement of Bunny Austin in 1938 – perhaps even go on to multiple wins. And if that saying of the sooth alone might doom the poor young chap, he needs to add but one more weapon to his armoury to be assured of ultimate success: The Grunt.

Think on this: look at Truman, Taylor, Barker, Henman and Murray. Actually, looking isn’t enough - you’ll need to listen: and what you’ll discern is that they have not so much as an oink between them.

While in the States ‘grunt’ is a noun meaning ‘trainee’, in pro-tennis it is a verb whose hidden meaning was clocked by all those who truly desired success. Grunters are seen as folks who cheat: playing mucous mind-games to put off their opponents.  But if you listen carefully, the contemporary tennis grunt is in reality based on the secret Calisthenics of Celestial Catarrh, and absolutely guaranteed to make any Black Belt in guttural judo invincible. 

Thanks to the new roof on Wimbledon’s Centre Court, it has become easier to detect the true nature of the tennis grunt: a form of Devilish ‘psyching’ chant. The folks running up and down Oxford Street in bright orange saris and bashing their bongos have hare Krishna, and our legislators their ‘hear-hear-resign-bah-rubbish’; but only the truly ruthless wannabe tennis champ tuned into the Universe can achieve perfect oooouuurrgghh. 

Very few people know this, but there is a secret society called the Celestial Catarrh Calisthenics Circle (or 4C to aficionados). It is known only to Dan Brown and a few others, and they teach the Grunt that Time Forgot. None but those who have sold their souls to His Satanic Highness Fred Perry are initiated: so as the British couldn’t sell anything to anyone, they are never allowed past the bouncer. And that’s why we don’t win Wimbledon any more. (Have you ever seen a picture of Bunny Austin? The guy had no shadow. Really. He glowed in the dark, and slept in a coffin. He made a fortune selling The Watchtower to Sikhs. His nickname at Oxford was piglet. What further proof could you possibly require?)

And here’s the clincher: none of the top six male seeds today are members of 4C. This year’s final rounds were grunt-free. Yesterday’s match may have been a classic, but classic schmassic – four hours sixteen minutes and not a grunt within earshot? That’s not ruthless tennis. Showing dignity and composure when you lose? People in 4C don’t do sportsmanship and good manners. Clearly, these guys can’t cut it.

All Andy Murray need do to attract the attention of 4C’s top bananas is whack a few balls at the umpire, break the odd racket, snarl now and then…and get grunting. So show willing, Mr Murray. Grunt it and they will come. Grunt me this one last wish, and the Championship will one day be yours.

Home

Subscribed listeners first read this piece as an email. You can subscribe FREE by going to john@johnaward.net