Olympics Review: ‘Djokovic believes he has a little more left in the tank' — Somdev Devvarman

Where does Indian sport stand currently vis-à-vis the rest of the world? The Olympics are always a reliable barometer to gauge that and the 2024 Paris Olympics was one edition which gave us quite a clear answer to that question, in many ways.

While on the one hand the results for certain athletes and their disciplines overall were disappointing, on the other there were multiple very encouraging signs – like the six fourth-place finishes, which we should really now stop looking at as just missed medals and think of as a record performance by Indian athletes. Then there were athletes like Balraj Panwar, Manika Batra, Sreeja Akula, Avinash Sable and others who emerged maybe not as medal winners, but hugely inspirational figures.

Introspection and critical analysis are essential at this stage of course and it has to be a two-pronged process. One, to make sure that we do more of what is working and two – figure out a way ahead for things that are not working, making any and every change that is required or necessary. The powers that be will surely look into all of this in minute detail as the next Olympic cycle begins.

One sport, whose results were rather disappointing from an Indian perspective was tennis. No Indian female player managed to make the cut and the three men who did were all knocked out in the first round itself, in the singles and doubles combined.

Leander Paes still remains the only Indian tennis player to have won an Olympic medal.

I spoke to former India tennis player, Commonwealth Games gold medallist and three-time Asian Games medallist, Somdev Devvarman, who played in the 2012 London Olympics, about the current state of Indian tennis, tennis at the recently-concluded Paris Olympics, the Novak Djokovic vs Carlos Alcaraz rivalry, India’s overall performance at the Games and more.

Excerpts:

Firstpost: What did you make of the Games overall this time, vis-à-vis Paris the host city – the way they were hosted, the facilities, the infrastructure. Some are calling the Games ‘spectacular’. Your take on the Paris Games…

Somdev Devvarman: From my conversations with the athletes who were there, I felt that they were pretty pleased. There weren’t a whole lot of complaints about anything. They turned the city upside down. Based on the fact that Paris is such a metropolitan city and such a crowded city and all the other complications, including traffic and tickets and whatnot. All things considered I felt like it went off as well as it could have. Obviously, the part with the open water swimming, with the Seine is not something that they can completely control. This problem has been existing for a hundred years, it’s not going to solve itself in four. But, apart from that I feel like the athletes were pretty happy. They felt like they were treated very well. They felt like there was a lot of care and respect for the fact that they were competing so hard for something so special. So, yes, overall, positive.

FP: What about the overall competition level, Som. Apart from the tennis of course, what did you enjoy watching the most, personally?

SD: The swimming was fabulous, basketball was fantastic, track and field was phenomenal. To see people like Julien Alfred go out there and win the first medal for St. Lucia. To see Letsile Tebogo win the first ever gold for Botswana. I always like seeing athletes from smaller countries do well, because I think it’s that much more special for a country. Similar to how it felt for us, when Neeraj Chopra won a gold out of nowhere – it really shook up the country in such a positive way. So similarly, you can imagine what it would be like for people in Botswana or people in South Africa, whose team finished second in the 4x100, there was a Zambian athlete (Muzala Samukonga), who finished third in the men’s 400m sprint. It’s incredible stuff if you think about it, you know.

I went to Zambia for a holiday two years ago and I happened to go check out the Olympic centre and you realise very quickly, that we have it really good and that everything is relative. If you compare it to what the UK has or what America has or what Australia has, yes, you can say that there is a lot of scope for improvement. But then when you see what the other countries, you know that we (India) are doing really well. And then when you see people from those countries succeed, I feel it’s super inspirational. Not that one gold medal means more than another, it’s just that, for me – when you have the biggest congregation of countries and when you see the smaller countries doing well, I think it’s very heartening.

FP: Alright, let’s talk about the tennis now. First-up – the Indian challenge. We had Rohan and Sriram in the men’s doubles and Sumit in the men’s singles. Not a lot to write home about unfortunately, but what did you make of the campaign and what are the areas of improvement?

SD: I had to kind of explain this to a lot of the viewers, but also, I felt to a lot of the sporting fraternity. Let’s assume that this is a major (Grand Slam) and not the Olympics. Let’s start with Sumit (Nagal) – for a guy like Sumit, when you are talking about a major, you are saying – if this guy makes third round, it’s a phenomenal week, because he has never made third round. If he makes fourth round, it’s career-defining almost. It’s a similar field (at the Olympics). Probably a little weaker, but not that much weaker. You looked at the draw and saw that he is in the bottom half – and I am saying this honestly, because I coached Sumit or rather I am on the coaching staff – so, to be realistic and say, ‘You have to beat a Frenchman’, which, ok, he could have won that one for sure – to then play Alex de Minaur, to then play Daniel Medvedev and then play Carlos Alcaraz. So, realistically we were looking for a good performance.

Sumit Nagal made his second appearance at an Olympic Games in Paris. Reuters

The first round was disappointing, the way he (Nagal) finished. The way he started was fine, he bounced back well (after losing the first set), put himself in a good position at 5-4 in the third set and then played abysmal games at that level to be broken and that happens. The one thing I would take away from his performance – those poor games at the end of matches – for whatever reason. Keep in mind, it’s a long season, they had played a lot of tennis already and they are travelling a lot. The guy is playing tons of tennis. Think about how much he (Sumit) had to play to get in. He finished at the French (Open), then he was slated to play doubles, pulled out of doubles, went to Heilbronn (Germany), he was down a set in a couple of those matches and won in three (sets). He had to win the event at Heilbronn to get into the Olympics. You know how many Indians had won Challenger titles in Europe, on clay – zero.

So, it’s easy for us to lose perspective, but I have to remind people that the way he got in is unprecedented. No Indians have won titles (in singles) in Europe, this guy is winning titles in Europe, left, right and centre. So, yes – tough to finish the way he did (at the Olympics in Paris), but also incredible to get in the way he did.

FP: And, what about the doubles?

SD: It’s a tricky situation because Rohan is obviously used to going deep in majors (Grand Slams), but not with (Sriram) Balaji. And Balaji is not used to going deep in majors. He is used to being the alternate in majors. It was always going to be tough, simply because of the quality of teams you have there – there’s Nadal and Alcaraz there who are unseeded. So, a lot of it came down to the luck of the draw. I didn’t think they had a bad draw to be honest with you, but then (Fabien) Reboul pulled out. And you don’t see this very often on the tour that suddenly (Gael) Monfils is not the lucky loser, not the alternate, but the replacement, because on tour (ATP), if one guy pulls out, then the team is out and then another team comes in.

Rohan Bopanna is used to going deep in majors but that was far from the case in the Paris Olympics, where he had teamed up with N Sriram Balaji. Reuters

Here (at the Olympics) the rules are different that Reboul pulls out and Monfils comes in and Roger Vasselin stays. I thought it was an upgrade for the French, despite Reboul being the doubles player, but to have a guy like Monfils in there – that match (India vs France in men’s doubles) was like a Davis Cup match. It was late at night, Monfils had already lost in the singles, he is a showman, it was a packed house, Roger Vasselin was playing solid tennis and we (India) didn’t play bad (tennis). We did what we had to do to stay alive till 5-5, gave ourselves a few looks, gave ourselves a few break points, didn’t break. 5-5 and boom – Balaji gets a little nervous, throws in one double fault and Monfils hits one good winner and then boom – it’s a set down.

Again, are you realistically expecting these guys to be top three in a tournament like this? For me, it’s a long shot. Simply based on the people that are playing. Just look at the guys who won (Matthew Ebden and John Peers from Australia), they are top 15 in doubles, there’s Rajeev Ram and (Austin) Krajicek, then you have (Taylor) Fritz and (Tommy) Paul who are top 20 singles guys. You look at the rest of the field, the medal winners – it would have been an upset had we been there.

FP: So, what’s your take on Indian tennis, as it stands currently?

SD: Realistically speaking, where are we really trying to make strides? The women are – I mean the entries could have been double. It was a 64 draw and it could have been a 128 draw and we were still not in. So, it’s not like we were extremely close to having two-three representatives in singles or in doubles. We were nowhere close. And you kind of see now how much Sania Mirza meant to women’s tennis in India, especially in the doubles. She played four Olympics (2008-2020) and every time she played, the partner she picked wouldn’t have got in if it wasn’t for her. Again, these are facts, it’s not an opinion. I think she (Sania) has played with four different partners in four Olympics – all four who wouldn’t have got in otherwise, on their ranking. So, that tells you where women’s tennis in India is.

The question is – why is it there? How is it going to get better? Right now, we don’t have two people inside the top 150 (WTA rankings – Prarthana Thombare is ranked 153rd in women’s doubles). That’s where women’s tennis (in India) is, there’s no sugar-coating it. And men’s tennis (in India), to be honest with you is not that much better. You take Sumit out of the equation, Rohan Bopanna is 44 years old, and you realise very quickly that tennis is actually not doing that well in India and the question becomes – why? And then that’s a whole different conversation.

FP: Novak Djokovic. We have to talk about him. First Serbian player to win an Olympic gold. He finally managed to win it in his fifth Olympic Games – has now completed the career Golden Slam and he managed to do it despite being the oldest player ever in the gold medal match and by beating the youngest ever, who also happened to beat him just a few weeks ago in the Wimbledon final. Your take on the fire that burnt in Djokovic’s belly and just how much an Olympic gold medal really matters to an athlete.

SD: Yes. And to see how much it matters, you don’t need to look very far. Novak’s been talking about this for ages. That this is the one thing that’s missing and this is the one thing I want. He’s been talking about it from the start of the year. I think the knee surgery and the timing of the knee surgery that he made in Roland Garros in the middle of June was a clear indication that the reason he had that knee surgery at that time, while he was still in the tournament, indicates that A – he wanted to be back for Wimbledon – but B – he knew that even if he was not ready for Wimbledon, he would be ready for the Olympic Games, because he needed that much time.

The only major achievement eluding Novak Djokovic was the Olympic gold medal. Now, the Serb has added another feather to his cap. AP

You don’t need to look that far, if you look at a certain Nadal. The guy’s not playing events, he is not playing Wimbledon. He’s playing in Båstad, on clay. Whether he’s in the singles or not, he’s saying he will enter the doubles, with Alcaraz. It’s as clear as it gets, about how much it means to these guys. You see Alcaraz in tears, when he loses to Novak. I’m glad we got that out of the way about how much it means to these guys, because it’s changed over the years. From less people playing in 1992, to (Michael) Chang and (Pete) Sampras deciding to skip it, despite it being in Atlanta in 1996. It’s changed over the years and it’s safe to say that the top guys, at least on the men’s side, it means a lot to them.

I can see why some of the Americans skipped it – because it was on clay. Clay, grass, going back to clay, coming back to hard – it’s not the easiest of transitions to make. And they don’t look at themselves as realistic medal hopes on clay. I can see why a Ben Shelton would not want to play, I can see why a Sebastian Korda wouldn’t want to play. If it was in America, 100 per cent they are playing. There’s no way they will miss LA 2028 – it will be on a lightning fast, lively, hard court, which suits their game.

FP: Talk to me a little more about how Novak Djokovic approached these Olympic Games and the style of play he showcased at the Stade Roland Garros this time.

SD: In terms of how Novak handled it – the rest of the draw was similar to how I saw Wimbledon, honestly. I thought it would take some sort of super-human effort to take out Novak. Again, it was close – Tsitsipas had him. He had him at set point, 5-3, on his own serve. Somehow, he (Djokovic) comes back and wins in the tie-break. So, once he (Djokovic) gets past these situations, the next thing you know is that he’s in the final, without losing a set. Next thing you know, Alcaraz is in the final, without losing a set. And you just know going into this final that something is going to be a little different, because Novak has never lost a final in the fashion that he did at Wimbledon (to Alcaraz).

I have very rarely seen Novak do things that he doesn’t like doing. First game – three serve and volleys. Sending a message that he wants to keep it a little short, because he doesn’t believe that his leg is fully healed, in order to have those long gruelling points, which is a signature of Novak Djokovic. So, you know coming in here, he’s thinking something different and the tone of the match was unbelievable. 1-2 game, Alcaraz saving break points. 2-2 game, Novak saving break points. And then you see the manner in which those break points are saved. If you go back and look you will see that it’s a big first serve.

Basically, Novak said – ‘I have to be aggressive, whenever I have the chance.’ Squeeze the court a little bit, focus a little bit on the depth, don’t allow Alcaraz the room, where he can feel like he can hit those certain shots when you attack. I thought it was obviously brilliant. If you take a look at how aggressive Novak was with his forehand – I think in the second set tie-break there were three forehand winners. For me it was a clear thing that he said to himself, that when he gets into those situations, in order to win a match like this, against a player like that to achieve something not done before, I think Novak told himself that in order to do these he has to do things he hasn’t done, or things that he is uncomfortable with or that he’s not proved to himself – and that is to be super aggressive when he had the chance.

So, I think he took those chances and they paid off. If you look at the footage you can almost see that Alcaraz was a little surprised and a little flat-footed when Novak took those big cuts on those forehands, because usually Novak plays that back in a neutral way and this time he went super-aggressive and kind of caught him off-guard. Overall, I think it was a Herculean effort by Novak. A mammoth effort and it was just heartening to see someone who is that great push that deep. We are kind of reaching the final chapter of Novak’s career and everybody was wondering – is this the changing of the guard. I think what’s been established is that Novak believes he has a little more left in the tank.

Alcaraz believes that he should win every tournament that he plays, which is setting things up for a few scary years ahead, because I think Novak believes that he can get to 26 (singles Grand Slam titles) or a number like that. Nobody would have imagined that someone would reach 24 (Grand Slam singles titles) so soon. But then let’s be reminded of the time when nobody believed that someone could get to 14 (number of singles Grand Slam titles won by Pete Sampras). Tennis is in very, very good hands. It’s just a very exciting time and I would love to see how the next year plays out, the next five Slams, because it’s just set-up for something mouthwatering, something new, something different.

FP: What about Qinwen Zheng’s title win in the women’s singles? China’s first ever singles gold in women’s tennis and the first tennis gold medal overall for the Chinese since the women’s doubles title win in 2004. Zheng is currently the world number 7, which is also her highest ranking so far. Your take on her game and her gold medal win in Paris.

SD: Qinwen Zheng – the way she did it. Match point down against (Emma) Navarro in the Round of 16, coming out, beating her, beating (Angelique) Kerber 7-6 in the third (set), she did it the hard way. Beating (Iga) Swiatek on a court where she hasn’t lost for the last three years and then in the final – just too good against (Donna) Vekic. She learnt a lot, in my opinion, from that one final she lost to (Aryna) Sabalenka (2024 Australian Open final) – yes, different kind of opponent, different kind of story, but in this setting she was by far the more experienced one.

Qinwen Zheng bites her gold medal after winning the women’s singles tennis final at the 2024 Paris Olympics. AP

And sometimes in finals you see players who are deflated, it’s normal. The occasion gets to them, the physicality gets to them, they can’t play at the level they want to and the opponent is waiting. I think it’s a very good chance for us to look at Chinese tennis, see how well they have done, over the years. Not just with Qinwen, but also the fact that they won a mixed doubles silver medal (Wang Xinyu and Zhang Zhizhen).

FP: What about Matthew Ebden and John Peers – the first Aussie pair to win the men’s doubles Olympic gold since the ‘Woodies’ in Atlanta in 1996 and only the second overall to do that. Ebden in fact was a fill-in in the singles and lost to Djokovic in the first round… Peers talked about how his eldest daughter said she wants a gold. It was a great story – and to beat a great pair in Ram and Krajicek in the gold medal match – who had earlier beaten Nadal and Alcaraz in the quarters…Your take on their performance.

SD: Huge, massive. Simply put, in the final they were down a set and a break to Rajeev (Ram) and Austin (Krajicek). Rajeev is a very close friend of mine and a phenomenal career – couple of silver medals (at the Olympics), but he’s two holds away from a gold – so that’s going to sting a little bit. Talking about Ebden and Peers – you are talking about two guys for whom this is by far their least favourite surface. They just gelled really, really well. It was an incredible effort.

If you ask me – someone who has played against Ebden, played doubles against Ebden. Played the Commonwealth Games against Ebden, I have always looked at Matthew Ebden as one of those guys who is a maximiser. Every single ounce that he has inside him, the guy has maximised. In singles, the guy was top 40, who hated clay, which is a big part of the season, but he still managed to be top 40 in the world. The fact that he’s gone to number one in the world (in men’s doubles), he’s won majors (Grand Slams) in doubles, he’s won majors in mixed doubles….Unbelievable effort from Ebden and Peers to go on and do what they did.

FP: Your take on India’s overall campaign in Paris. What I found really interesting is that in Tokyo in 2021, India had a contingent of 119 athletes and this time that number stood at 117, just two less, despite the fact that the entire Indian women’s hockey team was missing, because they didn’t make the cut this time…Also, most sixth place finishes – a lot of people are saying those were missed medals – yes, they are, but another way of looking at this, and I wrote a piece on this also, is that these were very encouraging signs, because yes, six medals were missed by a whisker, but also never before have so many Indian athletes come so close to winning a medal in one edition of the Games and that in itself is a step-up and an improvement, isn’t it?

SD: I agree. I 100 per cent agree. As an analyst I think that it’s only fair that you have to break things down. Let’s start with badminton – it tells you a couple of things. One is that the main spotlight was on Sindhu and Satwik and Chirag. It happens, it happens to the best in different sports. From, say an Indonesian perspective the main spotlight would have been on Jonatan Christie, who Lakshya beat. A guy who was number three in the world going into the world and you would imagine a guy like that would give himself a legitimate shot at winning a medal, but he didn’t. The fact that Lakshya broke new barriers is encouraging for me. The fact that he’s 23 and had game points on Viktor Axelsen and was dominating him in the second. I think an experience like that bodes well for him for the future.

I think that Satwik and Chirag will learn. It doesn’t hurt anybody more than it hurts them. If you are an athlete and you feel that you are that close, then you take it personally and it hurts. For Sindhu, it’s obviously different, because she has been playing at the highest level for 12 years now and she has two Olympic medals.

Read | India’s biggest lessons from Paris Olympics: Mental conditioning and long-term planning

For shooting – super encouraging, right? You see young people coming in. It will bode well for the youngsters, looking at Manu Bhaker’s success, Swapnil’s success. People in Arjun Babuta’s event are going to think – ‘if this guy is that close, I can be close too’. Something like skeet, to have Maheshwari Chuhan and Anantjeet Singh one shot away from winning a medal is incredible. I think the biggest shakeup is probably going to be in archery. Obviously disappointing and hard. Four Olympics for Deepika and you have to winder if the next generation of archers is going to be that good from India, while hoping that they will be.

Neeraj Chopra won silver in javelin throw at Paris Olympics, whereas shooter Manu Bhaker won two bronze medals. AP / Reuters

Then if you look at athletics, great performance from Neeraj, a season’s best. But then you have someone like Arshad Nadeem, who breaks the Olympic record with a shortened run-up, throws 90m plus twice – so you are losing to something unprecedented. I think (Murali) Sreeshankar (long jumper) was a big miss. We forget that he had beaten the athletes who finished second and third (at the Paris Games) in Diamond League events in the last 24 months and his personal best (8.41m) is better than what those guys (Wayne Pinnock of Jamaica and Mattia Furlani of Italy - athletes who finished second and third in Paris) jumped. So, that was a huge miss. But then look at Avinash Sable (men’s 3000m steeplechase) – unbelievable effort. In his heat he led the whole way, except the last 300m. In the final he is up against three Ethiopians, three Kenyans, two Moroccans and two Tunisians. The 4x400m men’s relay team – four guys who can run sub 45 (seconds per lap) in 400 metres.

But then there are many spaces in which we clearly need to get a lot better. We have to be honest and ask – ‘why are we not better?’ I don’t have the answers. I can just tell you that we are way off the mark. But then look at men’s rowing and Balraj Panwar – that is an incredible story. He wasn’t rowing till about five years ago and now he is at the Olympics. For me when I see athletes like Balraj Panwar, like Avinash Sable, Neeraj Chopra, Arshad Nadeem – I have been hearing rumours about how he trains and used to train – makes you think we might not be too far from finding these kinds of athletes as well. We found a Neeraj, didn’t we? For me that’s encouraging. For me, there is a sense of optimism. I know there are some spots that were disappointing, let’s be honest about it.

But I don’t think Mirabai Chanu was disappointing. I think she was great. So, you are looking at athletes who are undoubtedly giving their best. And for me that is inspirational in itself. The men’s hockey team – defending with 10 men (against Great Britain), winning a bronze, beating Australia for the first time at the Olympics since astro turf was introduced. If you are kid watching that – you are looking at that and saying ‘I am inspired.’ If I am a kid watching Lakshya Sen, I am inspired. Women’s table tennis - Manika Batra becomes the first Indian player to enter the Olympics Round of 16, the next day Sreeja Akula comes out and does the same thing and you say – ‘yes, we are on the right track.’ Then the women’s TT team enters the quarter-finals. Too good.

Akaash is a former Sports Editor and primetime sports news anchor. He is also a features writer, a VO artist and a stage actor see more