Few days ago, Roger
Federer retired. The final speech made almost all the spectators around the
world emotional, including me and surprisingly, my wife (she is not a tennis
fan). I was not this emotional even during Sachin or Dravid's retirement. I
felt sad on both Sachin and Dravid's retirement but not emotional. But the
scene which stole the heart was where Nadal and Federer were sitting side by
side and holding each other hands. Both were teary eyed and it was difficult to
find out who was consoling whom. What made it special and surprising is that
Nadal is not just any other person or player. He was of course a friend but was
also a fierce competitor of Federer and caused him many heartbreaks beating him
in the court. But that day, they were just two humans expressing their
uncontrolled emotions. Nadal, before Federer retired said that with the
retirement of Federer a part of him was also leaving the tennis courts. It was
surely the beginning of the end of the golden ear of modern tennis. The trio of
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had dominated men’s tennis for more than a decade
and entertained us with some exciting play of tennis.
Looking at all the
three tennis greats in the same European Team in Laver Cup, one thought came to
my mind. Is it possible that if, all the three had played tennis separately in
different eras, would they have been such good players as they became or they
would have been a little less good player? Was Federer a great player or became
great because he had Nadal and Djokovic as opponent? Some would argue that if
he had not Nadal or Djokovic as opponent some one else would have been a worthy
opponent, may be a better player than Nadal. It is a valid counter argument to
a hypothetical situation. But still the question will be valid. So, the
question is does a great competitor completes you? Was Arjun great because
Karna was his opponent? Was Achilles great because he chooses to fight the
Trojan War in spite of chance of him getting killed? In general, does a great
challenge brings the best out of you?
I think the answer to
the questions will be, yes. A fierce competitor or battle makes the win more
worthwhile. It brings the best out of every one whether you lose or not.
Federer lost 6 times in Grand slam finals against Nadal, but not without a
fight (most of the times). Does that statistics make Nadal a better player than
Federer? I think no. The greatest out come of the battles was that both players
craved the best out of their human potential to compete against each other. In
the process they both became the best version of themselves. I think that is
what Nadal (and Federer) realized when he said that a part of him will be
leaving tennis with Federer's retirement. That is why both were attached
emotionally to each other because they knew they were incomplete without
the other.
But for most of us,
our battles are hardly against opposite humans. Mostly we fight situations and
some other times the demons within us. Normally we do not choose the situations
ourselves but we always choose to fight or not. So, the next time you face a
challenge where you think you will fail, just remember that life has thrown a
worthy opponent at you.
A worthy opponent
will transform you and make you a better warrior in the battles of life, whether
you win or lose.
