Anyone for tennis?

  The fact that Rafa Nadal’s early exit from Wimbledon is front page news only underlines how the current male tennis elite have become a class apart, expected never to lose. Whereas the women’s game is suffering from a plethora of interchangeable players none of whom match the former greats. There are parallels with political leadership.

Wimbledon will be denied the chance of a Djokovic-Nadal classic (it may yet get a Federer-Djokovic semi followed by one of them taking on Andy Murray in the final). But these two have dominated men’s tennis over the past two years – and the triumvirate have won 28 out of the last 29 grand slams – the top prizes in tennis. The really interesting thing about this is the way that each player has inspired the other to raise their game. Roger Federer – five years older than Nadal – was gobbling up the opposition in routine victories before Nadal broke through: like Tony Blair against William Hague or Iain Duncan Smith or Margaret Thatcher against Michael Foot. Looked great but was barely tested – by the opposition at least. Since then Federer has won less – but arguably played better. Nadal then looked set to dominate, until Novak Djokovic discovered gluten free diets and the power of patriotism, leading Serbia to its first ever Davis cup win (tennis’s team competition), and lifted himself above both Nadal and Federer. But after a year in which Nadal could not beat Djokovic, a remodelled serve and more aggressive game looked to be evening up the Rafa-Novak rivalry. Poor Andy Murray sits by and wishing he was five years younger (or older).

Meanwhile the era of the great women’s champions is over for now. The Williams sisters are no longer the force they were; Steffi Graf is in Las Vegas with the kids and Martina and Chrissie who shared a riveting rivalry in the ‘70s and ‘80s are wheeled out as pundits not players. Six different women have won the last six grand slams and eight have won the last ten. So the choice is between a few really established leaders who bestride the international stage and challenge each other to do better and raise the bar for the rest: or a mix of nice but anonymous people who briefly emerge to the fore, fail to capture the public imagination and then leave the stage to the next person who has a good two weeks, with the game not developing or growing. Who comes out on top is fairly random – who has a good draw, holds their nerve at the right time. Noone is going on to really redefine the game.

It is tempting to say that political leadership in the west looks much more like the women’s game than then men’s. There are few figures who look set to make it into the history books as great leaders. Few people look set to dominate their own local politics for a prolonged period as government after government reaps the electoral consequences of austerity. And no one is imposing themselves on the game and challenging others to raise their own standards to meet them.

As we saw with Blair-Brown, political rivalries can be destabilising too (and much less fun to watch). But there is a real sense at the moment that there is a crisis of political leadership – with nobody matching up to the demands of the time. We really need some dynamic leaders to light up the world stage - more Novak and Roger and Rafa than Maria, Victoria, Sam and Petra. And the good news for Rafa fans is that at least this year there is a second chance to see him at Wimbledon – just let’s hope Lukas Rosol isn’t in the Czech Olympic team.