TENNIS: French Open 2014 Women's Final
Jun. 8th, 2014 08:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllAt last, a competitive women’s final! And not one that followed the expected path at all.
Halep didn’t seem phased by the occasion smiling a little as she walked on court and playing her game from very early on. Although I didn’t see it, if Sharapova was disrespectful enough not to warm up her opponent, the Romanian didn’t let that overawe her either. In fact, her fire and response to stuff like Sharapova’s behaviour on serve or return spoke a lot about her competitiveness and belief she deserved to be there. We were reminded, a little, that she was the higher seed partly because she’d had a more consistent year.
We were reminded by Sharapova too that she was a full grand slam champion, starting at 2-0 down, when she realised what she had to do and started hitting the lines, looking the more aggressive and powerful. And yet, her opponent came back.
It really was an absorbing match because of the ebbs and flows - until the final run of points for Sharapova AFTER she’d lost a lead on a double-fault, you really couldn’t tell what would happen next. Neither player let the other be in the ascendancy for too long.
It was also an absorbing match because of the quality of the play. It’s been a long time since I had to exclaim ‘What a point’ or ‘Shot’ at what I was seeing in a final. We knew all about Sharapova’s path to the final and what kind of player she is, but we also got to see why Halep hadn’t lost a set on her way here. There were Sharapova’s winners (although Halep got back a lot of what would have been winners against other players), Halep’s depth and both of them ‘using the width of the court’ and finding angles to admire. There was the fact that Halep stayed in it after the first set, the way Sharapova’s serve came and went, and she certainly seemed to be fading in the second set. Would another three setter, and one of this intensity, be one ask too many? And yet, she showed why her mind is her asset, actually – although like everyone, I cheered Nouni every time he stood up to her, ditto Halep, whom I was supporting, like the crowd, because she was an underdog and you wanted her to make it three and, simply, because of her play. I thought the description of her as like a mix of Henin and Clijsters was accurate. But you can’t argue with how Sharapova won the final two games.
Like Bartoli, in particular, emphasised, it was a match that both women should be proud of.
I saw the final games of the men’s doubles finals, which was random, because apart from a few results, they haven’t showed us doubles at the French, at all.
Halep didn’t seem phased by the occasion smiling a little as she walked on court and playing her game from very early on. Although I didn’t see it, if Sharapova was disrespectful enough not to warm up her opponent, the Romanian didn’t let that overawe her either. In fact, her fire and response to stuff like Sharapova’s behaviour on serve or return spoke a lot about her competitiveness and belief she deserved to be there. We were reminded, a little, that she was the higher seed partly because she’d had a more consistent year.
We were reminded by Sharapova too that she was a full grand slam champion, starting at 2-0 down, when she realised what she had to do and started hitting the lines, looking the more aggressive and powerful. And yet, her opponent came back.
It really was an absorbing match because of the ebbs and flows - until the final run of points for Sharapova AFTER she’d lost a lead on a double-fault, you really couldn’t tell what would happen next. Neither player let the other be in the ascendancy for too long.
It was also an absorbing match because of the quality of the play. It’s been a long time since I had to exclaim ‘What a point’ or ‘Shot’ at what I was seeing in a final. We knew all about Sharapova’s path to the final and what kind of player she is, but we also got to see why Halep hadn’t lost a set on her way here. There were Sharapova’s winners (although Halep got back a lot of what would have been winners against other players), Halep’s depth and both of them ‘using the width of the court’ and finding angles to admire. There was the fact that Halep stayed in it after the first set, the way Sharapova’s serve came and went, and she certainly seemed to be fading in the second set. Would another three setter, and one of this intensity, be one ask too many? And yet, she showed why her mind is her asset, actually – although like everyone, I cheered Nouni every time he stood up to her, ditto Halep, whom I was supporting, like the crowd, because she was an underdog and you wanted her to make it three and, simply, because of her play. I thought the description of her as like a mix of Henin and Clijsters was accurate. But you can’t argue with how Sharapova won the final two games.
Like Bartoli, in particular, emphasised, it was a match that both women should be proud of.
I saw the final games of the men’s doubles finals, which was random, because apart from a few results, they haven’t showed us doubles at the French, at all.
