TENNIS: Queen's to Eastbourne
Jun. 26th, 2018 07:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllQueen’s – by the time I came home on Friday, the only quarter final left was between the two Frenchmen and I must own I didn’t care, so I only had it on in the background. I was unable to watch the semis.
But for the finals we had a good line-up: Cilic, the top seed, with his own history at Queen’s – champion that awkward time Nalbandian injured a line judge and runner-up twice, most recently last year; Djokovic, the unseeded wildcard, former no. 1 and holder of all the slams, still on his comeback, not having played there for years, facing a sterner test than he’d had on the grass in the runner-up here, Wimbledon and at the Aussie Open. I’d seen more of the latter play over the week, but John Lloyd assured us Cilic had been serving excellently.
I think nerves played a big part for both men. Even if Andrew Castle, commentating, hadn’t pointed out the excessive ball-bouncing, from Djokovic especially, but Cilic to a lesser extent, it became quite the feature of the match. In the first set, Cilic’s serve was, for him, hopeless, and his backhand a stronger weapon than his forehand. Djokovic won the first and looked the stronger player in the second set. As his first match point was on Cilic’s serve and the Croat hit a blistering serve, there was little to be said. Then, in the tie-break, where Djokovic got the first minibreak, I, at least, started wondering about the implications for Wimbledon. But the ball bouncing showed the tension he was feeling. A double-fault, nullifying the lead. Then a nervy second serve, which Cilic took advantage of, followed by a run of points leading to the second set being his.
I ended up watching the end of the third set on catch-up because it was so intriguing. Djokovic had blinked and Cilic wasn’t going to hand it to him. He’d settled in more, and although he faced 10-minute games on some of his serves, so did Djokovic, and Cilic was playing aggressively. They were on equal terms until we reached the end of the set, and Cilic broke through. A very determined service game, and he’d won.
Perhaps part of it is rustiness - Djokovic hadn’t been to a final in a year, but part of it was mental fragility, an inability to control the nerves, which everyone will have noticed. He obviously played well through the tournament, though it sounded like Cilic had a tougher run of opponents, which is encouraging. He deserves a bump in the seedings for Wimbledon. And though – incredibly! – Federer lost at Halle, I’d probably put him at no. 1 over Nadal. But Cilic deserves to be in the conversation.
And now the BBC is showing Eastbourne – do they only have the WTA rights? I can’t believe they wouldn’t have shown Murray vs Wawrinka if they had the choice. Instead we got Mladnevic vs Watson, two players lacking in confidence, which made for inconsistent play. I drifted in and out. The whole thing was not helped by John Inverdale, the commentator (poor Sam Smith, his co-commentator, having to disagree with most of his waffle and try not to get drawn into talking over the play). He clearly doesn’t get tennis, clearly doesn’t love it. Why can’t he and the Beeb release him from the contract and let him watch football or whatever it is he’d much rather be doing? He was guilty of the commentator’s curse in the second set where any one paying attention could have told him it wasn’t going to be as easy as he thought. Watson duly lost and lost the third set even more emphatically although the match was winnable.
I suspect I'm going to get really irked with the football world cup during Wimbledon.
But for the finals we had a good line-up: Cilic, the top seed, with his own history at Queen’s – champion that awkward time Nalbandian injured a line judge and runner-up twice, most recently last year; Djokovic, the unseeded wildcard, former no. 1 and holder of all the slams, still on his comeback, not having played there for years, facing a sterner test than he’d had on the grass in the runner-up here, Wimbledon and at the Aussie Open. I’d seen more of the latter play over the week, but John Lloyd assured us Cilic had been serving excellently.
I think nerves played a big part for both men. Even if Andrew Castle, commentating, hadn’t pointed out the excessive ball-bouncing, from Djokovic especially, but Cilic to a lesser extent, it became quite the feature of the match. In the first set, Cilic’s serve was, for him, hopeless, and his backhand a stronger weapon than his forehand. Djokovic won the first and looked the stronger player in the second set. As his first match point was on Cilic’s serve and the Croat hit a blistering serve, there was little to be said. Then, in the tie-break, where Djokovic got the first minibreak, I, at least, started wondering about the implications for Wimbledon. But the ball bouncing showed the tension he was feeling. A double-fault, nullifying the lead. Then a nervy second serve, which Cilic took advantage of, followed by a run of points leading to the second set being his.
I ended up watching the end of the third set on catch-up because it was so intriguing. Djokovic had blinked and Cilic wasn’t going to hand it to him. He’d settled in more, and although he faced 10-minute games on some of his serves, so did Djokovic, and Cilic was playing aggressively. They were on equal terms until we reached the end of the set, and Cilic broke through. A very determined service game, and he’d won.
Perhaps part of it is rustiness - Djokovic hadn’t been to a final in a year, but part of it was mental fragility, an inability to control the nerves, which everyone will have noticed. He obviously played well through the tournament, though it sounded like Cilic had a tougher run of opponents, which is encouraging. He deserves a bump in the seedings for Wimbledon. And though – incredibly! – Federer lost at Halle, I’d probably put him at no. 1 over Nadal. But Cilic deserves to be in the conversation.
And now the BBC is showing Eastbourne – do they only have the WTA rights? I can’t believe they wouldn’t have shown Murray vs Wawrinka if they had the choice. Instead we got Mladnevic vs Watson, two players lacking in confidence, which made for inconsistent play. I drifted in and out. The whole thing was not helped by John Inverdale, the commentator (poor Sam Smith, his co-commentator, having to disagree with most of his waffle and try not to get drawn into talking over the play). He clearly doesn’t get tennis, clearly doesn’t love it. Why can’t he and the Beeb release him from the contract and let him watch football or whatever it is he’d much rather be doing? He was guilty of the commentator’s curse in the second set where any one paying attention could have told him it wasn’t going to be as easy as he thought. Watson duly lost and lost the third set even more emphatically although the match was winnable.
I suspect I'm going to get really irked with the football world cup during Wimbledon.
