TENNIS: Wimbledon - finals
Jul. 16th, 2019 07:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllI’m writing from my state of tennis withdrawal, obviously.
Saturday:
The weekend of finals began with much talk of mothers in the build-up to the women’s finals. They got Serena Williams to talk about motherhood’s effect on her perspective of her own mother (rather than equalling Margaret Court’s record) and Simona Halep to talk about how her mother had said that if she was going to take up tennis, she should aim to play in the final at Wimbledon. Both touching.
Like the commentators, I expected Williams to win and for the match to be on her racquet, while Halep would make a match of it. After two points, that idea got thrown away. I’ve never seen Halep play like that – let alone at a Grand Slam final. It was Halep to the max – her movement, her returns, her scrambling, even her serve barely wavered. There was a buzz of disbelief on Centre Court after the first twenty minutes, and Serena just couldn’t respond. Key statistics are the low number of service winners she got and the ultra-low number of unforced errors from Halep, who maintained her standard in the second set.
Like last year’s final, this was Williams’s opponent stepping up, not her choking as at other times. What is it about Wimbledon, she must be wondering, despairing. Although she was coming back from injury, with too few matches under her belt, she’s Serena Williams, the one player who can play herself into brilliant form. She was supposed to have done so in the doubles and match by match in the singles, but the point was made that she hadn’t faced top-class opposition, and Halep had, if not at this championship, in the weeks leading up, even if no-one had really thought, based on her form, especially on grass, that she was one of the favourites for Wimbledon this year. But having got that French Open told.
She was utterly charming afterwards, although it must be easy to scintillate when you’ve achieved something like that.
Women’s tennis continues to be women’s tennis.
I dipped in and out of the (long) men’s doubles, kind of supporting the French players, especially after Mahut got hit by the ball. One of the Columbians was brilliant at the net and the other on his serve.
Sunday:
And so we had the possibly even bigger build-up for the men’s final. As Nadal was now out, I was relatively neutral. I had said I thought Djokovic would win throughout the Championship, but I didn’t want Federer to collapse.
The rulebook was thrown out. A close, intense first set that Djokovic won in the tiebreak, but his concentration wavered and Federer easily won the second, making one think that the vital good start didn’t matter. I napped slightly during the third, but overall Federer was the better player – until it came to the tiebreak, again, and the big points.
I had to leave as the match was poised at two sets all, thinking ‘Let the best man win’ and also assuming that fitness and youth favoured Djokovic. I only know the numbers – a tiebreak after 12-12, won by Djokovic (or was it lost by Federer?), oh, and the small matter of FEDERER having two Championship points on HIS SERVE. That’s heart-breaking when you are, in fact – even if it did not look anything like it – playing against the clock. And a most resilient opponent.
I was delighted to get to see the women’s doubles (although I ended up watching the close on iPlayer because the BBC sneakily moved it to BBC Four when I was away from the TV set for seconds.) It was entertaining play, even though it quickly became apparent that, despite Xu’s best, Tsieh and Strycova, who had both done well in singles, were the stronger team.
Saturday:
The weekend of finals began with much talk of mothers in the build-up to the women’s finals. They got Serena Williams to talk about motherhood’s effect on her perspective of her own mother (rather than equalling Margaret Court’s record) and Simona Halep to talk about how her mother had said that if she was going to take up tennis, she should aim to play in the final at Wimbledon. Both touching.
Like the commentators, I expected Williams to win and for the match to be on her racquet, while Halep would make a match of it. After two points, that idea got thrown away. I’ve never seen Halep play like that – let alone at a Grand Slam final. It was Halep to the max – her movement, her returns, her scrambling, even her serve barely wavered. There was a buzz of disbelief on Centre Court after the first twenty minutes, and Serena just couldn’t respond. Key statistics are the low number of service winners she got and the ultra-low number of unforced errors from Halep, who maintained her standard in the second set.
Like last year’s final, this was Williams’s opponent stepping up, not her choking as at other times. What is it about Wimbledon, she must be wondering, despairing. Although she was coming back from injury, with too few matches under her belt, she’s Serena Williams, the one player who can play herself into brilliant form. She was supposed to have done so in the doubles and match by match in the singles, but the point was made that she hadn’t faced top-class opposition, and Halep had, if not at this championship, in the weeks leading up, even if no-one had really thought, based on her form, especially on grass, that she was one of the favourites for Wimbledon this year. But having got that French Open told.
She was utterly charming afterwards, although it must be easy to scintillate when you’ve achieved something like that.
Women’s tennis continues to be women’s tennis.
I dipped in and out of the (long) men’s doubles, kind of supporting the French players, especially after Mahut got hit by the ball. One of the Columbians was brilliant at the net and the other on his serve.
Sunday:
And so we had the possibly even bigger build-up for the men’s final. As Nadal was now out, I was relatively neutral. I had said I thought Djokovic would win throughout the Championship, but I didn’t want Federer to collapse.
The rulebook was thrown out. A close, intense first set that Djokovic won in the tiebreak, but his concentration wavered and Federer easily won the second, making one think that the vital good start didn’t matter. I napped slightly during the third, but overall Federer was the better player – until it came to the tiebreak, again, and the big points.
I had to leave as the match was poised at two sets all, thinking ‘Let the best man win’ and also assuming that fitness and youth favoured Djokovic. I only know the numbers – a tiebreak after 12-12, won by Djokovic (or was it lost by Federer?), oh, and the small matter of FEDERER having two Championship points on HIS SERVE. That’s heart-breaking when you are, in fact – even if it did not look anything like it – playing against the clock. And a most resilient opponent.
I was delighted to get to see the women’s doubles (although I ended up watching the close on iPlayer because the BBC sneakily moved it to BBC Four when I was away from the TV set for seconds.) It was entertaining play, even though it quickly became apparent that, despite Xu’s best, Tsieh and Strycova, who had both done well in singles, were the stronger team.
